ADA comes to City meetings
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: ADA comes to City meetings

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    Posts
    449

    Default ADA comes to City meetings

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in July, 1990.

    Tonight, September 11, 2017, the Eureka Springs City Council voted (4-2) to move all city meetings to The AUD lobby until a permanent accessible location is available.

    The ADA does not require anyone to complain before compliance is obtained. And yet, for 27 years, through 6 Mayors and 78+ members of council (some serving more than one term), council and commissions have met in a closet-like room that required many people to sit in a hallway; that made it difficult, if not impossible, for people with hearing impairments to follow proceedings because participants sat around a table talking to one another; and that required nonambulatory people to use a step climber if they wanted to attend a meeting. When these discussions at council began a few weeks (months?) ago, at least one member remarked that most people were satisfied (or words to that effect). And yet, no minimum number of people with disabilities is required before the law applies...it just does!

    You have read about the Mayor and Council looking at alternative sites to meet, sites that are more accessible. They (and their predecessors) should have done this years ago...but didn't. Not until Joyce and Eric Knowles stepped up. Because of their perseverance, an ADA Grievance Committee was created. We met a few weeks ago and determined that the Council had to move immediately to the AUD and to be in a permanent location by January 1. They ignored our findings.

    Tonight didn't happen because there was a sudden awakening. Though some council members wanted to move forward, until tonight there were not enough. The last time this came up, the Mayor sided with the "not move" members

    But a federal lawsuit was to be filed tomorrow morning. The Municipal League attorney recommended that the city decide now - perhaps because he didn't want to try to defend the City in an ADA discrimination lawsuit. Still, two council members voted no...feeling like they were being backed into a corner.

    I am pleased that city meetings will have greater accessibiliry...for the physical as well as the hearing impaired. But I am sorry that those in our community who have any disability have had to wait so long...and have had to endure the indifference of our government; and I am embarrassed that the threat of an imminent lawsuit was needed to accomplish what should have been done willingly decades ago.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    eureka springs ar usa
    Posts
    12,126

    Default

    Is the lobby big enough or is Council meaning the bar area upstairs?
    celeste

    Cherish home and family as a special treasure.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,562

    Default

    View Lamont's take on the current City Councils actions in regards to ADA compliance and the move to meet them to date on this issue with caution.... His bombastic accusations and pious grand standing on all that is the current city government is tainted by personal motives.

    The motives of two in this town to create an 'emergency' to meet ADA instead of letting council meet the requirements with a long term solid solution was for what? It is and was obvious by the meetings of council in the past months that the ADA compliance was being addressed so this 'legal' threat and manipulation of not only the two citizens but several others was unfounded and over reaction.
    Ego on the part of the two citizens to create legal jeopardy for the city to not take immediate action is questionable in purpose? If it has not been addressed in over 20 years what difference does a couple months make when a permanent fiscal responsible solution was in the works?


    This is not a damning statement on the need to meet ADA, it is one addressing the ill conceived notion to not let the current council remedy the long standing situation. From the first request at public comments by a small group of ADA citizens this year to this council that council began addressing in a prudent and fiscal manner the request. The two noted in Lamont's post and a few others behind them pushed the issue to have council and all the Commission meetings jump to meet ADA for a few months before the permanent solution could be finalized. Why the rush now after 20 years? It was being addressed by this Mayor and Council and a time line was noted.
    Last edited by David Mitchell; 09-12-2017 at 08:47 AM. Reason: forgot

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    In My Pile of Stuff
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Mitchell View Post
    View Lamont's take on the current City Councils actions in regards to ADA compliance and the move to meet them to date on this issue with caution.... His bombastic accusations and pious grand standing on all that is the current city government is tainted by personal motives.

    The motives of two in this town to create an 'emergency' to meet ADA instead of letting council meet the requirements with a long term solid solution was for what? It is and was obvious by the meetings of council in the past months that the ADA compliance was being addressed so this 'legal' threat and manipulation of not only the two citizens but several others was unfounded and over reaction.
    Ego on the part of the two citizens to create legal jeopardy for the city to not take immediate action is questionable in purpose? If it has not been addressed in over 20 years what difference does a couple months make when a permanent fiscal responsible solution was in the works?


    This is not a damning statement on the need to meet ADA, it is one addressing the ill conceived notion to not let the current council remedy the long standing situation. From the first request at public comments by a small group of ADA citizens this year to this council that council began addressing in a prudent and fiscal manner the request. The two noted in Lamont's post and a few others behind them pushed the issue to have council and all the Commission meetings jump to meet ADA for a few months before the permanent solution could be finalized. Why the rush now after 20 years? It was being addressed by this Mayor and Council and a time line was noted.
    Oh I don't know.... Maybe to pissoff little pricks like you. Because we all know IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT YOU. 🖕

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In my own little world.
    Posts
    9,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Mitchell View Post
    View Lamont's take on the current City Councils actions in regards to ADA compliance and the move to meet them to date on this issue with caution.... His bombastic accusations and pious grand standing on all that is the current city government is tainted by personal motives.

    The motives of two in this town to create an 'emergency' to meet ADA instead of letting council meet the requirements with a long term solid solution was for what? It is and was obvious by the meetings of council in the past months that the ADA compliance was being addressed so this 'legal' threat and manipulation of not only the two citizens but several others was unfounded and over reaction.
    Ego on the part of the two citizens to create legal jeopardy for the city to not take immediate action is questionable in purpose? If it has not been addressed in over 20 years what difference does a couple months make when a permanent fiscal responsible solution was in the works?


    This is not a damning statement on the need to meet ADA, it is one addressing the ill conceived notion to not let the current council remedy the long standing situation. From the first request at public comments by a small group of ADA citizens this year to this council that council began addressing in a prudent and fiscal manner the request. The two noted in Lamont's post and a few others behind them pushed the issue to have council and all the Commission meetings jump to meet ADA for a few months before the permanent solution could be finalized. Why the rush now after 20 years? It was being addressed by this Mayor and Council and a time line was noted.
    Bullshit Mitchell, the city has kicked the can down the road for so many years there is little doubt it would continue. I have seen many complaints right here on this forum about how unhappy people are about the council meetings being held in a location that citizens could not participate in without jumping through hoops.
    ****Even if the voices aren't real, they have some really good ideas! ****
    Arguing on Geekfest is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that while you are getting dirty, the pig is actually enjoying it.
    I'm sorry for whatever I did to make you think I give a shit about your feelings.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    7,258

    Thumbs up Lamont

    Quote Originally Posted by David Mitchell View Post
    View Lamont's take on the current City Councils actions in regards to ADA compliance and the move to meet them to date on this issue with caution.... His bombastic accusations and pious grand standing on all that is the current city government is tainted by personal motives.

    The motives of two in this town to create an 'emergency' to meet ADA instead of letting council meet the requirements with a long term solid solution was for what? It is and was obvious by the meetings of council in the past months that the ADA compliance was being addressed so this 'legal' threat and manipulation of not only the two citizens but several others was unfounded and over reaction.
    Ego on the part of the two citizens to create legal jeopardy for the city to not take immediate action is questionable in purpose? If it has not been addressed in over 20 years what difference does a couple months make when a permanent fiscal responsible solution was in the works?


    This is not a damning statement on the need to meet ADA, it is one addressing the ill conceived notion to not let the current council remedy the long standing situation. From the first request at public comments by a small group of ADA citizens this year to this council that council began addressing in a prudent and fiscal manner the request. The two noted in Lamont's post and a few others behind them pushed the issue to have council and all the Commission meetings jump to meet ADA for a few months before the permanent solution could be finalized. Why the rush now after 20 years? It was being addressed by this Mayor and Council and a time line was noted.
    As someone who lived with a wheelchair in our household for many years, 20 years was to long. I do not see Lamont's actions as "grand standing" as much as an over-due kick in the ass.

    Before you (David) or anyone else brings up the old - you're not from Eureka anymore, I saw first hand how scary the "ride" up those steps were for my late wife when we lived in ES. This action was way overdue.
    Last edited by Max Boydstun; 09-12-2017 at 10:43 AM.
    "Ride On"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,562

    Default

    You who have posted since my first post are missing my point. It is not about the city being in compliance with ADA, it is not what was or was not done for years, it is about this City Council and how this City Council has handled the issue since first presented about two months ago. This City Council was/is actively addressing the issue since presented and if it has been an issue for over 20 years then allowing this City Council to remedy the issue in less than 6 months total was not unreasonable.

    The fix under consideration at present if you watched the council meeting last pm will be permanent, fiscally prudent and of an quality and not a hurried up patch.
    Threatening a lawsuit to implement a temporary move to the Aud. is unnecessary.

    I see the usual cast of negative bashers is still present.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by U.D.Cide View Post
    Oh I don't know.... Maybe to pissoff little pricks like you. Because we all know IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT YOU. ��
    I see you still attack and avoid any meaningful discussion..

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Boydstun View Post
    As someone who lived with a wheelchair in our household for many years, 20 years was to long. I do not see Lamont's actions as "grand standing" as much as an over-due kick in the ass.

    Before you (David) or anyone else brings up the old - you're not from Eureka anymore, I saw first hand how scary the "ride" up those steps were for my late wife when we lived in ES. This action was way overdue.

    "I am not from Eureka anymore? " Ok the ride up the stairs is not good, the fix we are discussing and close to finalizing was not ride up stairs and a lot more. THe AUD is still a ride up stairs and for what 6 months after over 20 years........ that is the issue I was making clear, the threatened lawsuit for immediate fix was unwarranted..... period.......... and the motive for immediate is what if you can allow it to go on for over 20 years? ?????????????????????? really

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Eureka Springs, Ar, USA
    Posts
    987

    Default

    It would appear that meeting in the AUD is a good short term approach with a long term solution to follow soon. Council will always take no financial action unless threatened with legal action. That is the historic approach.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •