Another wilderness tower torn down due to disabilities act

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
...as these towers are condemned and removed.

See the link to the tower I posted ? It was built in 2011 and in less than 10 years, major issues were found with it requiring it to be repaired at a cost almost the same as the original structure cost. It only recently reopened.


The ones I am concerned with were build before WWII and have been structurally sound until the last 10 years of neglecting minor repairs and maintenance


About half of the towers built are still in place, there have been a lot of poor decisions made by the parks and dnr in the last 20 (which is no small part due to legislative decisions from above)

 

[Geauxtiger]

I bet the great majority of those old fire towers are not even remotely accessible by wheelchair. For the fire towers I have visited, climbing the steps to the top was the easy part of the hike!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Chris142
It's from people like this guy. He lives in my town. We have 86'd him from our shop. Don't need the headache.

https://youtu.be/vThW4G_IZsM


That guy is disabled all right ... in the head. Shoots his own dog instead of having a Vet humanly euthanize, then claims PTSD.

Guy needs to be thrown in jail for scamming and ripping people off.

 

[John_K]

I have a handicapped tag on my car. I have occasionally politely pointed out to store mgmt that their parking did not meed ADA guidelines. But tearing these towers down is idiotic,.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Chris142
It's from people like this guy. He lives in my town. We have 86'd him from our shop. Don't need the headache.

https://youtu.be/vThW4G_IZsM


That guy is disabled all right ... in the head. Shoots his own dog instead of having a Vet humanly euthanize, then claims PTSD.

Guy needs to be thrown in jail for scamming and ripping people off.


This has been a cottage industry in California for quite some time. A felon jailhouse lawyer (not a real lawyer) sued numerous mom and pop businesses for years in California. Cali multiplies the federal penalty of $1000 by 4. This guy would sue on behalf of himself (he had a prosthetic leg), an acquaintance, and his company, Americans with Disabilities Advocates (abbreviated ADA, sound like something else?) adding another multiplier for a total of $12,000 plus legal expenses. He sued 26 of the 27 wineries in El Dorado County.
After the wineries were served, the local winery association brought a lawyer to an emergency meeting with the wineries ostensibly to fight him. Once together, the lawyer stated if they fought him they would have to pay 10s of thousands in legal fees, would probably lose, and she, for a fee, could negotiate a reduced settlement. Over 20 of the wineries settled immediately. The 2 I am aware of that didn't prevailed against him.
In my informed opinion, the lawyer that came to the association meeting was in league with the felon. I was able to get the case against my parents tiny winery dismissed, with prejudice at no cost to us, with significant legal cost to the felon.
He worked this scam for years, getting settlements from these "cost of defense" lawsuits. I believe he was shut down when he finally couldn't avoid going before a judge.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

What am I missing? The principle reason cited in the article for tear down is it's structurally unsound. Even if there wasn't a disabled person on the planet the structure has to come down.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by Chris142
It's from people like this guy. He lives in my town. We have 86'd him from our shop. Don't need the headache.

https://youtu.be/vThW4G_IZsM


Pretty sure he's the same [censored] that has gotten historic restaurants closed down (including Roy's Drive In in Salinas, and the circa-1900 On Lock Sam's in Stockton).

I hope he gets cancer and I hope it kills him really slowly and painfully.

 

[gman2304]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by Chris142
It's from people like this guy. He lives in my town. We have 86'd him from our shop. Don't need the headache.

https://youtu.be/vThW4G_IZsM


Pretty sure he's the same [censored] that has gotten historic restaurants closed down (including Roy's Drive In in Salinas, and the circa-1900 On Lock Sam's in Stockton).

I hope he gets cancer and I hope it kills him really slowly and painfully.
. Dang Jarl.....that's harsh even for you!

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
What am I missing? The principle reason cited in the article for tear down is it's structurally unsound. Even if there wasn't a disabled person on the planet the structure has to come down.


Reread the original post. They don't need to be torn down. They can be repaired at minimal cost. The agencies fear repairing them will trigger the ADA, which would require roads, parking lots, elevators and who knows what else. It's much easier to eliminate them for everyone than to pay the huge expense to make them ADA compliant.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
What am I missing? The principle reason cited in the article for tear down is it's structurally unsound. Even if there wasn't a disabled person on the planet the structure has to come down.


The cost to repair the tower is 1/12 the cost to built per ADA

We already HAVE FUNDING FOR REPAIRS

We do not have the 12x more to rebuild

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
What am I missing? The principle reason cited in the article for tear down is it's structurally unsound. Even if there wasn't a disabled person on the planet the structure has to come down.


Reread the original post. They don't need to be torn down. They can be repaired at minimal cost. The agencies fear repairing them will trigger the ADA, which would require roads, parking lots, elevators and who knows what else. It's much easier to eliminate them for everyone than to pay the huge expense to make them ADA compliant.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

I did read the original post and it a) was found to be structurally unsound and b) retrofitting would trigger ADA concerns.

No matter what, something must be done about it. Fact is, the Americans with Disabilities Act didn't cause the tower to unsuitable for use. Fwiw, i could give a hoot what happens to it either way but to suggest that the ADA is the cause for the structure coming down is being disingenuous.

 

[Chris142]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by Chris142
It's from people like this guy. He lives in my town. We have 86'd him from our shop. Don't need the headache.

https://youtu.be/vThW4G_IZsM


Pretty sure he's the same [censored] that has gotten historic restaurants closed down (including Roy's Drive In in Salinas, and the circa-1900 On Lock Sam's in Stockton).

I hope he gets cancer and I hope it kills him really slowly and painfully.
he sued a small mom and pop restaurant. Nearly put them out of business. Fortunately the people around here came to their rescue and basically ate at their restaurant to help them pay the fines. He sued them because the paint where the handicapped parking is worn away and caused him mental distress. One local company that stripes parking lots redid the paint for him.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

ADA is exactly the cause of it coming down if they aren't able to come up with a solution. 10 days and $250k to repair and it would be structurally sound. But in order to be ADA compliant it would take $3.5 million, which is not going to be spent. By what possible stretch of logic can you not blame the ADA for it being taken down?
Now if you could say the $250k wouldn't be spent on repairs even if the ADA wasn't triggered, you would have a point. But that isn't the case.

 

[53' Stude]

Chris142: I hope people like this get their due sooner than later.

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
ADA is exactly the cause of it coming down

Now if you could say the $250k wouldn't be spent on repairs even if the ADA wasn't triggered, you would have a point. But that isn't the case.


What's worse is the case of the Eagle tower saga which played out over a span of a decade. (And actually still playing out now that funding has been secured)

In that case the tower was found to be structurally sound but the state put a hard line that no maintenance or investment would be applied to a non-ADA tower and they set up a call for donations to get $$$ to build a handicap accessible replacement.
This funding drive initially failed (nobody wanted a different tower)
then they waited on maintenance until they could declare the tower unsafe.


I see again that Eagle tower replacement concepts are being presented and it says funding is secured so maybe it will finally get replaced, although it will be a much smaller tower, ah well better than nothing but still at a very high cost to the taxpayer.


This is apart of a pattern, I am uncertain what purpose this serves and can only figure its sour grapes over budget cuts and a neirdowell wanting to upgrade historical park assets?

Ah well, what can you do?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
No matter what, something must be done about it. Fact is, the Americans with Disabilities Act didn't cause the tower to unsuitable for use. Fwiw, i could give a hoot what happens to it either way but to suggest that the ADA is the cause for the structure coming down is being disingenuous.


But the ADA has thrown a wrench into it, and has forced a path forward. If the funding isn't there to repair and at the same time make it ADA compliant, then the only other options are to either put a fence around it to prevent access and further rot (although some people will trespass anyway, opening liability), or just tear it down. Tearing it down is the forced best solution.

If some agency said your house had to comply with some modification to live in or sell it, but it cost so much money that you couldn't comply, then what are you going to do. And you'd probably blame them for losing your house.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
ADA is exactly the cause of it coming down if they aren't able to come up with a solution. 10 days and $250k to repair and it would be structurally sound. But in order to be ADA compliant it would take $3.5 million, which is not going to be spent. By what possible stretch of logic can you not blame the ADA for it being taken down?
Now if you could say the $250k wouldn't be spent on repairs even if the ADA wasn't triggered, you would have a point. But that isn't the case.

The ADA didn't cause it to rot.

/end of discussion

 

[bbhero]

You are deliberately ignoring the other part of this circumstance...

Having stated that... I have a illness that can make walking not easy at times... Or not possible.

I have to understand I am not like everyone else. I have to be careful not to over do it or be exposed to heat for long periods of time. That was very hard to do when I was 23 years old... And totally blind in my left eye. But I had to learn what was reasonable and what was not. I do not expect a unreasonable accommodation that would take away from what others could possibly enjoy.... That is just being selfish. And that is a HUGE problem in this nation right now...

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
No matter what, something must be done about it. Fact is, the Americans with Disabilities Act didn't cause the tower to unsuitable for use. Fwiw, i could give a hoot what happens to it either way but to suggest that the ADA is the cause for the structure coming down is being disingenuous.


But the ADA has thrown a wrench into it, and has forced a path forward. If the funding isn't there to repair and at the same time make it ADA compliant, then the only other options are to either put a fence around it to prevent access and further rot (although some people will trespass anyway, opening liability), or just tear it down. Tearing it down is the forced best solution.

If some agency said your house had to comply with some modification to live in or sell it, but it cost so much money that you couldn't comply, then what are you going to do. And you'd probably blame them for losing your house.

Why doesn't the local association nominate it for historic landmark? Historical landmarks have much more leeway when it comes to the ADA and rehabilitation. (you don't have to make mods that change what makes it historic or unique like say, putting in an elevator to accommodate a wheelchair if that mod changes features unique to the structure).

Generally speaking, a building or landmark needs to only be at least 50yrs old and have a particular historical value or interest to the city/municipality or be associated with individuals who have historical value to the city and its development.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by bbhero
You are deliberately ignoring the other part of this circumstance...

Having stated that... I have a illness that can make walking not easy at times... Or not possible.

I have to understand I am not like everyone else. I have to be careful not to over do it or be exposed to heat for long periods of time. That was very hard to do when I was 23 years old... And totally blind in my left eye. But I had to learn what was reasonable and what was not. I do not expect a unreasonable accommodation that would take away from what others could possibly enjoy.... That is just being selfish. And that is a HUGE problem in this nation right now...

I feel ya..but don't ya think lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives (passed it unanimously) and the Senate (passed it 76-8) contemplated this very scenario when the ADA became law in 1990? I'm sure they had the forethought and wisdom to realize that you can please some of the people most of the time but you can't please all the people all of the time....

I'm sure the good the ADA has done for people like you, far outweighs the bad.