|
|
|
|
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday,
October 6, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
Recent news coverage
of the reported decision of the owners of Unasked and, thus,
unanswered is the question of how this new facility could have been designed,
constructed and approved without meeting building standards that were in
effect many years before the facility was built. And for those who
direct their anger at the lawsuit -- what recourse do they believe people
whose access has been denied should have? Should they simply ignore
violations? Should there be no accountability? When noncompliant buildings are
constructed, frustration should be directed to those responsible -- owners,
architects, contractors, building inspectors -- rather than those whose rights
are violated. The tenants cite
"mounting legal costs" of a disability access lawsuit as the reason for the
closure. Most likely, they have spent more money paying their own attorneys
than they would have making the facility accessible. What would the public
response be if - Eric Gelber, |
|