Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2018 Item 15, Schmdt Aug. 31, 2018 Re: Anholm Bikeway Americans With Disabilities Act Issues Dear Council Members, On January 18, 2018, I wrote to you regarding potential violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act presented by an Anholm bikeway plan (cycle tracks or bike lanes) requiring massive removal of residential parking. I have heard nothing in response. On February 4, 2018, I wrote to Monica Irons, the city’s ADA Coordinator, on the same subject. I have heard nothing in response. In their latest staff report, for your Sept. 4 meeting, staff continues not to address conflicts between the dangerous cycle-track scheme with its wholesale parking removal and the ADA, which is a federal civil rights law. Where they mention the ADA in their latest report, it is unfortunately with propagandistic intent. As a person with disability whose ability to continue to live in his lifetime home could be taken away by removal of our neighborhood’s residential parking, I am writing to you again, to exhaust my administrative remedies, just in case you are tempted to proceed Tuesday with such an ill-advised cycle track scheme as the Active Transportation Committee has again put forth in place of doing what you directed them, to review and make constructive contributions to staff’s gentler bike boulevard proposal. The staff report would have you believe wholesale removal of parking does not violate the ADA. It says, “For ADA on-street parking, this plan is in full compliance with current ADA regulations.” (p. 329) That is intended to reassure you. But do you have any idea what that might mean? The ADA is a civil rights law, not a set of “regulations.” So staff is not telling you – indeed, cannot tell you -- the plan is consistent with the ADA. Perhaps they’re referring to ADAAG, a set of design guidelines that’s accepted for fulfilling much of what’s required under the ADA, but is not part of the ADA. But ADAAG is an incomplete set of design measures, and one of the places it has acknowledged gaps is with on-street parking. The lack of a design standard, however, does not give the city license to ignore ADA issues – ADAAG itself says as much, and the matter of denying on-street disabled parking on this pretext has been litigated in other California cities, and they’ve lost. I urge the council to get ahead of a possible litigation conflict by eliminating the issue which might cause such litigation – i.e., by taking the possible wholesale removal of our neighborhood’s residential parking off the table. To date, the city’s indifferent response to disability issues raised by this project has been most disappointing. When staff proclaims that loss of parking in front of one’s home can be compensated by knowing one can park in front of someone else’s house 1 1,000 feet from home, and carry groceries, kids, grandkids, or whatever from there, and that this might be “inconvenient” for the disabled, they’ve indicated total non- 2 understanding of the issue, as well as ageist, ablest prejudice. For the life of me, I cannot understand this stubborn refusal of the city to just treat residents with decency and kindness, instead of pushing its actions into the realm of the indecent, nasty, mean, unkind. What is gained from this? I was raised to treat people with greater respect than this. I hope you were too. A decent society especially cares for, values, and respects its vulnerable – children, disableds, old folks, the poor, etc. –, not make their lives miserable. A good city does not fill its seniors with terror and worry over how they can continue to live in their homes without street parking. Where’s your kindness, empathy, and decency? We are people too. If you are fortunate, you’ll be old some day too. If you are less fortunate, you may become disabled as well. Youth is fleeting. For the good of the community, you must eliminate from consideration those proposals that remove the parking many must have to continue to live at home. That is the right thing to do as there are other options that fulfill the city’s cycling goals just as well without harming those who will host a bikeway. And these options will enable you to respect and follow the ADA, as any good city should. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 1 Of course, we can’t park that far away if the city forces us into a parking district, which limits parking to one’s own or immediately adjacent blocks. So it seems staff doesn’t know the city’s regulations. 2 At geezer speed, it would take me about 2 hours to transport 10 bags of groceries from a point 1,000 feet from my home. Assuming I could even sustain such effort that long. Do you really think that qualifies as an acceptable “inconvenience?”