http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/…..n-delayed/
60 day delay, but I'm sure some of the hotels here have tiny pools, that it won't be worth it to them to install one of these. And how swimming pools affect interstate commerce, I'll never understand.
Would condo/apartment pools be considered “public” pools?
BreakPause02 said:
Would condo/apartment pools be considered “public” pools?
I'd hope not, but they consider hotel pools to be public and they most certainly are not. “Guests” can go anywhere so long as someone invites them in.
Another consideration is not just the cost of the lift, but some pools do not have lifeguards, or not at all time. There's no way in hell they could allow a parapelegic in a pool without a lifeguard, and a specially trained one. That will cost a lot more, and probably mean more closed pool time.
Every pool that I've been in Arlington has a life guard, usually an Eastern European (sometimes in a two piece.)
I've thought that Arlington has imposed some sort of requirement requiring lifeguards at pools.
novasteve said:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/…..n-delayed/
60 day delay, but I'm sure some of the hotels here have tiny pools, that it won't be worth it to them to install one of these. And how swimming pools affect interstate commerce, I'll never understand.
Sounds like an utterly retarded law.
I have a disability too- sunlight makes my skin burn and turn red. Are we going to get a law that all pools are required to have sun-blocking awnings so I can enjoy a a swim without getting sunburn or skin cancer?
I could wear sunblock, but isn't that the equivalent of a disabled person bringing his or her own tool to enter a pool, instead of relying on the pool owner to install a lift?
chipotle_addict said:
novasteve said:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/…..n-delayed/
60 day delay, but I'm sure some of the hotels here have tiny pools, that it won't be worth it to them to install one of these. And how swimming pools affect interstate commerce, I'll never understand.
Sounds like an utterly retarded law.
I have a disability too- sunlight makes my skin burn and turn red. Are we going to get a law that all pools are required to have sun-blocking awnings so I can enjoy a a swim without getting sunburn or skin cancer?
I could wear sunblock, but isn't that the equivalent of a disabled person bringing his or her own tool to enter a pool, instead of relying on the pool owner to install a lift?
I'm not so sure I like this law but I don't know enough about it to make a hard determination. There appear to be merits and there appear to be weaknesses in this.
Either way, to get into this conversation with someone who comes into the debate equating a paralysis of one's mobility to a sunburn, let's me know that such a conversation would be totally useless.
Can we all agree that this will possible cause some pools to close here and elsewhere due to the cost? is that good for society, given how we have an obesity crisis? There are some people who are not wheelchair bound that really can only exercise in pools, easier on the joints, etc… What happens to them if pools close?
Hastily-installed electronic lifts going in and out of water won't be good for anyone.
chipotle_addict said:
I have a disability too- sunlight makes my skin burn and turn red. Are we going to get a law that all pools are required to have sun-blocking awnings so I can enjoy a a swim without getting sunburn or skin cancer?
Being white isn't covered by the ADA.
The ADA is a mess, but it does a lot more good than harm. This sounds like a classic example of somebody's constituent complaining that pools aren't in compliance with the ADA and a bunch of congressmen being afraid to be labeled as anti-disabled people. It's like Norquist's tax pledge. (Most) Congressmen didn't sign it because they thought it was a good idea, they signed it because if they didn't they'd be attacked for it.
novasteve said:
Can we all agree that this will possible cause some pools to close here and elsewhere due to the cost? [trolly stuff]
No, because the ADA includes a provision which allows for exceptions in the case of extreme cost burden. If the pool owner can demonstrate that they can't install the device and still have the money to operate, they won't be required to install one.
Swag said:
novasteve said:
Can we all agree that this will possible cause some pools to close here and elsewhere due to the cost? [trolly stuff]
No, because the ADA includes a provision which allows for exceptions in the case of extreme cost burden. If the pool owner can demonstrate that they can’t install the device and still have the money to operate, they won’t be required to install one.
What is “extreme”?
Ever hear about those people who go around looking for ADA violations, then make a stink about it and cause huge financial burdens for the small businesses they target? Some of them close down, and face huge financial costs.
why don't they make the subway in NYC ADA compliant? You'd t ink that public transit would be more of a place they'd need this than SWIMMING POOLS.
Knowing how these things start, there is probably a large company that makes pool equipment that has hired a lawyer and a lobby firm (could be one in the same) to bring suit or to “assist” people in bringing suits related to pool access for the disabled in order to sell more of their ADA compliant pool lifts. As to the democratic aspect that you alluded to, I bet that the company/companies are members of the chamber of commerce, are against providing health care to their workers and supporting reduced regulations for companies as long as they can make more money. That's how it works now a days. It is cheaper for a company to lobby or use the courts than it is to invest in capital or hire more workers or develop new and better products. And it is the efficiency and effectiveness of these lawyers and lobbyist groups in getting the desired results for their clients is why to get a so-so crappy house in Arlington costs 750K and Dr Dremos is no more.
novasteve said:
Swag said:
No, because the ADA includes a provision which allows for exceptions in the case of extreme cost burden. If the pool owner can demonstrate that they can't install the device and still have the money to operate, they won't be required to install one.
What is “extreme”?
When you linked that three paragraph article about the university housing, it's almost understandable that you missed the part about it not really being only for homosexuals. Three paragraphs is a lot to read; if you read every article in its entirety before launching into knickers-twist mode and trolling this board, you wouldn't have time to post so much noise. But the post you quoted and replied to had TWO SENTENCES. One of which answered your question.
Read more, post less.
If the pool owner can demonstrate that they can't install the device and still have the money to operate, they won't be required to install one.
So if the pool owner has to cut back opperations to one week of open pool a year (instead of 3 months), it is still technically able to operate and must install the lift?
The wording is terrible and can and will be interpreted in multiple ways by lawyers, judges, and juries.
49°
Partly Cloudy
