Handicap Access...

  • Thread starter Swift
  • 323 comments
  • 9,281 views

Swift

GT Sport is looking good...
Staff Emeritus
10,116
United States
Maryland, USA
swift-bass
Ok, my church recently put an expansion on and the state is making us go through all these changes for handicapped access to the platform. Now we're going to either have to rework the entire platform or buy a $7,000 lift for a wheel chair.

I'm trying to figure out why we have to have such laws? We have a few people in wheelchairs now that attend the church and they've never even been on the platform.

I really can't stand all this PC garbage. I mean, why should organizations have to bend over backwards to accommodate a very small part of the population that DOESN'T want to be treated differently?

What do you think? I'm not against handicapped people in anyway. It just annoys me that all these things have to be done "in case". It's not a safety or a fire issue. it's just because the county wants handicapped access to the stage because they do. What kind of garbage is that?
 
Swift
What do you think? I'm not against handicapped people in anyway. It just annoys me that all these things have to be done "in case". It's not a safety or a fire issue. it's just because the county wants handicapped access to the stage because they do. What kind of garbage is that?

It's not a matter of doing things just because they do. It's about equal opportunities for all. That's my take.
 
Swift
Ok, my church recently put an expansion on and the state is making us go through all these changes for handicapped access to the platform. Now we're going to either have to rework the entire platform or buy a $7,000 lift for a wheel chair.

I'm trying to figure out why we have to have such laws? We have a few people in wheelchairs now that attend the church and they've never even been on the platform.

I really can't stand all this PC garbage. I mean, why should organizations have to bend over backwards to accommodate a very small part of the population that DOESN'T want to be treated differently?

What do you think? I'm not against handicapped people in anyway. It just annoys me that all these things have to be done "in case". It's not a safety or a fire issue. it's just because the county wants handicapped access to the stage because they do. What kind of garbage is that?

Public buildings need handicapped access, private buildings should be able to put a sign out that says "NO CRIPPLES ALLOWED!!!"
 
danoff
Public buildings need handicapped access, private buildings should be able to put a sign out that says "NO CRIPPLES ALLOWED!!!"

Ok ok, but give me you real opinion. I'm interested to see what you think about this topic.
 
Yup, that’s exactly my opinion too.

Swift, you, um, know that we’re Libertarian, right? ;)

Public buildings = paid for by everybody, so it should be accessible to everybody. Private buildings = paid for by certain people, so those certain people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their buildings.
 
danoff
:lol:

That is my real opinion.

Wow, you have incredibly detailed breakdowns for seatbelt laws and libertarianism, but your comment on this is just one line...interesting.

Sage
Yup, that’s exactly my opinion too.

Swift, you, um, know that we’re Libertarian, right? ;)

Public buildings = paid for by everybody, so it should be accessible to everybody. Private buildings = paid for by certain people, so those certain people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their buildings

Yes I do. And as far as this issue is concerned, you can all me a libertarian. :sly:

This is where I think liberalism and socialism are just horrible. Making others conform to standards that effect them financially because "you" want to feel good about yourself. Bleh. :yuck:
 
Swift
Wow, you have incredibly detailed breakdowns for seatbelt laws and libertarianism, but your comment on this is just one line...interesting.

I guess I can go into more detail. But Sage pretty much covered it for me. If the building belongs to me - it's my choice whether to provide handicapped access. If I don't mind losing (or don't want) business from handicapped people, that's my choice. For a public school or park or court, some handicapped access is appropriate.

I also think handicapped parking spots should not be required at private businesses - if the business owns the parking.

By the way Swift, I also think people should be able to say "No Blacks Allowed" or whites for that matter.
 
danoff
By the way Swift, I also think people should be able to say "No Blacks Allowed" or whites for that matter.

LOL, I was just thinking about that last night. Sure if it's a PRIVATE business they can do that. Of course they probably won't get much business at all(no matter what color they exclude) but sure, why not.

I think the problem was that back in the 60's when the movement hit, the black people were forced to use substandard "seperate but equal" facilities. That was the issue there. But I could personally care less if they let me into woolworth's or not.
 
Your private property = do as you see fit

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Libertarian take on it.

However, the County see that it is a public building and so handicap access is required to all public spaces, even though the property itself is private (owned by the church). Businesses fall into the same category - private property where the public is invited.

If you are not renovating the platform area, I'm surprised they are making you add wheelchair access to the stage. Normally existing non-complying uses are left as is unless you are renovating more than a certain portion of the entire building (usually 50%). If you renovate a specific area it must be brought into compliance; if you renovate more than 50% of the building typically all of it must be brought into compliance.

Speaking as an architect who deals with this stuff every day, I can't say that the requirements bother me overmuch. Mostly I look at it as something you should WANT to do in order to accomodate the largest number of people possible, anyway.

And there are idiotic examples of how the laws are enforced. I've had to rip 2 toilets out of 3-toilet bathrooms to accomodate the larger wheelchair-accessible stall. This was on the third floor of a building with no elevator... but the toilet rooms were what was getting renovated, so they had to be brought into compliance.

But in general after 15 years of designing to accomodate handicapped folks it has become second nature and I don't really think of it as a problem any more.
 
Duke
If you are not renovating the platform area, I'm surprised they are making you add wheelchair access to the stage. Normally existing non-complying uses are left as is unless you are renovating more than a certain portion of the entire building (usually 50%). If you renovate a specific area it must be brought into compliance; if you renovate more than 50% of the building typically all of it must be brought into compliance.

Ok, let me give you the details.

We expanded the platform 25ft and added a prayer room. So the platform is about 2.5 times bigger then it was before. Oh, duh, I can show pictures. :dunce:

View from the media room:



I wish I had some pics from before so you can see the difference.

But your toilet story is a perfect example of how stupid these regulations can be.
 
Yeah, so since you renovated the platform, it had to comply.

There's 4 steps leading up to the platform so I'm assuming it's about 28 inches high. So a ramp sloped at 1 inch per foot means you need about 28 feet of ramp, with a minimum 5 foot by 5 foot clear, flat landing (or area) at top and bottom. The ramp itself only really needs to be about 42 inches wide.

At a glance, it looks like you could fill in that stairs just to the pastor's right, as he's at the pulpit. Then you could come off that new landing with a ramp that wraps around the face of the platform from the pastor's right to left, landing on the floor of the church somewhere around the end of the aisle coming down toward the pastor's left (right side in the first picture).

The stairs that got filled in could stick out off of that new landing at the top of the ramp (pastor's right), along the other side of then platform. So effectively they would just move 5 feet or so to the left of the picture.

I can sketch you something up and email it to you if you want.
 
Duke
Yeah, so since you renovated the platform, it had to comply.

There's 4 steps leading up to the platform so I'm assuming it's about 28 inches high. So a ramp sloped at 1 inch per foot means you need about 28 feet of ramp, with a minimum 5 foot by 5 foot clear, flat landing (or area) at top and bottom. The ramp itself only really needs to be about 42 inches wide.

At a glance, it looks like you could fill in that stairs just to the pastor's right, as he's at the pulpit. Then you could come off that new landing with a ramp that wraps around the face of the platform from the pastor's right to left, landing on the floor of the church somewhere around the end of the aisle coming down toward the pastor's left (right side in the first picture).

The stairs that got filled in could stick out off of that new landing at the top of the ramp (pastor's right), along the other side of then platform. So effectively they would just move 5 feet or so to the left of the picture.

I can sketch you something up and email it to you if you want.


That would be most appreciated! :) Thanks.

But my main point is why do we have all these laws and regulations on private industry?

I mean we spend these millions of dollars, rip out all these toilets :dopey: to accomadate people that may never get there.
 
Hell its only 4 steps just get someone to lift the cripple up or hell I could build a ramp that size easily enough out of wood.

BTW thats not a real church. Thats a money making enterprise.
 
Young_Warrior
Hell its only 4 steps just get someone to lift the cripple up or hell I could build a ramp that size easily enough out of wood.

BTW thats not a real church. Thats a money making enterprise.

Don't insult my church again. Thank you.
 
I dont care viper as I dont belive but I think it doesnt matter if your church is lined with gold or rotting wood as long as the peoples intentions are good and true at heart. Its just that I watched a documentary about american churches and I think I was kinda brainwashed by it.
 
Young_Warrior
I dont care viper as I dont belive but I think it doesnt matter if your church is lined with gold or rotting wood as long as the peoples intentions are good and true at heart. Its just that I watched a documentary about american churches and I think I was kinda brainwashed by it.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. But since you don't know the people of my church I believe it's best not to pass judgment as I haven't judged you.
 
Young_Warrior
BTW thats not a real church. Thats a money making enterprise.
Care to explain yourself? Because your stock here at GTPlanet is not terribly high at the moment.
Young_Warrior
Its just that I watched a documentary about american churches and I think I was kinda brainwashed by it.
Judging from many of your previous posts, I think you need a lot of practice thinking for yourself, particularly on the subject of America.
 
Swift
LOL, I was just thinking about that last night. Sure if it's a PRIVATE business they can do that. Of course they probably won't get much business at all(no matter what color they exclude) but sure, why not.

I think the problem was that back in the 60's when the movement hit, the black people were forced to use substandard "seperate but equal" facilities. That was the issue there. But I could personally care less if they let me into woolworth's or not.

The true issue was that "seperate but equal" was inherently unequal.
But that is a debate for another time.
[sarcasm]I believe that if the door has a "rebel" flag with the "Redneck Owned and Operated" sign under it a specific sign won't be needed to keep blacks out.

I know I wouldn't go in even if the place was on fire, to save my beloved family cat.
Even if it only went in to piss on the burning cross.[/sarcasm]
 
Swift
Ok, my church recently put an expansion on and the state is making us go through all these changes for handicapped access to the platform. Now we're going to either have to rework the entire platform or buy a $7,000 lift for a wheel chair.

I'm trying to figure out why we have to have such laws? We have a few people in wheelchairs now that attend the church and they've never even been on the platform.

I really can't stand all this PC garbage. I mean, why should organizations have to bend over backwards to accommodate a very small part of the population that DOESN'T want to be treated differently?

What do you think? I'm not against handicapped people in anyway. It just annoys me that all these things have to be done "in case". It's not a safety or a fire issue. it's just because the county wants handicapped access to the stage because they do. What kind of garbage is that?

Swift I hope this answers your question ..or you going to tell me its too long ...again :dopey: I actually scaned the damm bill / law just for this part . :)

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental
disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole
is growing older;
(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate
individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a
serious and pervasive social problem;
(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in
such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations,
education, transportation, communication, recreation,
institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public
services;
(4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis
of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who
have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability have often had
no legal recourse to redress such discrimination;
(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms
of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the
discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and
communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to
make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary
qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to
lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other
opportunities;
(6) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that
people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our
society, and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally,
economically, and educationally;
(7) individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority
who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a
history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of
political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are
beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic
assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such
individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society;
(8) the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities
are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; and
(9) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination
and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete
on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free
society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of
dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and
nonproductivity.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards
addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in
enforcing the standards established in this Act on behalf of individuals
with disabilities; and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power
to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to
address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with
disabilities.

To put it simple ; disabled people get deliberately excluded just by not giving them access or making it too hard to get in . They want everyone to have equal access and they cant enforce it on everyone unless they do it fairly to everyone and not make exceptions .
 
Swift
Ok, my church recently put an expansion on and the state is making us go through all these changes for handicapped access to the platform. Now we're going to either have to rework the entire platform or buy a $7,000 lift for a wheel chair.

I'm trying to figure out why we have to have such laws? We have a few people in wheelchairs now that attend the church and they've never even been on the platform.

I really can't stand all this PC garbage. I mean, why should organizations have to bend over backwards to accommodate a very small part of the population that DOESN'T want to be treated differently?

What do you think? I'm not against handicapped people in anyway. It just annoys me that all these things have to be done "in case". It's not a safety or a fire issue. it's just because the county wants handicapped access to the stage because they do. What kind of garbage is that?

Surely before starting your building work you should have checked what regulations and limitations there were? Even if you didn't, whoever designed it should have been aware of them. If that's the case then ask them to solve the problem.


Oh, and my personal belief is that you should be required to have adequate disabled access; by supplying this you are not treating them differently - you're treating them the same - and that's the point.
 
JacktheHat
Oh, and my personal belief is that you should be required to have adequate disabled access; by supplying this you are not treating them differently - you're treating them the same - and that's the point.

I agree... We had a bizarre thing here at my work... main access to the building is via a slope, but the slope is too steep for wheelchair access (non-regulation anyway), so they have recently built a flat platform with a wheelchair lift at the end. To my knowledge it has never been used. But if only one person HAS to use it at some point, then its construction is justified.

I disagree strongly with the notion that disabled people get 'special treatment' and have people bending over backwards to lavish such riches upon them as adequate access to a building, or a toilet they can actually use. It is a basic human right that they should be considered as much as able-bodied people. It is only because of the fact that buildings were not originally designed to accomodate disabled people that we have to make changes later. But I remember when we had an extension built onto our primary school back in the mid-1980's. It had design features that allowed adequate disabled access to the whole building. If all buildings were made like this, there would be no problem, but of course that is not the case.
 
JacktheHat
Oh, and my personal belief is that you should be required to have adequate disabled access; by supplying this you are not treating them differently - you're treating them the same - and that's the point.

We are not treating them the same. We are going through extra steps to give them access. That's not the same the last time I checked.

And yes, there was a ramp there but is wasn't up to "code" That was thanks to our builder.

My point is simple. This building has been there for 15 years and at no point was there a handicapped person on stage, though we do have them as a part of our congregation.
 
Swift
We are not treating them the same. We are going through extra steps to give them access. That's not the same the last time I checked.

And yes, there was a ramp there but is wasn't up to "code" That was thanks to our builder.

My point is simple. This building has been there for 15 years and at no point was there a handicapped person on stage, though we do have them as a part of our congregation.

By giving disabled people the same availability of access you are treating them the same. By not having it you are discriminating against them.

And the fact that there are disabled people in your congregation but none have ever been on to the stage is proof of that.
 
JacktheHat
By giving disabled people the same availability of access you are treating them the same. By not having it you are discriminating against them.

And the fact that there are disabled people in your congregation but none have ever been on to the stage is proof of that.

Right, we have 2 people in wheel chairs and 4 with canes and they haven't had a desire to be on stage. If there was a time when a person needed to be on stage like that, we simply would lift them up. No big deal.

I'm talking about the platform. Not the building in itself. OBVIOUSLY the building should have easy access for handicapped people.
 
Swift
Right, we have 2 people in wheel chairs and 4 with canes and they haven't had a desire to be on stage. If there was a time when a person needed to be on stage like that, we simply would lift them up. No big deal.

I'm talking about the platform. Not the building in itself. OBVIOUSLY the building should have easy access for handicapped people.

So... you don't want disabled people on stage or you just don't want them having a dignified route?

:banghead:
 
Back