Hacker News Reader

Comment by no_butterscotch | Hacker News Reader

There was a disabled guy in the Bay Area going around suing all sorts of restaurants and other places if they didn't have ramps.

Small hole in the wall restaurants couldn't afford renovations and had to just close, resulting in more Mc-chain restaurants moving in that can afford to play ball.

Disabled people need access, but I (perhaps controversially) don't think they need access to 100% of the things. I'm reminded of that article from a few years ago "hiking has an able-ist problem" because hiking trails weren't wheelchair accessible. We can't fix all the things for people in wheelchairs (paved trails up half-dome?) or people who are blind (should the trails have megaphones every 10 feet saying "watch your step here because there's rocks"?).

View on HN

My favorite sandwich shop in Menlo Park closed because of these lawsuits

Two of the lawsuits against Kwan and the cafe were filed by serial ADA litigants

https://padailypost.com/2019/05/01/cafe-closes-after-third-a...

I think the issue is that “the disabled don’t need access to everything” ends up with the abled deciding what the disabled deserve to access. How shitty a life having to utter something like, “sorry no, I haven’t tried the new ramen shop, the state legislature decided that restaurants weren’t essential enough to require wheelchair access and the front door is up some stairs.”

It in no way excuses the frankly bullshit lawsuits the parent is referencing but in general I think everything should be accessible. Like in all things there needs to be an element of good faith. There’s a world of difference between painted lines being slightly faded and “I genuinely can’t get into your business.”

>I think the issue is that “the disabled don’t need access to everything” ends up with the abled deciding what the disabled deserve to access.

We’re talking about privately owned establishments. No one deserves to be able to go to these places. It’s a privilege to go, not a right. The disabled should have access to any public spaces, but extending that to private spaces is asinine.

Sorry no, I haven’t been to the ramen place, the state mandated they add a wheelchair ramp and they couldn’t afford it. Now it’s a Starbucks.

Who is actually winning here, again?

This is literally the same reasoning segregationists used during the Civil Rights Act lmfao. "Privately owned establishments" use public infrastructure and tax subsidies, why should people with disabilities be disproportionately and discriminatorily excluded from swaths of public life due to no fault of their own.

If you're handicapped you don't expect to be able to go hiking. However you do expect to be able to go to restaurants

Why do you expect that?

I mean, aside from the obvious principle of reasonable accommodation guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Or, perhaps more specifically the guarantee from Article 19, barring segregation from the community at large?

Expecting the declarations on human rights to be followed is not unreasonable.

should all resturants also be vegan? Nut free? We don't want to segregate, right?

Nobody "deserves" to go to a resturant.

Is being vegan a disability?

Regarding nuts, I don't know about the rest of the world but in my country, restaurants are required to disclose allergens in their foods, if asked.

Disclosing allergens is a different thing though: that's akin to "disclosing" that the restaurant isn't wheelchair accessible.

Should all restaurants also be required to serve food for whatever combination of allergies one might have?

My mother has several food allergies, there are restaurants where she can't eat any meal. Would you welcome a law mandating each and every restaurant to start serving meals she can eat?

Again, allergies aren't a protected class.

I'm not from the US and had to look up what "protected class" meant. It seems to be a well-intentioned yet somewhat arbitrary list. It appears to be regularly amended. Perhaps allergies will be on the list one day too?

“Principle of "reasonable accommodation" The Convention defines "reasonable accommodation" as "necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others” [0]

Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Pe...

> Suing every hole in the wall out of business is hardly in line with reasonable accommodation.

Suing is the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Israelis and the US, not the reasoning behind the requirement. The reasoning is: The disabled should have equal access to dining and it's not an undue burden to expect ramps outside of businesses. Most of the developed world is like this.

You might disagree with that reasoning but clearly a political majority in the US didn't and doesn't.

Each and every restaurant?

I agree we want the world to be fair. I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair?

What about people who can't financially afford going to a restaurant? Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability?

Btw, I love hiking. If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair?

Yes. Because if not each and every restaurant, who gets to pick and choose? If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? So all is better than none.

Are you arguing we shouldn't have such laws because they don't reach 100% of people? That's letting perfect be the enemy of good.

> I recently went through a difficult situation, during which my partner was unable to visit restaurants, even if they were wheelchair accessible. Was that fair?

It is more fair than if restaurants weren't wheelchair accessible.

> Is it more fair to exclude someone on the basis of their financial situation rather than based on their physical disability?

It is more fair than if they were also excluded based on their physical disability.

>If I were to become disabled and not be able to go hiking, I'd miss it more than going to restaurants. Is that fair?

It is more fair than if you were also not able to go to restaurants.

You see? These are all still better. It is not perfect, but arguing that we should do away with these laws because they are not perfect doesn't help it become better, just worse.

> who gets to pick and choose?

Generally, that's the role of a legislature. We could, for instance, exempt restaurants unable to afford renovations from that burden. Unfortunately, there are sticklers like you that would rather those restaurant not exist.

> Generally, that's the role of a legislature.

Not only would this be an insane job for the legislature, they aren't equipped to handle the volume.

You do raise good points.

> If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there?

Are you sure there's no in-between? I gave this grand total of few seconds of thought. Could perhaps the government or the city step in and provide wheelchair accessibility to select restaurants, based on feasibility, cost, location, and perhaps some other criteria?

Restaurant owners suffer because of these laws. Are you 100% sure the suffering of the restaurant owners under these laws is lesser than the suffering of the disabled without these laws?

You could do this: Restaurants would be eligible for a tax credit against earnings if they can show themselves to be accessible. The tax credit part would hopefully prevent abuse by businesses, and also make it so that only restaurants that are able to implement this efficiently would do it. Simply raise the tax credit until a sufficient number of restaurants take the carrot. You might have to do something to ensure sufficient geographic distribution.

> Yes. Because if not each and every restaurant, who gets to pick and choose? If the restaurant owners, none. If the disabled, all. And there isn't really an in-between is there? So all is better than none.

I think this is why some laws state “reasonable accommodations”. If a ramp is impossible or unaffordable with the restaurants margins, what should be the course of action? Should the restaurant close? If so, that doesn’t actually improve accessibility.

The current law may already use this barometer and the horror story examples may be overblown, but at least this seems like a reasonable way to approach things.

Businesses don't have an inherent right to exist. If your business can't be profitable while paying your workers a liveable wage, maintaining safety for employees and customers, etc. then your business should fail.

Sure. That just means higher unemployment and fewer overall consumer options.

1. I said what you expect to be able to go to not what you'd like more

2. I don't know what your situation was so I don't know but I think your point was that the world isn't fair so why. We strive to do our best within reason. Just because not every situation is fair isn't an argument against making more situations unfair.

3. On poor people not being able go:

A.No restaurant could afford to pay for all the meals if they were required to cover the cost for any person who can't afford it.

B. Most people can afford to go to almost restaurant at least once in their life. When does it become unfair? 2 times a year, 5 a week.

C. How would you determine who could afford it? how would the restaurant verify it?

D. If I spend all my money gambling then want to eat is that fair? If no. How would you determine what a person spent and catalog what's acceptable

E. Come on, this like one of those "they deserved it" remarks from the "being selfish is now socially acceptable " right wing crowd.

If the restaurant merely rents, how responsible is it for the landlord's property being less than accessible?

If the restaurant is in a Historic District, and the board/commission/whatever in charge of that is generally opposed to pro-accessibility changes - who (other than the lawyers) benefits when the restaurant ends up as a de-facto abandoned building?

If my "handicap" is a severe peanut allergy, should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen - with only certified peanut-free ingredients, etc.? (One can repeat this argument for other allergies, people whose personal beliefs require kosher/halal/vegan/etc. food, and so on.)

If there are (say) 100 restaurants in a city, what is the marginal value for handicapped people of forcing a 101th restaurant to spend $$$$ to qualify as handicap-accessible?

> should I be able to demand that every restaurant have a separate, peanut-free kitchen

Why stop there? There also needs to be a separate nut-free section of the restaurant for dining. Inaccessibility is frustrating but nuts are deadly!

I kinda agree. If the restaurant rents then the landlord renting out their space as restaurant space should be liable

The restaurant owners chose to rent a property with knowledge that they were going to operate a restaurant on the property, and they also knew or should have known the accessibility requirements for restaurants. Why shouldn't they be liable.

As a generality, both the economy and the legal system work far better when the seller of a good (or landlord of a rental property) bears the burden of making sure that his goods/properties are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, etc. And "fit for purpose", etc.

If you wanted to rent an office, an apartment, or even a '5 x 10' self-storage unit, would you find it reasonable for Step 1 to be "hire a team of property lawyers and inspectors, to find out if the place I want to rent is in compliance with all current Federal, State, County, City, and Historical District laws, standards, rules, regulations..."? I'm thinking "no". "Accessibility" is one of many legal requirements for a restaurant, and very few of the people who might want to open a restaurant are property lawyers.

Isn't the property zoned for a commercial space / a restaurant though? And when you sign a lease for a commercial space it states what you're allowed to do and even what types of F&B businesses aren't allowed there if it's a strip mall.

And - if you want to make material changes to the property, then pretty much everything has to be pre-approved, inspected, etc. by both the landlord and the local municipality's bureaucrats and building inspectors.

If ADA ramps are mandatory for all businesses, which in theory they ought to be due to non-discrimination being a universal need — then the property is unfit for renting if it doesn’t have an ADA-accessible ramp, and penalizing the tenant allows the landlord to re-lease it over and over as each tenant gets shut down.

Penalizing the landlord is the only way to ensure that the lawsuit leads to curative action to the property rather than a tenant change without action.

yeah to at least some restaurants. but it's ok to say that not every restaurant has to be accessible. we should minimize the extent to which someone's disability is everyone else's problem. same reason a lot of these new tech laws affect companies with over 2 million users or whatever, small companies don't have the resources to deal with it. so should a big chain restaurant have ramps? yeah. should a small mom and pop shop have to close cause it cant afford it? nahh screw that.

also because the cost / feasibility of coming into compliance can vary greatly, ex some places basically don't have space for a ramp without wholesale changes to the building, etc.

Are there reasonable limits to this expectation? Would businesses have to accommodate people who need iron lungs (if those were still in use)?

In 48 states in the US, if you complain, the establishment has N days to fix it. Otherwise, you can sue.

In the other two states (California and New York) there are cottage industries where people look for subtle infractions (even at businesses that have made good faith efforts to comply with the ADA), then file shake down suits.

I remember when the business park we were in had to spray paint the tree branches/roots in the little redwood loop behind us to make it vision impaired accessible. Wasn't much of a break to walk through a vandalized forrest.

Weren't they going to pave the sky to sea trail at one point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline-to-the-Sea_Trail

The disabled litigant is of course bottom feeding scum, but the real fault is with the law itself.

No, the fault is the person who abuses it. That's a choice. The law wasn't created with abuse in mind and while you could claim it should have been written better That's just a mistake.

Only one party here is purposeful in their actions

Maybe the law isn't well written.

What abuse in mind? I don't know what the law says, but based on what the other comment claims, the law requires ramps? I don't see why demanding that places have ramps as the law requires constitutes "abuse" to you.

And when those mcchains go out of business the next business will have a ramp

I think you have the effects of this backwards. It's predominantly the mom-and-pop restaurants that go out of business, and the "mcchains" that install the ramps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com