Tiffany Bond  🦞 🇺🇸Verified account

There is almost no guidance for this ginormous new thing. It permits the "training for professionals such as Certified Access Specialists to provide a guidance of remediation for potential violations" of the ADA.

If you take unspecified "existing funds" from presumably needed programs, and redirect them to a vague, huge I guess you could call it a "goal"...that's a very efficient way to create massive governmental waste, fraud, nepotism, and money laundering for the extra ambitious.

We have no oversight, no structure, no reporting, no data request, no specified targets. Who wrote this? Someone suggest a career in collecting elephant dung.

...and I have a feeling this isn't even why we have protesters for this bill. Let's move on to notice and cure.

Lots of law can have multiple references. It's sort of a bother for referencing/cross-referencing. Looking it all up is an excellent thing to outsource (and would certainly speed up my reading from my present meandering stroll).

I'm not verifying here because I've already decided this is bad enough I wouldn't vote for it. I'll cover the rest of the highlights, but it's time consuming and my guess if that these differences aren't the flaming torches.

It is a completely reasonable expectation for your federal delegation to outsource perfunctory tasks. It is also reasonable to have interns, staffers, other knowledge sources read and give feedback on bills. Heck, make a bill book club!

It is *not* reasonable at any point in time to vote on something you haven't read when that is your job. Right now, lots of reps are doing that. It's not ok. Demand more. Demand proficiency in bill-reading and a commitment to read every single thing they vote on. Every. One.

If a rep is not provided enough time, they should say that. If they don't understand, they should say that too. We have time! The executive branch has emergency powers for things that don't have time for deliberative law. Demand law that is thoughtful & well-considered.

Back to the bill. Let's focus on "futile gestures".

The ADA isn't new...it became law in 1990. I'm 41 now, I wasn't even old enough to drive. We were still excited about tearing walls down instead of building them in 1990. @PearlJam was just forming. Where were you in 1990? More importantly, how big was your hair?

This is for *existing* public accommodations...we are talking about things that likely violated code to beging with if built since 1990, or people who have had more than a quarter century to figure out that there are disabled people in public spaces.

In yet another shock, disabled people are disabled. For many disabled people, life feels like a futile gesture. Merely getting a donut in NYC can be a 5 hour debacle in a wheelchair. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LhpUJRGrZgc …

This states that you can't start an action based on failure to remove an architectural barrier to access for an existing public accommodation until you've gone through a process...despite being on notice since 1990 such things must be handled NOT by the disabled person.

It would be understandable if this were new law, we had just implemented it, it was a nightmare and we needed to revisit it. Just chant this for the rest of this tweet. 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 Seriously, why are we even doing this? 1990 1990 1990!

There are probably at least a dozen totally inappropriate but functionally demonstrative @nbcsnl skits if you are daft enough you cannot picture this problem.

Have any of you tried to figure out who the owner or operator of an accomodation is before? Sometimes it's easy peasy. Sometimes it's a series of complex LLC to PO Box in Delaware affairs that requires way more than the Hardy Boys to resolve.

Ask yourself how would you write about the doo-hickey thing that's all trippy and part metal with some wood kind of by the door?

Most non-disabled adults would struggle with this requirement. No really, they would. I have a remodeling habit and still have to play charades at home depot for parts on occasion.

You'd better send it certified mail, because they have 60 days to give a written description of what they will do to fix it or make "substantial progress" removing the barrier within 120 days. WTF is substantial progress? Who decides that? When does it have to be done?

There doesn't appear to be any sort of finite date for completion, so I suppose this is where an owner sort of shrugs and says "well, we made substantial process, what's your problem"...forcing the litigation burden back on the disabled person(s).

For clarity, you can provide the description on day 60 and then 120 more days for "substantial progress"...the disabled person is out 180 days after they figured out how to write a letter that is specific enough.

This bill shred alone should show you how easy it is to take a bill written and passed by a majority in the House, and demonstrate it lacking specificity needed to understand properly. Imagine a disabled person being held to similar or higher standards.