Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Too close to the issue?..I live the issue.
As does my mother, as I said, I'm not taking fault with the motivation for the act, but rather those that choose to intentionally exploit it or to use it to do what's been laid out in the OP.
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Too close is like excluding a cancer patient from any discussion around therapies because... they're "too close" to cancer and incapable of being unbiased.
No, because those therapies aren't having an unintended impact on other people, those two things aren't close to the same. This is a well meaning government initiative that has unfortunately been used to cause harm outside of the areas in which it was meant to help. I think we can agree on that.
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
I'm not blinded, what I read are random brain droppings about how the ADA has ruined some able bodied persons life or hypotheticals about how wheelchair people are gonna get Half Dome shut down.. almost like there's this deep state of disabled persons out to get able bodies....‚... Besides, the thread title literally says "...due to the Disabilities act" and not "..due to some yahoo idiot"..if the focus of the thread and ensuing discussion was about people using the ADA to exact some agenda for personal enrichment, than I could go there with you on that because I do believe that is a problem, albeit not a significant one but a problem none the less.....
But that's NOT what the thread was titled nor is it found anywhere in it's opening statement.
No, but that's where the thread seemed to head. Perhaps it could (should) have been titled better, but I didn't get a feeling the OP was out to get disabled folks because their act was causing the loss of these towers, rather that the Act was being used to remove them due to poor interpretation. In my mind that's grounds for an amendment, not any sort of initiate against the act itself or the folks whose lives it aims to improve
Fair points... and the people that do exploit the ACT for some personal gain are dirt bags IMO. That's not what it was intended for and legislative clarification to mitigate this might be called for.
I don't understand why the tower isn't designated a historical landmark? That designation carries with it some flexibility when it comes to compliance/rehabbing and the ADA. But who knows, maybe they looked into that and it wasn't a viable option for some reason.🤔