Hacker News Reader

>because if someone tripped I'd be liable for this

isn't the sidewalk the city's responsibility? Also, wouldn't your homeowner's insurance cover it?

>In really small print at the bottom of the email was information telling me it was optional to do, but again I might be liable if anything happens.

Honestly the arrangement seems rent-seeking(ish) to me. At the very least it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They're not providing any real value, just scaring people into paying with an (arguably) misleading letter.

> They're not providing any real value, just scaring people into paying

Unfortunately there are plenty of business built exactly like that.

One anecdote: there was a group of lawyers that would hire people in wheelchairs to go into stores (e.g. local Verizon dealer) and ask to use the restroom, then once inside the restroom measure everything and take notes. Apparently businesses are not required to make their restrooms available to the public, but if they do, they need to be up to code. So these guys would target chains of businesses that normally didn't allow public into their restrooms, hence the restrooms were usually not up to code. After gathering enough data they would then sue the companies and offer to settle for an amount very close to what it would cost the company to deal with the case in court.

Or you could see it as them using the Ada for it's exact intended purpose, to force businesses not to exclude disabled customers by imposing an actual cost on them that is potentially greater than the cost of complying with the act. Sounds good to me!

I don't see how this is good. Some businesses allow their customers to use their private bathroom on a case by case basis. Now they will just stop doing that so everyone suffers equally.

Their bathrooms should be accessible for their employees as well, even if they're not usable by customers, because disabled people should be able to work to.

There are plenty of cases regarding ada abuses in california.

> isn't the sidewalk the city's responsibility?

There are plenty of cities where the homeowner is responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk and street trees. My city will cover 50% for city trees replacements and root damage to sidewalks. I last year replaced two old trees and it cost me just under $1k after splitting with the city. To make it worse, the contractors raised the prices when the city started offering the 50% cost sharing.

If you’re aware of a potentially dangerous problem, ignore it, and somebody gets hurt because of it, your homeowner’s insurance isn’t going to rush to cut a check.

But is that the case here? OP said it was looked flat.

Sure. But then there was a letter from what in this case can be seen as an expert warning of potential danger. If that was intentionally ignored, would it be impossible to claim some level of negligence?

Shady.

In many parts of the US the city bills the homeowners for sidewalk repairs or replacement even if they do the work.

In areas with an HOA often the HOA or homeowners are responsible for things the government is in other places, roads, street lights, sidewalks, storm drains.

Insurance companies (in the US at least) will easily drop you over something like this, even if they do pay out first.

I would love to get rid of my HOA to be honest. We have a property management company that interfaces with them. I put in a change request back in early June. I am still waiting for approval.

My neighbor mentioned something about bylaws and the requirement for HOAs is only 20 years. That is up in December. However, I have to confirm that.

So basically bilking people with overpriced and unnecessary (not to mention: loud) services by making vague legal threats?

As a society, we should really spend more time and effort doing this.

Since I made this comment yesterday I've thought it about it. lot more. I did some more research and discovered there is a franchise!! around sidewalk repairs exploiting ADA requirements from schools, govt buildings, etc type places that have to maintain compliance.

So the comments referring to this being a shake down are pretty much on point. I mean it isn't much of a surprise.

There's real value to what this service offers, people do want to fix mangled sidewalks, but the shakedown side of the business is where the money is at unfortunately (or not depending on your morals).

Also I was off on the costs, in the email it said there were 2 spots affected and the estimate was $280!! It took the guy ~2 days to do the whole neighborhood, each section took maybe 15mins at what looked like a comfortable pace. So the $/hr is very high.

food for thought

You realize this is basically a shakedown, likely with either a kickback from the concrete cutter or nepotism? Seems kind of unethical

Here is a company from India https://mygate.com/. They recently got $56 million in funding.

So, you wouldn't really be liable for this right?

It's not about liability. It's about scaring people into thinking something is broken when it's not. If your sidewalk is in good condition you're not going to see any accidents. Being liable for zero accidents isn't the same as not being liable at all.

And you think this is a good idea?

Three of my friends are doing “HOA” non-tech plays. So there’s totally space.