years, that the disabled population is segregated from the rest of society, and that "discrimination against individuals with disabilities continues to be a serious and pervasive social problem." (See section 2 "Findings and Purposes," (a)(2).) I disagree totally with this premise. It has been my experience that with determination and hard word--and with the support of family, church, friends, and voluntary associations--disabled individuals can succeed and have succeeded in today's society in such areas as education, professional achievement, emotional fulfillment, etc. Attitudes have changed and sensitivity has been developed toward the disabled. There are more opportunities than there have ever been and disabled individuals are enjoying the mainstream of society to a great degree. I believe that the supporters of the ADA are sincere in their desire to afford disabled individuals the opportunity to participate in all aspects of society. Supporters believe that to ensure the disabled their "rights," the Federal government must implement sweeping reforms and legislate change. Instead, the bill will create administrative and regulatory burdens on the private sector, will encroach on free enterprise, and will expand an already swollen Federal bureaucracy. Sure, it's not easy for me sometimes. And sometimes I have to wait patiently for the doors of opportunity to open. But the doors are opening and they are opening without such a broadsweeping Federal law. Private businesses should not be required to make my life easier at their own expense. Even though advances have been made, the needs of the disabled in assimilating with an ablebodied society are still great. And the ADA is a response to this need. However, it is still wrong to sacrifice the legitimate rights of others to meet this apparent need. The ends do not justify the means. Moreover, with time, much of the need will be addressed by businesses choosing to provide accommoda tions. This "quick fix" may provide a surface cure for the problem, but it could result in a discriminatory attitude--and more importantly, it will undermine the constitutional rights of many. I would love to wave a magic wand and make my life and the lives of fellow disabled individuals easier. But not if it means requiring others to sacrifice their constitutional freedom. the one tie that binds both disabled and able-bodied alike in And On behalf of The American Institute of Architects, the professional association representing the nation's architects, I would like to suggest improvements to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 8.933/8.R.2273 (the ADA bill), specifically to the alterations section of Title II concerning public services, and to Title III, the public accommodations title. The AIA supports the legislation's intent, and believes that Congress should act to accomplish it. We are concerned, however, that it needs clarification and revision to facilitate compliance and to reduce unnecessary liability for architects. 1. Readily Achievable Removal of Architectural Barriers The legislation requires existing buildings and facilities to remove architectural barriers, upon enactment, if the removals are "readily achievable" which means that they would not cost very much and would not be difficult to do. The AIA is concerned that whereas many barriers singly are easy and inexpensive to remove, many facilities may have a combination of barriers or multiple barriers of the same type, for which removal could impose a significant cost. The legislation could clear up this problem by requiring that removals of combinations of barriers or of multiple barriers of the same type within a single facility could be phased over time or handled as an alteration. 2. Alterations vs. Major Structural Alterations The ADA bill requires that 12 months after enactment, alterations to a building or facility must make the altered area readily accessible and usable, and that major structural alterations in addition must include an accessible path of travel to the altered area. The reason for setting forth the differences in types of alterations was so that a small renovation would not by itself trigger a much more costly project to make the path of travel accessible. Unfortunately, the legislation fails to accomplish its purpose. The legislation provides no way of determining when an alteration becomes a major structural alteration, although the report language attempts to make a distinction by describing the structural elements that would be considered to fall under the provisions for major structural alterations. The ADA fails to distinguish between structural elements (load-bearing walls, beans, etc. ) and architectural elements (doors and windows), and thus it is possible that a small scale, inexpensive alteration that consists of dropping a ceiling or replacing windows, could trigger a much more complex and costly project to make the route to the altered area accessible. 36-873 0-91-15 1735 NEW YORK ATNUE, NW. WASHINGTON, DC 20006 (202) 636-7310 • DALE (202) 783-8247 Page Two October 26, 1989 The legislation should refer to "major alterations" not "major structural alterations" and base the difference between a minor and a major alteration on the cost and scope of the alteration, and the degree to which it affects a facility's usability and accessibility. Historic Preservation The The ADA bill makes no provision for historic properties. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) provides that when an alteration is undertaken for an historic property, certain accessibility features should be incorporated, unless to do so would threaten or destroy its historical integrity. Other accessibility alternatives must then be substituted. ADA bill should apply such a standard for historic properties it covers, if they are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, or designated historic pursuant to state or local law. A reference to UFAS or an equivalent standard should suffice. Transition Rule When the ADA becomes law, it will apply to many projects already under design, but not yet constructed. These projects may be required to comply, and thus undergo costly and complicated redesign. Because the regulations will not yet be promulgated, the projects' architects will be unclear as to what must be done to make the projects comply. The AIA proposes that all projects currently under design should be exempt from requirements of the act, but those receiving a design contract after the date of enactment should comply by the effective dates established in the bill for new construction and alteration. In addition, to provide a safe harbor for architects designing projects after enactment of the bill but before issuance of final regulations, the bill should provide that conformance to the standards of the American National Standards Institute Al17.1 1986 or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) should be deemed sufficient, though not necessary, for compliance with the legislation. These standards for handicapped access design are well-understood and accepted within the design profession. Enforcement/Liability The ADA bill passed by the Senate permits courts to consider good faith efforts to comply with the legislation, in hearing complaints brought against individuals under the measure. This is not enough. Architects should have some official determination that they have complied with the legislation, and this determination should constitute a defense against charges of discrimination. This protection can be easily accomplished. The Department of Justice, on the application of a state or locality, could certify that the state or local ordinance meets the minimum standards of the legislation. Page Three October 26, 1989 The legislation should also provide that architects and others who receive state or local certification that their projects have complied with a DOJ-certified state or local handicapped access law should have a strong defense against complaints of discrimination. The AIA believes that the above revisions are important to the successful achievement of the ADA's objectives. I appreciate your consideration of our suggestions. Sincerely, mes P. Cramer, Hon. AIA Executive Vice President/CEO JPC/dr |