Comments on: Chile Lindo is Closing, But Who Is to Blame?

By: V

Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:09:45 +0000

Right. We’ll just go sue everyone around and will be happy again.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:29:05 +0000

I can’t wait until you folks are disabled or see someone you love paralyzed in an accident. That’s going to truly be a dish served cold.

By: Califizzy

Califizzy — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:59:49 +0000

I totally agree with you that being compensated for damages with money is poorly thought out. I would go one further and say it’s disgusting.

By: Califizzy

Califizzy — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:57:33 +0000

Ugh. So indicative of a culture that puts a price tag on inconvenience. I think “emotional damages” is a disgusting concept. Ironically, I believe it actually does the greatest disservice to those who are compensated. It just feeds into an overall culture of entitlement and greed, and puts a price tag on something that shouldn’t be measured that way. I think it’s debasing to be paid off in such a way.

By: Chully

Chully — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:41:36 +0000

OK, the arguments here seem poorly thought out. We pay cops to enforce the laws. Our legal system allows for individuals to sue over wrongs, and get paid compensation for damages. Are the cops greedy “capitalists” because they get paid to enforce the laws? No. So a private citizen is enforcing a law with civil penalties; when is the last time you heard of the cops enforcing ADA violations? Since cops won’t do it, the only party able to is one who is actually a victim. Monetary compensation is, primarily, the only kind of compensation that the law allows.

If you don’t like the law, well, go for it – get the ADA repealed or reformed. It probably should be reformed. But, stop blaming the victims for enforcing the law as written. If this guy is suing without cause, he’s a “vexatious litigant” and will have his Waterloo. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation#California )

By: Renzomatic

Renzomatic — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:48:23 +0000

Unfortunately, many of the ADA lawsuits you do read about often don’t actually bring any change to the access. Many of them are settled, as in the defendant pays a settlement, but in many cases, does not actually do the improvements (usually because they are cost prohibitive, or even impossible given a building’s structure).

Many of the lawsuits do not force compliance but PENALIZE for non-compliance.

Cote del Sud in the Castro had stairs leading up, I do not think they had any ADA access and were ripe for a lawsuit, and if they did get hit with one, there would be now way to comply (unless you put in an elevator, which was probably impossible given other tenants), so in that case, the lawsuit would penalize Cote del Sud, and they would simply pay to settle, but that could mean that in another year, someone could come right back and sue again for non-compliance.

While the goals are laudatory, in many cases, compliance is near impossible. You can get a variance or claim a ADA complaince hardship, but that still does not protect you from the ADA and the requirement that ALL establishments must comply.

Have any of you ever heard of ADA lawsuits being filed because some trails on State/Federal land must also allow for equal access? I seem to recall that it has occured before.

By: Cranky Old Mission Guy

Cranky Old Mission Guy — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:35:25 +0000

“Murder the Disturbed”
– Circle Jerks

By: the ADA took mah baybuh away

the ADA took mah baybuh away — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:20:13 +0000

“Destroy the Handicapped”
-Sammy Town, Fang

By: Cranky Old Mission Guy

Cranky Old Mission Guy — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:07:49 +0000

Substitute the word “exploiter” for “capitalist”, and I could agree with this — the two words are not necessarily equivalent, no matter what any of you New College grads think.

By: joshua

joshua — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:37:34 +0000

if he’s making cash at the expense of restaurants closing down, he’s not a crusader for anything, just a capitalist. if he really gave a shit about places being in ADA compliance he’d work with the COMMUNITY and figure out a solution that benifits everyone.
I dunno this guy personally or anything but he’s making a bad name for himself & his cause. not good PR.

By: Frosty

Frosty — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:15:48 +0000

At least he’s not afraid to take on freaky cults:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2010cv02015/227409/

By: beb0p

beb0p — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:33:50 +0000

ADA laws are specifically designed to help the disabled make money off of lawsuits. To utilize private businesses to subsidize the handicaps because the government itself is too poor to do so. There are hundreds of ways to make ADA laws more friendly to businesses (like giving out a first warning, etc), less draconian, and still accomplish the goal of making the environment disabled-friendly but no; the laws itself is purposely designed to be impossible to follow. At least that’s what my cousin told me. She’s a judge on the County Court.

By: jeff collier

jeff collier — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:28:50 +0000

Crusader eh?…., this sounds like the same P.O.S. that’s been hounding businesses in South Lake Tahoe the last couple years. Same M.O. Likely the same attorney. If this guy’s not handicapped…I’d like to give him one.

By: Califizzy

Califizzy — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:38:24 +0000

I totally agree with this. I have no doubt that Paula or any of her employees would gladly take his order from the door and walk out and hand him the food. He’s on a rampage.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:26:46 +0000

Isn’t mental illness already covered?