Rand exaggerated ADA's effects on business

[BenIsForRon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2190

Rand needs to tighten up his arguments. This isn't a big deal, but he really shouldn't throw around scenarios that aren't based in reality.

[Mini-Me]

Perhaps he should tighten up his argument here, as you say.

Still, the article is somewhat biased: Just because they have not found a business that was specifically required to install an elevator as the result of a lawsuit or sued for not providing one, that does not necessarily mean that the ADA has not forced some businesses to do so in order to avoid the latter possibility. After all, that is very much a possibility for some companies, and their own lawyers may have advised them to preemptively bite the bullet, considering not all businesses are exempt (that's why they said "most" paired with "under three stories").

[yokna7]

I disagree with the article. It is right in some regards, but it isn't based on the number of floors. It's based on occupancy and square footage. So some 2 and 3 story buildings are required by law to have an elevator.

I work for an architecture firm, small businesses are often hurt by compliance or they are never even started because of startup costs. Under the building code, businesses are obligated to provide public toilet fixtures as well, and you can't get by with just one usually. It is also based on occupancy and square footage. It is costly, especially for a business where the state requires it to update its facility to meet ada requirements.

The codes are blind at times and do often lack common sense. Sorry, Rand is right on this one.

I should point out, the ada code and the building code are separate codes. You need both.

[MsDoodahs]

Yes, Rand IS right on this one.

Google for ADA lawsuit abuse.

Amazing what scummy attorneys and some vile theiving clients have done using this law.

[BenIsForRon]

I disagree with the article. It is right in some regards, but it isn't based on the number of floors. It's based on occupancy and square footage. So some 2 and 3 story buildings are required by law to have an elevator.

I work for an architecture firm, small businesses are often hurt by compliance or they are never even started because of startup costs. Under the building code, businesses are obligated to provide public toilet fixtures as well, and you can't get by with just one usually. It is also based on occupancy and square footage. It is costly, especially for a business where the state requires it to update its facility to meet ada requirements.

The codes are blind at times and do often lack common sense. Sorry, Rand is right on this one.

I should point out, the ada code and the building code are separate codes. You need both.

Cool. I still think Rand could tighten up his arguments, maybe have a couple cases to choose from to present if needed.

[yokna7]

Cool. I still think Rand could tighten up his arguments, maybe have a couple cases to choose from to present if needed.

Your right he better tighten things up. He doesn't want to get ambushed and be presented in the media as "the libertarian that abhors building codes", or "Rand thinks fire safety in buildings is for idiots"..... thats apparently how things get played out..

When he talks about his libertarian views on sensitive issues he should always acknowledge the merits of the existing as a sign of good faith, whether its genuine or not. This may help him in the media. Like ada and civil rights bills.:rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2190

Rand needs to tighten up his arguments. This isn't a big deal, but he really shouldn't throw around scenarios that aren't based in reality.

what?

the reality is that his own profession fits exactly into the hypothetical given.

[Ricky201]

Fuck being on the defense all the time. That is what those crazies want him occupied with. It's time to attack Conway and attack HARD!

[lx43]

ADA and EEOC laws need to be repealed entirely. I have had 9, yes 9, frivolous lawsuits against my business and sadly I will have more. The EEOC has always dropped the cases filed against me, but nevertheless, I still have to spend thousands defending myself against such crap in attorney fees, lost man hours etc.

Employees should stop working for someone who they think is discriminating against them.

ADA regulation has cost me a lot of money, but no where near what the EEOC has cost.

[furface]

The big problem with the ADA and similar laws are the lawsuits that they precipitate. Small business owners live in constant fear of being sued by their employees and customers. It may be over something ridiculous like not marking a disabled parking space properly. It may be something like a spot of mold on the wall.

This is what small business owners have to deal with constantly. Rand should understand lawsuit abuse, being a doctor, but maybe not. Lawsuits are a well established part of doing business in the medical industry. Other business not so much, where a single lawsuit can put someone out of business.

It's not so much being forced to put an elevator in, but the fear that you're going to be sued over it. Not everybody has an attorney in their back seat. The laws are confusing and attack attorneys take advantage of the confusion.

[MsDoodahs]

You aren't kidding that the attorneys take advantage.

I read in one of the sites I came across yesterday that ADA laws have cost CA business over ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

Oh, and though I didn't watch any of them, one site had some videos of supposedly "disabled" people in wheelchairs that got up and walked (or ran, as in from the cops) - these were the same scum being awarded tons of money by filing claims against any and every business out there!

CA has additional even tougher ADA laws on their books, so business owners who THOUGHT they were in compliance often actually were not due to CA's own laws.

I did find some cases of ADA suits being filed against cities/counties - and at least one included installation of elevators, from the bit I read. I didn't read the full document with all the details.

I wonder if the counties/cities are seen as having much deeper pockets than the individual businessman? Maybe awards are bigger if the scummy lawyers go after the town/city/county? After all, every taxpayer ends up footing the bill for an ADA suit when they're brought and won....

[furface]

ADA and disability regs are a complete boondoggle. In my town they replaced a bunch of sidewalk intersections with curb cuts for wheel chairs about 10 years ago. Reasonable because they were busy intersections. However now they're doing it again because of new regulations.

There are people where I live in California who make a living going to businesses and suing them over their parking spaces. For instance:

http://mbasandiego.org/MBA-ada-lawsuits.html

If anything, cut the attorneys out of it. Put government in the business of helping businesses comply, not sicking attorneys on them. The lawsuit part of it is just an attorney profession give away and an attack on small business. Big businesses don't care because they have legal staff to handle it and they know that it will help get rid of smaller competition.

[yokna7]

ADA and disability regs are a complete boondoggle. In my town they replaced a bunch of sidewalk intersections with curb cuts for wheel chairs about 10 years ago. Reasonable because they were busy intersections. However now they're doing it again because of new regulations.

There are people where I live in California who make a living going to businesses and suing them over their parking spaces. For instance:

http://mbasandiego.org/MBA-ada-lawsuits.html

If anything, cut the attorneys out of it. Put government in the business of helping businesses comply, not sicking attorneys on them. The lawsuit part of it is just an attorney profession give away and an attack on small business. Big businesses don't care because they have legal staff to handle it and they know that it will help get rid of smaller competition.

Your exactly right. These guidelines are either a means for lawyers to profit off of non-compliance or damage control for insurance companies.