|
|
| Comments |
 By
cdos77 @
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:26 PM
|
I work at a sacramento Architecture firm. I have read plenty of articles about this gentleman and other people making similar threats. I am sickened by his actions and the fact that he hides behind the "ADA" as some kind of a justification for what amounts to "'extortion". Typically these kind of people go around towns looking for violations and then after notifying the TENANT (not the owner, which is often the party responsible for the repairs/alterations), that they can be sued under the ADA. They then "offer" their services as a consultant, to help mitigate the offenses. In so many cases the tenant doesn't understand the requirements of the ADA and just pays the money for this "consultant" to do his "work".
In my honest opinion, and in ONLY my opinion I feel these people are a scourge on the city and society, a true example of 'litigation gone wild', I believe the city/county should help the tenants and building owners in their jurisdiction understand what is ACTUALLY required of them under the ADA and what they can do to mitigate any existing issues.
|
|
|
|
By
Matt Rexroad @
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:08 AM
|
Excellent comment above.
Matt
|
|
|
|
By
cdos77 @
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:49 PM
|
I found your webpage through "the pile" and insidewoodland, I have loosely followed your political career and think you are just the man to help our great city and county.
Thanks for all of your public service, we should all aspire to contribute to our community the way you have.
|
|
|
|
By
Robert Ramming @
Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:16 PM
|
I see Marcos Breton's column in yesterdays Bee (Oct 3, page B1) follows up on this, as well as another more detailed followup story on page D1.
There has been an offer to install a lift for free; and the plaintiff's objective is to get a lift installed, not to get money. (According to Breton: "And that's another area where this story falls apart There's no dollar amount listed in Ross' lawsuit.") But the landlord has been more interested in getting a non-basketball tenant than in providing a lift to the second floor.
As Mr. Breton says, "This sounds more like a dispute between landlord and tenant - with a disabled person and ADA laws tossed in as a diversion."
Nothing is ever as simple and clear-cut as it first appears...
|
|
|
|
By
cdos77 @
Saturday, October 06, 2007 12:52 AM
|
I have not read the article, however, I have seen plenty of these kinds of cases. There was one against one of my favorite restaurants down in Vacaville about two years ago. Basically if the landlord/tenant didn't call the ADA "expert" on the other party then it is "dumb luck" that the expert has stumbled upon this "infraction" (please do not overlook my obvious sarcasm in this post). Regardless of the particular business or landlord, this is an increasing problem in our society. Every day we deal with the ADA and understand how easy it is to have an interpretation of the code go against you, or to see a client be duped into moving into a building that was built in the 70's and not be remotely compliant, only to have an "expert" offer his services.
Really the people that lose are the tenants. Something needs to be done.
|
|
|
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here
|
|
|
|
|
|