Roundtable on ADA - legal requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act for building owners - Review and Forecast, Section III - Interview

Real Estate Weekly, June 24, 1992 by Therese Fitzgerald

The reality is that when many people in this climate hear that it's a good faith issue, they may feel that they've done their good faith by just examining a little bit and saying. "Well, I can't do this. I need to spend money on the shrubbery because, otherwise, the salesman aren't going to come to see me and I'm not going to be able to sell my product which is going to keep me in business."

So I think that part of what we need to do is to explain to people - as kind of as ambassadors of this law - that it's nor so scary, that it can be accomplished without very great efforts, that it can be accomplished over time, and that it will accrue some benefits to people, whether they are benefits that come in tax dollars, public relations, or that can get them to operate more efficiently with new clients or new workers in their workplace. I really think that this is good propaganda that we have to be doing.

Rizzo: It's certainly a marketing tool for real estate brokers to say, "The building across the street is not in compliance, and you're not going to have problem with the building that I'm going to show you."

One of the concerns as far as tenants and landlords I see is that a tenant, before he will sign a lease, is certainly concerned that the building is in a level of compliance satisfactorily for his potential employees, but, more importantly, we're coming to find that the tenant is also concerned that whether monies the landlord may have to spend over a period of several years is not going to be redistributed to all the tenants in the building as a pass-along cost. So we're finding that clause in the lease.

Maybe the attorneys can address that question - how a tenant is looking at the impact of all the monies for compliance that may be disturbed over a period of many years, but may be a few million dollars and their concern that they not be pro-rated back to them.

Who Pays for Compliance

Kandel: I think that's a very fair observation. I think that it depends on what particular work there is to be done. For example, you can have the situation with Local Law 5 - hook-up with the Class E system - where you'll have a full-tenant floor, and the tenants may put in the wiring for that floor, but finds out when he wants to hook up to the main system downstairs that there's inadequate power. Should that be the tenant's responsibility to upgrade the Class E system or the landlord's responsibility? I think something of that order is in the nature of a landlord requirement, and the tenant would argue that he was not the one who triggered the requirement to upgrade the system. He's only obligated to make his system function, and he wants to be sure that the landlord can meet it, and put the burden to the landlord. The landlord may or may not say, "I'm going to charge you," but he may make a $60 work letter $58, or the market may require him to keep it at $60 and eat it.

There's a fluid business climate out there which will address these economic issues, I think in a way which will not differentiate property.