HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/2023 Item 6a, Schmidt, R.
From:Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Downtown parking discussion -- garage autopay system affronts ADA
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council,
Although it seems as if staff is trying to tie the Council to talking only about what they want to talk about regarding
downtown parking, I hope the council realizes there’s much more that needs to be talked about.
One such item is the simple fact that the new automated payment system in the Chinatown garage is an affront to the
Americans With Disabilities Act, and, I suspect, an attorney so inclined could have a lot of fun in court at the city’s
expense. I have raised this matter with parking staff, and been shined on. So I’m bringing it to your attention to fix before
this same faulty payment system is expanded to other garages.
So what’s the problem?
Under the old payment system, a disabled person would take a ticket upon entry, park, go wherever, return, unpark and
drive to the gate where money would be exchanged person to person. For the disabled person, this one-size-fits-all
system worked because of the human element that could accommodate anything that needed to be accommodated.
Under the new improved high tech we’re-as-up-to-date-as-Kansas-City system, the payment attendant is gone. The new
one-size-fits-all system requires one to park, go to a kiosk and pay an inanimate object. That in most cases involves
traipsing around the garage to find a kiosk, then figure out how to use it (which the city knows is problematical since it
seems to feel the need to have two employees on hand at all times to “assist” – and how that is better than having a
single payment attendant at a gate frankly escapes me). It’s the traipsing around to get to a kiosk that’s a major ADA
affront, especially since the routes to a kiosk don’t (with the exception of the two parking spaces just inside the garage)
meet ADA accessible pathway standards, and also require walking some distance to pay, which is a barrier compared to
paying from one’s car window. This, like so much of what the city proudly does this days, is an ableist move, ableism
being discrimination in favor of the able bodied.
The city’s attitude, rather than to recognize the problem, is “use the app,” but that presents a new set of disability barriers
including 1, the implied requirement that a disabled person must have a thousand dollar smart phone to be entitled to use
the city’s disability parking spaces; 2, the assumption one will have an appropriate app on such phone – and for visitors
and infrequent users of the parking that’s certainly an issue; and 3, the assumption that all users have the skill and ability
to use such app, which seems ageist (given the high proportion of aged persons among the disabled) on top of being
ableist. So NO, “the app” is not the answer, it’s another barrier.
1
The premise of the ADA is to remove barriers to full inclusion, but the city’s kiosk-pay system erects new barriers that
weren’t there before, so it affronts the ADA in that regard. And it also doesn’t survive the basic ADA test of having an
“accessible route” to and from designated parking spaces, as there is no accessible route between the five surface lot
spaces and either kiosk. So that’s an explicit barrier, and illegality, created by the new system. (There are lots of other
ADA issues with this garage, including the fact ADA standards require it to have 9 accessible spaces but the city only
claims 8, and of those 5 don’t appear to meet minimum cross-slope standards for disability parking, and a sixth is
questionable for other reasons. Which means there may be only 2 conforming parking spots instead of the required 9.)
I don’t think the council gets good information from staff on disability matters, so it’s incumbent on the council members to
learn some of this stuff so you can question what staff’s telling you. There are definitely factual misunderstandings on
staff’s part. Earlier this year council received a lengthy Official City Document from staff, San Luis Obispo Access &
Parking Management Plan Update, which was chock full of stuff like this:
“Accessible Parking
“Disabled Person parking placards and plates allow the use of designated on-street (blue curb) and off-street Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces, preferential parking permit zone spaces, and any on-street time-restricted spaces at no
charge.”
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/33815/638119822786600000
The claim a disabled person can park in any off-street disability parking space “at no charge” is flat out false. Were it true,
I’d not be writing this letter. So when official city documents contain such utter bologna, which is both contradicted by
other official city documents and indicates the document’s authors don’t take great care in what they tell you, can the
council really trust those same sources for good counsel about that subject? I leave that to you to decide, but urge you to
fix the ADA problems presented by the garage automated pay system, and prevent their spread to additional garages.
Richard Schmidt
2