OT - Anyone here own a restaurant?

I'd hate to come home to find the neighborhood kids jumping on my
expensive pool cover. Not fun! It's amazing what they get for pool
covers (www.pool-covers1.com) and they don't bounce nearly as good as a
trampoline (http://trampoline.ws/)

Jay Honeck wrote:

Sara and I do plan to come visit ya in late 06 or 07. We'll try to
behave...


Thanks! We'll look forward to your visit.

And I don't want anyone to think that the type of behavior I describe is
common -- far from it. But when you see thousands of guests each year, you
run into ALL kinds.

Thousands of guests each year! And I thought you said you weren't
making any money in the hotel business!! :-)

Matt

Sylvain wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Because the place was built in '79-'80, we are grand-fathered out of
many laws.


yep, but not of the ADA (there is no grand father clause in there);

check it out if you don't believe me,

As I said earlier, I haven't had to read it in about 15 years, but
shortly after it was enacted someone told us we had to make our 100 year
old church building handicap accessible. This was simply not
economically possible. A little research quickly showed that we didn't,
in fact, have to do that. I don't remember now what the out was, but
there was an out and we confirmed it with several sources.

Maybe the law has been amended since then, but I doubt it. Almost every
restaurant within 20 miles of where I live isn't ADA compliant.

Matt

Sylvain wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Because the place was built in '79-'80, we are grand-fathered out of
many laws.


yep, but not of the ADA (there is no grand father clause in there);

check it out if you don't believe me,

You are simply wrong. I just did a 60 second search and found this at
the DOJ web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q%26aeng02.htm
What part of "readily achievable" don't you understand? :-)


Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's barrier removal requirements
for existing facilities?

A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is "readily
achievable" to do so.


Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean?

A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without
much difficulty or expense."


Q. What are examples of the types of modifications that would be readily
achievable in most cases?

A. Examples include the simple ramping of a few steps, the installation
of grab bars where only routine reinforcement of the wall is required,
the lowering of telephones, and similar modest adjustments.


Q. Will businesses need to rearrange furniture and display racks?

A. Possibly. For example, restaurants may need to rearrange tables and
department stores may need to adjust their layout of racks and shelves
in order to permit access to wheelchair users.


Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?

A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install
elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is
unlikely in most cases.


Q. When barrier removal is not readily achievable, what kinds of
alternative steps are required by the ADA?

A. Alternatives may include such measures as in-store assistance for
removing articles from inaccessible shelves, home delivery of groceries,
or coming to the door to receive or return dry cleaning.


Q. Must alternative steps be taken without regard to cost?

A. No, only readily achievable alternative steps must be undertaken.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Why do you close the pool at sunset? In the middle of August a quick
swim at 10pm is a joy.


That's not a hard and fast rule -- but we bill ourselves as a "quiet
romantic getaway" -- so we don't want 15 guys whooping and hollering in
the pool at midnight, when our guests are trying to sleep.

What is romantic about sleeping at 10PM? :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
the DOJ web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q%26aeng02.htm
What part of "readily achievable" don't you understand? :-)

and what part of 'there is no grand father clause' do you not
understand? and which part of 'prohibit exclusion, segregation, and
unequal treatment' do you not understand?

If Jay is willing to bet his business on a 30 seconds google
search, it is his call. But hey, you are the specialist
obviously, and willing to provide Jay with legal advice, your
call to. All I am saying is that the matter might be worth
15mn of a lawyers time, rather than relying on hearsay; I am
even willing to bet that amount with Jay: if I am wrong, I'll
pay the 15mn laywers time, if I am right, I got a night free
at the inn, what do you say?

--Sylvain

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
What is romantic about sleeping at 10PM? :-)


The dreams...


Montblack

Sylvain wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

the DOJ web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q%26aeng02.htm
What part of "readily achievable" don't you understand? :-)


and what part of 'there is no grand father clause' do you not
understand? and which part of 'prohibit exclusion, segregation, and
unequal treatment' do you not understand?

I understand it quite well as I showed with the post that backed up my
earlier comment. Buildings that existed prior to ADA and which can't be
"readily" brought into ADA compliance are grandfathered and can be
left as is. Do you understand what "grandfather" means in this context?


If Jay is willing to bet his business on a 30 seconds google
search, it is his call. But hey, you are the specialist
obviously, and willing to provide Jay with legal advice, your
call to. All I am saying is that the matter might be worth
15mn of a lawyers time, rather than relying on hearsay; I am
even willing to bet that amount with Jay: if I am wrong, I'll
pay the 15mn laywers time, if I am right, I got a night free
at the inn, what do you say?

He wouldn't be betting it on a 30 second Google search, he'd be betting
it on the US Department of Justice. I'd say this is a pretty reliable
and authoritative source where the ADA is concerned. And I didn't
provide Jay or anyone else with legal advice. I provided a link to a
page at the DOJ site which addressed the topic at hand.

You really need to polish up on your reading comprehension.

I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on anything a lawyer would say as they
aren't the one's who enforce the ADA.


Matt

Sylvain wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

the DOJ web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q%26aeng02.htm
What part of "readily achievable" don't you understand? :-)


and what part of 'there is no grand father clause' do you not
understand? and which part of 'prohibit exclusion, segregation, and
unequal treatment' do you not understand?

If Jay is willing to bet his business on a 30 seconds google
search, it is his call. But hey, you are the specialist
obviously, and willing to provide Jay with legal advice, your
call to. All I am saying is that the matter might be worth
15mn of a lawyers time, rather than relying on hearsay; I am
even willing to bet that amount with Jay: if I am wrong, I'll
pay the 15mn laywers time, if I am right, I got a night free
at the inn, what do you say?

Why don't you post a credible link that supports your assertion that Jay
is violating the ADA?


Matt

Yes. Kids at day care are not put in cages, ignored, and taken for a
walk every six hours.

Hmmmm... We must have been using different daycares...

Ever notice how much a crib looks like a cage from the side?

Well put.

Which, BTW, is precisely the reason we scrimped and ate beans so that Mary
could stay home with the kids when they were little. Some of the day cares
we checked out looked a little too much like prisons for kids...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"