@RepPoliquin voted for #HR620
Want to see what's in it?
#Readthebill #mepolitics #TWPSB #bond2018pic.twitter.com/tWVvSxPRog
Show this thread
-
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.
Show this thread
...and I have a feeling this isn't even why we have protesters for this bill. Let's move on to notice and cure.
-
-
-
-
(A) doesn't appear to be changing in a substantive way. It adds the (B)...which is a problem, we'll get to that. Subchapter is changed to title, section number has changed, but it may be the same language. The key word here is "futile". Before we get to that, let's sidebar.pic.twitter.com/IQeAEOqXRj
Show this thread -
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).
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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!
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
Back to the bill. Let's focus on "futile gestures".
Show this thread -
Here is a good part of why people are flippping their lids on this bill. It shifts the burden to the disabled person providing notice. But that sounds reasonable? Are the owners of "existing" public accomodations psychic? Why should they have to figure out what is wrong?pic.twitter.com/hivGMxzX5L
Show this thread -
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?Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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!
Show this thread -
Let's talk about the process. Step 1 - provide written notice to the owner or operator...let's just mull on this for a minute. Putting something in writing alone can be a futile gesture for many disabled folks. What if you have cognitive challenges? What if you can't write?pic.twitter.com/9pkyfASjUf
Show this thread -
There are probably at least a dozen totally inappropriate but functionally demonstrative
@nbcsnl skits if you are daft enough you cannot picture this problem.Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
The next part of the sentence requires the written notice be "specific enough" to "identify" the barrier. I don't do this sort of litigtion, but that looks like a massive field day in legal costs arguing specificity.pic.twitter.com/yMxfz4T07j
Show this thread -
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?
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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?
Show this thread -
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).
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
Oh look! More requirements, but on a different page. Simply splitting the requirement is a barrier. Pretend you have no attorney, you can't afford an attorney, and you just want to get into an apartment building that is the only one in town you can afford.pic.twitter.com/mwAbv0PQqm
Show this thread -
A lot of people wouldn't make it to this page and would just send their letter with the best specificity they can, wait 60 days and get a letter back saying "your request did not comply so we aren't doing sh*t".
Show this thread -
...or they would ignore it entirely, & if /when a suit is brought they can point to this section and say the letter was non-compliant. There is no affirmative requirement to respond if the letter is insufficient. There is no requirement to say why the letter is insufficient.
Show this thread -
The additional requirements: 1. Detail the circumstances you were actually denied access 2. Property address 3. Specific section of the ADA act being violated 4. Whether or not you requested assistance removing the barrier 5. Whether or not the barrier is permanent
Show this thread -
It is written so 2-5 are sort of subparts of 1 with "including", but they are really different things.
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.