HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/2024 Item 6b, Schmidt
Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda Correspondence Item 6b
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dec. 9, 2024
Dear Council,
Re: Item 6b -- Americans With Disabilities Act Remediation Budget Request
I am asking that the new budget include a new line item – funds sufficient for the city to fulfill its obligations under the
Americans With Disabilities Act to provide proper access in the pedestrian public right of way for persons with disabilities.
I am further requesting that such line item be understood to be a continuing one obligating the city to continue to fund
such improvements until they are completed city-wide.
In specific, I request that the amount of $3 million (indexed for construction inflation) be so allocated annually
until this task is completed.
Even at that rate of expenditure, the city would have a decade or more to go before being close to compliance with ADA
PROWAG (ADA Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines).
The city should consider this the right thing to do. After all, the city claims it cares about such things.
The city must also consider this is the legally-required thing to do. Following laws can’t be “balanced” against wants and
desires for other forms of optional spending.
1
The city also might consider this a pre-litigation settlement-on-the-cheap to avoid more intrusive and costly results of
litigation that’s sure to come if the city continues on its present course. By which I mean that by doing in good faith what
the law requires instead of resisting, as our city does now, our city can avoid becoming another Sacramento. That bull-
headed city fought requests for public right of way accommodations all the way to the supreme court, only to have to
settle for spending 20% of its transport budget on disability sidewalk accommodations for the next 30 years! Think what
something like that would do to your budget.
Why is this necessary? The ADA became law in 1990, 34 years ago, but even before that there were laws requiring
things like accessible sidewalk corner ramps. So, after some 40 years one would think the city would have completed this
straight-forward task.
Well, the city hasn’t completed even corner ramps. How do I know? I have two alternative morning street walks, one about
2 miles, the other about 1 mile. So let’s say about 3 miles of city streets. In that 3 miles there are 37 corners with no
corner ramps. There are also additional T-intersections where there are ramps at the T, but no connecting ramps across
the continuing street. So let’s say that in my 3 mile route there are about 50 missing ramps.
That is disgraceful, and the city should be ashamed.
Yet the city has no plan to complete this work. At present it installs corner ramps only when an individual makes a specific
request, which means to avoid litigation (and even then the “improvement” may take years to get done), or when streets
are modified, which is a requirement under state and federal laws including the ADA guidelines.
The curb ramp deficits are city-wide. How deep is the deficit? I have concluded the city doesn’t even know. In 2018, I
asked the city how many pedestrian corners there are with and without curb cuts. I was told there are
• 2,436 locations at intersections where pedestrians may cross the street.
• 526 or 22% with no ramp.
• 1207 or 50% have ramps that don’t meet ADA guidelines.
• 703 or 29% have ADA compliant ramps.
That to me was shocking: only 29% compliance, and 22% with zero effort at compliance. (OK, the percentages count up
to 101%, I guess due to rounding.)
Now, get this: In 2024 I requested the same information, and was given the same numbers, with the statement “We have
not updated our count since 2019.” Or even earlier than 2019, it would seem.
2
So, in this regard the city simply isn’t minding the store. It lacks even facts about its own required ADA
activities. You can, and must, do lots better.
Beyond “just ramps.” I’ve focused on ramps, but there are also other issues:
• Mal-design of ramps so they flood, fill with debris, become dangerous to users.
• Mal-design of ramps so they are unusable by the blind. Ramps aren’t just for wheelchairs and walker-using
pedestrians.
• Over focus on replacing existing ramps that have some perceived deficiency rather than providing ramps
where there are none. For example, the majority of the 40+/- ramps funded by the Anholm project were
replacements for existing ramps; whole streets were left with no ramp improvements, and even some corners
directly on the project were left with no ramp upon the project’s completion.
• Lack of action to maintain public sidewalks in safe and accessible condition.
• Unwillingness of the city to listen to criticisms of its ADA PROWAG policies and products, and treating those
who approach the city in good will with great disrespect. (See this if you haven’t. Realize many others treated
this way would have turned to a lawyer rather than an op-ed column.)
So, it would seem it would be the right thing, the prudent thing, and a very good thing, for the city to establish
the dedicated line-item funding requested for completing its ADA public right of way accessibility obligations.
Thank you.
Richard Schmidt
3