[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Re: Handicapped Access

Kathy Bilton wrote:

> I had never actually looked at the ADA before, but was prompted to do
> so
> as a result of reading the messages here... Here's a quote from it:
>
> "(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies,
> practices,
> or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such
> goods,
> services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to
> individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that
> making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such
>
> goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
> accommodations;"
> (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/statute.html)
>

   Kathy, thanks for going to original sources & adding something to the
discussion.

I find it interesting that there's a lot of sound and fury about lawyers
on this issue, but no one has cited even a single effort to trouble the
AT community or the ATC with a lawsuit in this matter.  The only thing I
know that actually happened to prompt all this discussion was the
introduction of a resolution by a member at the biannual ATC meeting to
allow pack animals on the trail to facilitate handicapped access.  It
was (I am told) rejected by the large majority.

People have correctly referenced the fact that the ADA was specifically
designed to be enforced through civil action rather than through the
establishment or designation of a federal enforcement agency.  This was
something of an experiment, based on a growing disatisfaction in this
country with how enforcment agencies carry out there work.

We are also concerned, however, with what seems to be an overly
litigious environment.  The problem is, if we're going to make
collective decisions regarding public resources and matters of
recognized public interest, we have to design some means of enforcing
those decisions.  It's difficult, and it's going to cost something, no
matter how you do it.

I think this discussion has had a very positive aspect, in that it has
helped us refine our collective understanding of the AT in regard to the
needs of physically disabled people.  I agree with Kathy and others who
have argued that accessibility modifications would alter the fundamental
nature of the AT, and thus are not required under the law.  I believe
this is also the position of the ATC.

I am bothered, though, when we rail against "lawyers" or "bureaucrats",
as if they have stolen our ability to affect the issues.  On the whole,
that has not been the experience with the AT.  To act as if it has is
almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, reducing our capacity to act in
maintaining a trail and trail experience worthy of the efforts of those
who labored before us.

- Priest

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================