Help For People with Special Needs is NOT a Right!  

No Rowena the inspectors were dead wrong. They abused him and his position by imposing a fine on him without due process.

There isn't a person in a wheelchair for over 100 miles from his diner.

If the law requires accomidations for people in wheelchairs, what about people like me? I'm in danger of personal injury, not just embarrassment.

The difference is, I don't expect my disabilities to be everyone else's disabilities.

If the state is going to impose such standards on us, then it is up to them to pay for it... not the property owners.

If want businesses to accomidate the disabled, we should be doing fund raisers to help them do it, not passing draconian laws requiring it.

No small business owner can afford to lose business if a new customer shows up in a wheelchair. Any retail owner is going to jump over backwards to find a way to get the person into their establishment even if they don't have a ramp. I'd imagine his friend's diner was a street level place, probably one step getting into it from the street, and one coming down inside of the building. There's no reason the owner or manager couldn't step outside, help the person in the chair boost up over the step & guide them down inside. If suddenly his friend had a regular customer in a chair, he could then weigh out if he could afford to get a ramp to make things easier on himself & his customer. If he had been in business all those years without a ramp, clearly he didn't need one.

you know what? I have a more common disability than dysfunctional legs - I have a dysfunctional bladder, and little kids too! and as you likely know little kids have to frequently empty their bladder.

so..... where is the law protecting us from inconvenience and social embarrassment? how come there are still public establishments that have signs in their window - no public restrooms? why is it I can shop at a store and either a child or myself will need urgent relief and I am told sorry we do not have a restroom. you mean to tell me that the workers never have to go? or that the person behind the deli never washes up?

puhlease. these places do not need expensive alterations, they already have the facility they just are not permitting john q public to use it.
even the threat of a child whizzing on the floor is not enough to bend the selfish rule.

Actually, in many cases it would take expensive alterations. Bathrooms open to the public fall under a different code than bathrooms or employees only.

It's one of those things that would be great if they offered, but(even though there is a need), shouldn't be forced on the business by law.

Rowena, would you support laws forcing you to give your time and money to help disabled people against your will?

;) para, I was being a wee bit facetious there. *smile

pun (wee) fully intended hehe

Sawwy Modesta.. rereading is a bit of satire, it's actually outrageously funny! ;~D

That's the problem, isn't it. One person's "special needs" is another persons total waste of time, money and resources.

Drug addicts don't need a place to get their drugs, they don't even need a place to take their drugs... What they need is a place to get off drugs... and if they don't want to, then they are on their own. But anyway, back to the point.

You can't mandate services for special needs without discriminating against people... so it shouldn't be a matter legislated matter. It should be a private charitible movement.

I believe that a private charitable moment didn't work and that is why people with disabilities have been working to get the companies to accommodate them.I feel bad for the fellow that had to put up a ramp particularly when it was not needed, but there are areas where ramps are required and if it wasn't the law the it would be fend for yourself. I do believe that in this instance it should have been required to prove that an actual need was there, and as for new commercial buildings I would say that that is already in the blueprints and plans. but to drive a company into huge debt to accommodate some one who might come is just ridiculous, and it is not like there are not other dinning places in the area. I believe that in buildings already built a need has to be proven

Good ideas aren't good laws. Freedom doesn't mean, "if you choose what we want you to do you are free to decide".

RobinJ: Would you support laws requiring you to give your time and money to help the disabled?

Urine a class all by yourself. :~D

I have heard about sideway complements and thought they were always not a complement but rathere a slap and you just proved my point.I only give my opinion, no one is required to agree or not agree in fact they don't even have to read it, it is all about making choices, and again that is what this whole post is about choices

RobinJ, I have to apologize here. That "urine" crack was meant for an entirely different entry.

I am sorry.

Where I disagree with you is, Sears and Macy's shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for forced mandates like that either. If activists for accomidations want businesses to provide them, then they should have enough integrity to raise the money themselves. On the other hand, if a company chooses to make their business more accessible (in many markets it is a very sound business decision), then they should lead the charge.

I'm right there with you when it comes to the tragedy of separating the decision making from the responsiblity. If a person is violent (I don't care why), then they should be dealt with accordingly. We do no one any favors by denying reality because we are too squeemish to accept the fact that some disabilities prevent some people from exercising freedom of choice.

My hat is off to you for your service to the disabled. Especially since I doubt you get much appreciation from the very parents who would rather pay someone else to take on their responsibilities.

About this "parents who would rather pay someone else to take on their responsibilities." These parents pay nothing, but they call the shots. The state pays for meds, doctor visits, all tests, food, housing, clothing, spending money. Yet the parents decide if their child should or should not take drugs or get medical treatment for anything at all.

One guy has been waiting on a parental consent for surgery, another young lady has had a yeast infection and been waiting for parental consent to go to the doctor since her parents call the shock, she can not go to a doc without their consent.

That's just disgusting. Haven't they ever heard of "implied consent" or better yet, "standing orders".

I stand corrected on the "pay others" thing. Apparently all they are willing to do is claim their rights as parents... but nothing else.

That just makes me sick Debs. I have two autistic children. My youngest son is almost as tall as me and weighs about 90 lbs, when he goes into melt down, it's hard on me. I kept him off all medication until this last year (he's 9) and it's working great.

I tears me up that parents send their children to places because they just don't want to deal with it. I know someday, it would be better for him to live with others in a home, job experience, but to just send him off....I can't do it. I just couldn't. I'll work nights and stay with him during the day if I have to, I just couldn't/wouldn't send him away.

Well, these guys are all also moderately to severely retarded. One of them was raised by his Grandmother before as a teen he was placed. The rest have families within 50 or 60 miles, of the 4 guys only one has family that even visits him periodically - then they invade up to 8 people and 3 of the 8 were little children or infants. The rest don't even get gifts at Christmas or birthday.

I can understand them placing them in a home, it is a full time job, they get up during the night, theywet the bed, they punch themselves, people and objects. These are men, are approaching their 40s. Their families just don't have the resources needed to deal with them but I am amazed how they can place their kids in a home, but retain control and not even bother to visit them or see how they are doing.

I can't imagin how much it would hurt to care for them. Yes, it is a job, but then who else want them if they don't even have contact.

I just think that's sad. I admire you for the work that you do. Hard as it is, only special people really have the patience or understanding.

Actually you bring up a great example of the discrimination that is inherent with any kind of mandates for accomidations.

Our money isn't government currency, it is Federal Reserve notes. The government forces some businesses to accomidate the disabled, but exempts others.

It also imposes requirements to accomidate some disabilities, but ignores others.

You are a great example of why mandates aren't the way to go. You exercised your freedom to decide the best way to serve your valued customers.

It isn't fair to the disabled either, since some disabilities are accomidated by mandates and others aren't.

Yes, I would be sad, angry, depressed, and everything else I went through when I went disabled and couldn't work or do the things I love to do anymore.

In the case of not being able to frequent my favorite businesses anymore, I'd talk to the manager and find out what we could work out so that I could. I'd also work with local charities to see if something couldn't be worked out to accomidate my new needs. I may even find out how many other people in my community had the same problem, and start my own organization to work with local businesses.

What I wouldn't do (and didn't) is whine to the government to impose my disabilities and needs on other people.

Chigawaga: Would you support laws forcing you to give your time and money to help the disabled?

Do you realize that what you just suggested is illegal? Yes, it is illegal to offer to lift a person, or help them wheel themselves up or down stairs.

According to some people that is demeaning, and you know that embarrassment is worse than death.

Good Grief! no wonder there is a huge deficit in not only humility but also charity in this world of ours!

That's the thing about rights, they either are, or they are not. If we say that accessibility is a "right" then accessibility must be made available for everyone.

I do think making businesses accessible makes good sense where there is a market big enough to justify it, but once you make something a "right" then good sense is thrown often thrown out the window.

When it comes down to it, I think it should be up to community standards, not state of federal government that decides what is best for the community. Private organizations should foot the bill for privately owned factilities.

It's time we told people to put their money where their mouth is, or shut it.

I agree with Newfette, accessibility is a RIGHT and if you CAN do something about it then you MUST do it. Sorry but the reasoning of "they can't help me with my problem so they shouldn't help anyone" is a bit selfish IMHO. I think if they could do something about it with laws they would have done it, but if they CAN'T then why everyone else must suffer?
The problem is that governement should help with money small stores who have to put a ramp

I never said "they can't help me so they shouldn't help anyone". I only brought up my own disabilities as examples. Please don't make the example the point.

I'll say to you what I say to everyone who thinks the government's role is to force people to do the "right thing".

It isn't charity, it is force. It is the opposite of charity. It is nothing more than a bunch of lazy people unwilling to help people themselves, so they demand the government "help".

It's a pathetic and heartless society that replaces charity and compassion with force.

Sorry, maybe I worded things in a wrong way. I thought that with your example you were trying to say that "if state can't help every kind of disability then it shouldn't help anyone", and I don't think it's true.

A lot of things can be seen as "charity by force", like for example that a part of your taxes go to help poor people. If the state doesn't force citizen to help less lucky people then they would never get all the help they need (good and charitable people are the minority). Think of someone in a wheel chair, it could happen that he's surrounded by rude people and no one helps him entering in a store, with the ramp thing he's assured.
Also with the ramp he hasn't to ask help from other people. A lot of disabled persons don't ask help coz they don't want to feel they are a bother.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think ramps and bigger stalls with handles in the bathroom are great things and we should encourage businesses to provide them.

What I'm saying is it isn't the role of government to force a business to provide these things... especially if there is no need for them in the community.

I think you sell the majority short. Americans gave over $260 Billion last year. That is private donations, not counting trust fund money earmarked for charities.

For most business the added cost of providing ramps and wheelchair friendly facilities far outweighs what they are able to make in return.

Sorry to break the news to people, but businesses are run to make money, providing goods and services is merely the vehicle the owner chose to make a living.

When we put arbitrary (and often worthless) requirements on businesses we do more harm to our communities than good.

Charity and compassion are private decisions, not government institutions.

No, there is no "right" to be helped anymore than there is a "right" to force your compassion on someone else.

related resource: wheelchair ramps

Exactly, which is why it should be left up to community standards and private funding.

That could also work for the bathrooms. There are already local codes for bathrooms open to the public. It wouldn't be out of the question to amend those codes... but only for facitilies built after the code was amended, expo facto laws are still unconstititutional.

Your bathroom example brings up another situation I saw. One of the ambulance services I worked for decided to put a shower in the ambulance station. They shopped around and came up with a figure for what it would cost.

When the bids came in from local contruction and remodeling companies, they were all 3 times what the company budgeted for.

It turned out that, since the shower was going in a business, it had to be up to all the disability laws and regulations.

So what the company had to build was a shower that was wheelchair accessible, for EMT and Paramedic crews (which are excempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act). In other words, they had to spend 3 times what logic and need required.

Total idiocy!!

Okay, I really got a chuckle out of the shower. Since they are excempt, why? Unless they don't own the facilities? I've known that to happen. A company wants to update, but they don't own the building so the building owner needs to follow all the codes because then it's within code for whomever is rent/leasing from him.

I agree that these codes need to consider the older buildings. Most of these newer codes aren't in effect, for instance if an eating establishiment changes hands, it doesn't have to update their kitchen, if the business is sold as a whole; however, if the business is sold and parted out or remodled, then it would have to be up to the latest and greatest codes. There is a granfather clause in that instance, I don't understand why it doesn't apply to other things as well.

Yes, the company owned the building. The problem is, one size fits all, mindless regulations being enforced by mindless government officials.

Mindlessness and callousness in the name of compassion, that's all it is.

ljegbers: Would you support laws forcing you to give your time and money for the disabled (other than those related to you) against your will?

NOPE and it doesn't matter if they are related to me or not. The Laws are created from people that don't have a clue what it's like to live in the real world.

Then quit supporting laws that force others to!

I didn't think I stated I did.

"I do believe that all bathrooms should be wheelchair friendly...why? Because people, especially in smaller communities, will help someone into a building, but a person that is in a wheelchair should still have the freedom to have privacy of the bathroom."

You weren't as up for force as others, but by this quote I understand that you would advocate forcing a business to spend money on wheelchair friendly bathrooms.

If you would advocate force for that, I'm asking if you would advocate a law forcing you to spend money and time on helping the disabled.

Thanks for answering though, so far you're the only one who has.

Got it, now I understand where that came from. Thank you for repling back.

After thought here. Do you think that the public in general just accepts these laws and requirements because - well - because they ARE, not neccessarily because of the logic behind them, but just because these were law created so therefore they need to be followed?

I think a large part of these are just followed without question. I can say I agree with some, but others I want to pull my hair out because they just don't apply. I'm a member of the NIFB and they fight in congress all the time for small business owners. Again, it's paying dues to another organization, but at least I see progress.

I think most people just go along with them because they're afraid of being considered "heartless" if they don't.

Yes, it's law, but it's also fining people without due process. It's "feel good" bull crap and the opposite of compassion, fairness and charity.

Way to try to make my opinion a personal vendetta, as if my opinion is based on some kind of resentment.

The fact is, I applaud any and all businesses that make accomidations for their disabled clientelle. I applaud charitible organizations that work hard to make accessibility for disabled people a reality.

What I'm against is draconian bullcrap masked as compassion.

If you are for these laws, but have never once volunteered a dime of your own money to help companies make their facilities more accessible, then I strongly question any compassion you've ever had at all.

On the other hand, if you have donated your time, resources or money towards this, then I thank you and admire your compassion.

Force is never compassion nor is it charity. In fact, it is evidence of a poplution that doesn't give a crap.

Highflyingxangel: Would you support laws forcing you to give your time and money for the disabled, agaisnt your will?