Disabled access rule may close some hotel pools

[didymus]

The USA Today:

Disabled access rule may close some hotel pools

Hoteliers must have pool lifts to provide disabled people equal access to pools and whirlpools, or at least have a plan in place to acquire a lift. If they don’t, they face possible civil penalties of as much as $55,000.
There are about 51,000 hotels, according to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, and most have pools.

The lifts are required by regulations made in 2010 stemming from the Americans With Disabilities Act, a civil rights law that bans discrimination based on disability.
With just days before the deadline, some hotels are considering shutting their pools or whirlpools to avoid penalties or possible lawsuits.

The 93-room Town & Country Inn in Quincy, Ill., for instance, has halted reopening its newly renovated pool and whirlpool for fear that it would buy the wrong type of lift and not meet the new rule.
“If we have to close our pool for a month, that’s fine,” says Dax Fohey, the hotel’s general manager. “Our pool is a nice amenity, but it’s not the main feature.”
A pool lift costs $3,000 to $6,000. New hotels, which fall under different rules, are being constructed with built-in lifts.

The hotel industry’s main lobby group, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, has asked the Justice Department to delay the deadline, but an extension isn’t likely.
“They’ve had quite a bit of time to do their planning,” says Eve Hill, deputy chief of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. “If they have legitimate reasons in good faith that they can’t comply, then that will be taken into account.”

I can understand the handicapped point of view but this seems like good intentions gone wrong. How many handicapped folk can/want to swim? Once a hotel installs a lift will they have to retrain lifeguards to deal w/ various disabilities?

 

[sedonaman]

Tyranny of the minority is the logical consequence of radical egalitarianism.

 

[sedonaman]

In an attempt to make handicapped persons equal to non-handicapped persons, the law has instead turned non-handicapped persons into handicapped ones by denying them the enjoyment of the pool. It is harder to raise the lowly than to reduce the more capable, so the latter must be brought down so that all are equal. This is socialistic.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, my father became paralyzed from the waist down, back in 1964, long before the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, came into being.

He was immediately out of work, and pretty much home bound, because back then, there were no handicapped parking spots, access to movie theaters, shopping centers and you name it.

Fact is, nothing changed until the ADA became law.

People with disabilities desire to swim as much if not more than those without disabilities.

It makes no sense for a company to build a new facility, with providing access to handicapped people.

OH and BTW, my 31 year old son has Cerebral Palsy. Thanks to the ADA, he was able to work most of his life, until the disability prevented him from doing so, drive a car, and go just about anywhere he wants.

Jim

 

[runningdude]

In an attempt to make handicapped persons equal to non-handicapped persons, the law has instead turned non-handicapped persons into handicapped ones by denying them the enjoyment of the pool. It is harder to raise the lowly than to reduce the more capable, so the latter must be brought down so that all are equal. This is socialistic.

I don’t think you can honestly say that not having access to a pool is a “disability” .

Many hotels with pools also spend several thousand dollars a piece on exercise equipment for their guests. A pool lift seems to be within this ballpark, and probably wouldn’t be an undo burden. The law just requires a slightly more equitable distribution of funds already being invested in maintaining recreation equipment.

Also, owning a pool is also already an expensive proposition. Hotels don’t build them if they don’t already have the resources to maintain them. Adding a lift means a just little more money each month in financing and lets more people get to enjoy it - money well spent!

 

[runningdude]

Well, my father became paralyzed from the waist down, back in 1964, long before the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, came into being.

He was immediately out of work, and pretty much home bound, because back then, there were no handicapped parking spots, access to movie theaters, shopping centers and you name it.

Fact is, nothing changed until the ADA became law.

People with disabilities desire to swim as much if not more than those without disabilities.

It makes no sense for a company to build a new facility, with providing access to handicapped people.

OH and BTW, my 31 year old son has Cerebral Palsy. Thanks to the ADA, he was able to work most of his life, until the disability prevented him from doing so, drive a car, and go just about anywhere he wants.

Jim

Before the ADA and other pedestrian safety regulations, sidewalks weren’t even specifically required to have curb cuts. A person in a wheel chair, though otherwise able to go out, might have been stuck at home simply because he or she couldn’t get over a 5 inch curb!

All because a town or city might not have thought to put a simple curb cut (small ramp from street - $50 worth of concrete) in at a regular intervals…

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t think you can honestly say that not having access to a pool is a “disability” .
…

The OP said,

With just days before the deadline, some hotels are considering shutting their pools or whirlpools to avoid penalties or possible lawsuits.

They are “disabled” in the sense that they have been made equal to the handicapped in not being able to use a pool.

 

[losh14]

I’m of mixed mind about this. I’d like to see greater disabled access because that allows more people to enjoy such public and private benefits. There’s also possibly a competitive advantage - especially as more older Americans require handicapped assistance. But I also know that none of this comes easily or cheaply, and I’m dubious that access to a swimming pool at a privately owned hotel which lawfully discrimates pool access to hotel guests is a civil right. But it has been so-decided.

Like many things in government, there’s a disconnect when it comes to carrying it out. There’s a tendency to view something that’s called a right as something to be done without regard to cost. Nothing can be done without regard to cost. Yes, some hotels will close their pools altogether, as I’m sure when ADA was initially passed some businesses closed because they couldn’t implement the changes in the required timeline. I’d like to see the Justice Department be realistic about this - yes the rule was passed in 2010, but for a small hotel (93 rooms) that doesn’t get a lot of business (Quincy, Illinois) and is hurting more in a down economy, spending $6k on a pool lift can be a tough proposition. Give them another 2-year extension. Even require that they pay $200/month into a restricted account for the purposes of paying for the lift. Or set up a program through Small Business Administration to arrange financing - these are loans that a bank may not be willing to make to a business that’s hurting because it’s not going to add to their competitiveness or profitability. In other words, move the ruling from a mandate to a cooperative.

 

[mary_bobo]

I travel quite a lot and I check before I sign up for a place to stay what amenities they offer. All hotels/motels are not the same and one can hardly expect all of them to have a pool. I guess that is the solution–no pool at all. Next thing, the government will be demanding that hotels must have a pool.

 

[sedonaman]

I’m of mixed mind about this. I’d like to see greater disabled access because that allows more people to enjoy such public and private benefits. There’s also possibly a competitive advantage - especially as more older Americans require handicapped assistance. But I also know that none of this comes easily or cheaply, and I’m dubious that access to a swimming pool at a privately owned hotel which lawfully discrimates pool access to hotel guests is a civil right. But it has been so-decided.

Like many things in government, there’s a disconnect when it comes to carrying it out. There’s a tendency to view something that’s called a right as something to be done without regard to cost. Nothing can be done without regard to cost. Yes, some hotels will close their pools altogether, as I’m sure when ADA was initially passed some businesses closed because they couldn’t implement the changes in the required timeline. I’d like to see the Justice Department be realistic about this - yes the rule was passed in 2010, but for a small hotel (93 rooms) that doesn’t get a lot of business (Quincy, Illinois) and is hurting more in a down economy, spending $6k on a pool lift can be a tough proposition. Give them another 2-year extension. Even require that they pay $200/month into a restricted account for the purposes of paying for the lift. Or set up a program through Small Business Administration to arrange financing - these are loans that a bank may not be willing to make to a business that’s hurting because it’s not going to add to their competitiveness or profitability. In other words, move the ruling from a mandate to a cooperative.

The “Justice” Department is not interested in real justice in these types of cases, or it would consider something along the lines that you suggest. The only justice it is interested in “justifying” its existence, like all bureaucracies.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

And what happens when a disabled person, now having pool access, becomes injured or - God forbid - drowns, because they’re in the water but lack full control over their bodies? Another bonanza for personal injury lawyers – and perhaps the next regulatory step, which would be for hotels / motels to provide mandatory lifeguards and supervisors and perhaps even swimming assistants. No more “Use of these facilities is at your own risk” in our increasing nanny state.

 

[Marie5890]

How many handicapped folk can/want to swim? Once a hotel installs a lift will they have to retrain lifeguards to deal w/ various disabilities?

A lot of us. For many of us, it’s the only form of exercise we can get.

 

[Marie5890]

Well, my father became paralyzed from the waist down, back in 1964, long before the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, came into being.

He was immediately out of work, and pretty much home bound, because back then, there were no handicapped parking spots, access to movie theaters, shopping centers and you name it.

Fact is, nothing changed until the ADA became law.

People with disabilities desire to swim as much if not more than those without disabilities.

It makes no sense for a company to build a new facility, with providing access to handicapped people.

OH and BTW, my 31 year old son has Cerebral Palsy. Thanks to the ADA, he was able to work most of his life, until the disability prevented him from doing so, drive a car, and go just about anywhere he wants.

Jim

Thank you. 40 year paraplegic here. Love to swim

People forget that “disabled” is an umbrella term

It could mean MS, MD, Paraplegic, stroke victim, quadraplegic, CP etc etc etc.

There is still a boat load of stereoptyping when people hear the word “disabled”

 

[Marie5890]

And what happens when a disabled person, now having pool access, becomes injured or - God forbid - drowns, because they’re in the water but lack full control over their bodies?

In complete fraternal and charitable correction, your comment speaks of a great deal of ignorance when it comes to those of us who …ummm…“lack full control over our bodies”…

 

[sedonaman]

… Another bonanza for personal injury lawyers …

That’s what all these laws are for: more lawsuits requiring even more lawyers. A few years ago, the University of California Irvine lobbied the state legislature for a new law school. Meanwhile, there is a crying need for more medical professionals, mainly nurses. But nurses don’t make large alumni donations.

 

[manualman]

The ADA was a well intentioned law prompted by genuine injustices. But few people realize how many thousands of dollars and opportunities it costs them.

Been to a National Park before? Enjoyed those rugged mountain trails and breathtaking views? Good! But it’s a good thing they already exist because they couldn’t be established anymore today. New public recreational facilities are required to provide at least 2/3 of the entrances as “accessible” which means no pathways narrower than 3 feet wide, more than 2% side slope or more than 8.3% long slope.

Got a fantastic mountain view and the funds to build a scenic hiker’s overlook? Forget about it unless you have 50 times the budget it once cost and can get permits to blow up half the mountain to build ramp switchbacks to get up there.

There really do need to be some sanity thresholds restored into regulations like this.
The only reason that this hasn’t resulted in armed revolution is that they shrewdly exempted private residences so that individual voters will stay ignorant of how much this law really costs us in compliance.

There was a high school near me that a couple years ago had to delay for months opening their brand new football stadium because the PRESS BOX at the top of the bleachers didn’t have an elevator to get to it. Someone complained and the state attorney general advised that if they opened the facility without providing access to the press box, they’d be liable for fines. They had to retrofit tens of thousands of dollars worth of lift equipment just IN CASE an announcer some day was handicapped. Stories like this never end when you listen for them.

 

[losh14]

And what happens when a disabled person, now having pool access, becomes injured or - God forbid - drowns, because they’re in the water but lack full control over their bodies?

Aaarghh… that’s certainly got to be on the minds of hotel owners. I don’t think there are specific regulations protecting hotel owners who act in good faith to provide safe facilities - in other words I think the protection brought by the “NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY - SWIM AT OWN RISK” signs is debatable in litigation. And like you point out:

Another bonanza for personal injury lawyers

It does seem like Congress can behave at times like a bunch of lawyers making business for other lawyers.

I have to wonder if there’s some protection for accidental drownings or slip-and-falls in bathtubs within the rooms, regardless of whether there are handicapped-accessible features to the bathtub.

 

[Marie5890]

The ADA was a well intentioned law prompted by genuine injustices. But few people realize how many thousands of dollars and opportunities it costs them.

Been to a National Park before? Enjoyed those rugged mountain trails and breathtaking views? Good! But it’s a good thing they already exist because they couldn’t be established anymore today. New public recreational facilities are required to provide at least 2/3 of the entrances as “accessible” which means no pathways narrower than 3 feet wide, more than 2% side slope or more than 8.3% long slope.

Got a fantastic mountain view and the funds to build a scenic hiker’s overlook? Forget about it unless you have 50 times the budget it once cost and can get permits to blow up half the mountain to build ramp switchbacks to get up there.

There really do need to be some sanity thresholds restored into regulations like this.
The only reason that this hasn’t resulted in armed revolution is that they shrewdly exempted private residences so that individual voters will stay ignorant of how much this law really costs us in compliance.

There was a high school near me that a couple years ago had to delay for months opening their brand new football stadium because the PRESS BOX at the top of the bleachers didn’t have an elevator to get to it. Someone complained and the state attorney general advised that if they opened the facility without providing access to the press box, they’d be liable for fines. They had to retrofit tens of thousands of dollars worth of lift equipment just IN CASE an announcer some day was handicapped. Stories like this never end when you listen for them.

You do have a valid point that is it much much cheaper to keep people who happen to have some form of disability marginalized in society.

It’s also cheaper to use artificial contraception that to have children…

It all depends on what our society and culture value

 

[losh14]

There was a high school near me that a couple years ago had to delay for months opening their brand new football stadium because the PRESS BOX at the top of the bleachers didn’t have an elevator to get to it. Someone complained and the state attorney general advised that if they opened the facility without providing access to the press box, they’d be liable for fines. They had to retrofit tens of thousands of dollars worth of lift equipment just IN CASE an announcer some day was handicapped. Stories like this never end when you listen for them.

So much of the law being applied is a matter of it being complained about. I bring this up only as example, not to switch topics. The Catholic universities that fund contraception as birth control on their health plans do so usually because they’ve been sued or threatened with lawsuit. There is actually a guideline from the EEOC - not a law in the sense of something that’s been passed by the Congress, but a mandate handed down by non-elected appointees - that dates back to the Bush administration that requires contraception to be covered for therapeutic as well as birth control reasons on health plans. But it’s only enforced through the Courts currently.

 

[losh14]

You do have a valid point that is it much much cheaper to keep people who happen to have some form of disability marginalized in society.

It’s also cheaper to use artificial contraception that to have children…

It all depends on what our society and culture value

I just want laws to reflect some reasonable expectation, especially in the implementation. Ideally, everyone would have full access to all that society offers, but we’ve got to keep in mind constraints of money, time, and likelihood to use. It’s also a shame to cut back on what most are allowed to do because some cannot - while I feel for those who are marginalized by disability, I also feel for those who lose access to what they had when the intent was to provide a service that most could use, not that some were intentionally left out of.

Here’s an example that seems ridiculous, but turns out to be quite cool:
Consider paintball courses. Not at all disabled-friendly. Rugged terrain, rough play, you’re getting shot at, and playing well means you have to take cover. Players who aren’t agile are going to get hurt. The nature of the game isn’t to make some lose out, but rather to give those who want to play a very specific experience.

Should we close down paintball courses that aren’t wheelchair-accessible…
…or should we do something really cool for wheelchair-bound players:
customers.hbci.com/~tyger/paintball/panzer.html