Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: ADA (was RE: Building Codes on-line)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Regis,

You were correct to call me to task.  My intent was not imply or even
directly state that someone cannot be opposed to something like the ADA.
Not everyone shares (nor should they necessarily) my view.  My post was
certainly not very clear or good in that regard.

I have to admit that happens sometime when I get a little "agitated" about
something.

The end result is that I fully respect Bill's right to believe other than
I do.  What I don't respect is when someone seems to blantly distort the
truth to support their believe.  And in my opinion, that is what Bill did
in his initial post on the subject.  He basically stated that the ADA did
nothing other than increase costs for consumers and funneling money to
trial lawyers.  While these two thing may or may not be effects of the
ADA, it is out right false that there has not been any benefit from ADA.
If he had made the arguement that cons far out weigh the benefits, then
that would have been light years closer to the truth and it would not have
gotten me "agitated" even though I would disagree.  So, I don't feel that
Bill should believe as I do, but he should at least deal a little more
truthfully with the subject.  After all, there are many things out there
that I would be diametrically opposed to, but I will at least acknowledge
that while I may think such programs are a clossal waste of money or some
such, those programs do at least have someone that benefits (in a positive
manner unlike trial lawyers benefiting or not from ADA) from them.

As far as my response being aimed at Stan's comments, there I am a little
less tolerant (which is a little petty/little on my part), but if the only
complaint that he has against the ADA is that he might have to park a
little further away due to "excessive" parking spaces allocated under ADA
and a longer wait in the bathroom due to less fixtures to fall in line
with ADA, then I find that a little offensive.  He certainly has the right
to not like the ADA for those reasons, but I also have the right to be
somewhat disgusted if that is the only reason that he doesn't like the
ADA.  Those two things are essentially minor inconviences and I would
respect his opposition more if he at least had some significant reason(s)
such as Bill did.

The end result is that I don't think this is the forum to discuss
politically or other non-engineering topics.  And I deserve the same slap
on the wrist since I actively participated in the discussion.  So.....

POLICAL MODE OFF

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Regis King wrote:

>
>Everything has a cost.  Every dollar that is added to the cost of a
>housing
>project, for instance, means it is that much less likely it will be
>built,
>and that much less affordable if it is.  The public policy question is
>one
>of balance, weighing the needs of disabled individuals against the needs
>of
>other constituencies such as prospective home owners and businesses.  You
>can stand behind a person in a wheelchair and lecture about compassion
>and
>someone else could stand behind a person who can't afford decent housing
>and
>lecture about compassion.  I think what got the response that your post
>did
>was not so much your defense of ADA, but your apparent defense of
>compasion
>at any cost (when it suits your opinions), and your condenscending tone
>to
>suggest that anyone who questions ADA can't possibly know what they are
>talking about because they (you assume) aren't disabled.  Telling someone
>they are not allowed to question your opinion is the surest way to
>guarentee
>that someone will.  It's fine to say that you accept the trade offs that
>policy decision necessarily imply, but it is a tad arrogent to tell
>people
>who may be negatively affected that they have no right to complain until
>they have been in the other person's position.  That assumes, without you
>showing them the same courtesy of walking in their shoes, that their
>concerns are less valid, and that their inconveniences and losses are
>less
>important.  By avoiding a serious discussion of the need or the cost,
>neither of you make a very good case for your positions, in my opinion.
>
>Regis






******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********