Getting there is none of the fun (Disability Rights/Wheelchair Access)

[Guest guest]

Getting there is none of the fun

A lamppost in the fast lane? A curb blocking an offramp? On the

freeway it's a SigAlert. For wheelchair users, it's a typical day of

violated access laws.

By Dan Weikel, Times Staff Writer

November 13, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-disabled13nov13,1,3339992.story

When Lonberg travels the sidewalks outside his Riverside home,

he is constantly reminded of the inequities of being in a wheelchair.

Within sight of his home on Kloiber Street are at least a dozen

possible violations of civil rights laws that grant the disabled

equal access to public rights of way.

Buckled sidewalks obstruct his path, street corners lack wheelchair

ramps, and sloping driveways that cross sidewalks are difficult to

navigate.

" The city says there are other ways I can go, " said Lonberg, 69, who

has sued Riverside in federal court, alleging widespread violations

of federal access laws. " I'm not some gimp in a wheelchair

complaining about little things. These are real problems the

disabled encounter every time they go out of their homes. "

Lonberg and other activists within the handicapped community are

taking their fight to the public sidewalk — the latest battleground

in the disability rights movement. Over the last several years, they

have filed a series of federal lawsuits against local and state

governments to secure equal access to public rights of way, such as

sidewalks, crosswalks and park-and-rides. The latest case was lodged

against the California Department of Transportation in late August.

The activists assert that sidewalks are in such poor condition in

many cities that people in wheelchairs have to detour onto streets —

an illegal and risky undertaking.

Out of court, disability rights groups have negotiated agreements

with several cities to improve sidewalks, and the state attorney

general's office — based on continuing complaints — has sent letters

warning local governments to bolster their compliance with state and

federal access laws.

" As a society we've come a long way, " said Assistant Atty. Gen.

Louis Verdugo Jr., who heads the state's civil rights enforcement

unit. " But we still have a long way to go to create the

infrastructure that will continue to allow the disabled to be

mainstreamed. "

Government officials and powerful municipal organizations across the

country contend that the growing legal assault will further burden

financially strapped cities and counties already struggling to

accommodate the disabled.

They say hundreds of miles of sidewalks and crosswalks, many of them

built before access laws were passed, might now have to be upgraded.

The estimated cost in California alone is $2.5 billion.

" The cost of retrofitting is phenomenal, " said Hurley, a

Costa Mesa attorney who has represented local governments. " Where is

the money going to come from? "

Whether funding is available or not, federal, state and local

governments must comply with a variety of anti-discrimination laws

that have been on the books for years, even decades.

Those laws essentially require public agencies to develop detailed

access plans and install accommodations for the disabled whenever

sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian ways are built, repaired

or altered.

The accommodations include wheelchair ramps at curbs, level

pavement, gently sloping driveways, minimum clearances for

wheelchairs and crosswalk warnings for the vision-impaired.

The laws further require governments to expedite official complaints

from the disabled and maintain sidewalks and crosswalks in ways that

ensure accessibility.

" Some communities have decided to move on these plans, but most

don't have them for public rights of way, " said Gene Lozano, a vice

president of the nonprofit California Council for the Blind.

The council, along with Californians for Disability Rights Inc., is

now suing Caltrans, alleging repeated violations of federal and

state access laws, including the failure to draft an adequate plan

to fix public rights of way. The case seeks statewide corrections to

park-and-ride facilities as well as sidewalks and crosswalks along

major routes.

" I'm surprised that on the recent 16th anniversary of the Americans

With Disabilities Act, we are still fighting over sidewalk

availability, " said -Lee Kimber, an attorney for Disability

Rights Advocates, a Berkeley nonprofit.

Caltrans officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. In a prepared

statement, they said: " The department remains committed to

addressing the mobility needs of all Californians and takes

seriously its responsibilities under the Americans With Disabilities

Act. "

The lawsuit specifically mentions Pacific Coast Highway in Long

Beach and California 13, known in Berkeley as Ashby Avenue.

Attorneys for the disabled allege that wheelchair ramps at street

corners are missing or poorly built. Sidewalks on both highways,

they say, are strewn with obstacles, such as light poles, broken

pavement, signs and benches.

The suit also alleges that crosswalk warnings, such as bumpy

pavement and audible signals, are often missing or inadequate.

" Cars have narrowly missed me, and I've whacked a few of them with

my cane, " said Dimitri Belser, 48, of Berkeley, a plaintiff in the

Caltrans case who is legally blind. " Caltrans should put money into

making safe passages for people. I feel like a minnow in a pool of

sharks out there. "

As many as 300,000 people in California have serious vision

impairments. An additional 350,000 Californians use wheelchairs, and

about 700,000 rely on walkers, canes or crutches.

Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

indicate that several hundred wheelchair users are struck and

injured by motor vehicles every year. About a dozen or more are

killed, including several in California.

The figures are from a 1997 study and fatality data from 2004. They

do not reveal how many disabled people were hit while detouring onto

streets to avoid blocked sidewalks.

Nevertheless, disability rights advocates contend that many of those

accidents could have been avoided had sidewalks been accessible.

Such was the concern when Joan Barden and seven other people with

disabilities sued the city of Sacramento seven years ago in federal

court.

In the precedent-setting lawsuit, city officials agreed they needed

to install more wheelchair ramps but disputed whether they had to

remove sidewalk obstructions.

A U.S. District Court judge sided with the city, stating that

sidewalks were not a government " service, " " program " or " activity "

under the law, and thus not subject to federal access requirements.

An appeals court overturned the decision in June 2002, ruling that

the laws apply to anything that government does, including providing

and maintaining sidewalks. The decision agreed with the position of

the U.S. Justice Department.

As the case unfolded, it attracted the attention of such powerful

government interest groups as the National League of Cities, the

California League of Cities and the International Municipal Lawyers

Assn.

In court papers, the groups argued that Sacramento and other local

governments would lose the ability to prioritize improvements as

required by federal law and be saddled with the staggering price of

immediately refurbishing sidewalks across the country.

The groups hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in their favor.

But the high court declined to hear the case in June 2003.

Sacramento and Disability Rights Advocates settled the case. The

city agreed to spend 20% of its transportation budget — now about $7

million a year — for 30 years to provide ramps, adequate crosswalks

and sidewalk access.

Jerry Way, Sacramento's transportation director, said the city is

paying for improvements with gas and sales taxes without

jeopardizing major projects.

Similarly, officials in Emeryville said the Bay Area city and civil

rights activists worked out an affordable correction plan more than

two years ago, avoiding a lawsuit.

City Manager said the town committed $2 million from its

$100-million capital improvement budget for sidewalk projects.

" Rather than fight, " said, " we decided to work with them and

make the most important changes in the shortest amount of time. "

Lonberg, who was paralyzed below the waist by a drunk driver in

1983, would like the city of Riverside to take that approach. He is

still battling in federal court, nine years after he sued the city.

Hearings to determine monetary damages are set for February.

During the case, the city identified 12,400 barriers to the

disabled, including 7,300 missing curb ramps.

In March, U.S. District Judge J. Timlin rejected the city's

federally required access plan as inadequate and ordered a new one.

Under the law, governments were supposed to complete their access

plans in 1992.

" The city, over a period of years, has engaged in a pervasive

pattern of violating " the Americans With Disabilities Act and

related regulations, Timlin said.

Riverside has appealed the decision, arguing that Lonberg has no

legal right to challenge the city's plan, only illegal obstacles

that he has encountered.

Hurley, who represents the city, cites court rulings that state it

is possible for governments to draft inadequate plans and still

provide reasonable access for the disabled.

Lonberg's attorney, Terry Fitzpatrick, counters that access plans

are critical for making improvements, and that Congress intended

that individuals have the power to sue to enforce federal law.

" Here we are in 2006, " Lonberg said, " and Riverside has not written

the required evaluation or come up with a plan to fix the problems. "