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

I think that there's some forward thinking here, In addition to that, the political being what it is, the time was right and it happened. I think between the statute and the regulations , it's pretty well reasoned, but you either accept the premise or you don't.

Kandel: I also think that the time frame that's involved allows the amortization of these expenses. It's not necessarily a one-shoot investment that has to be made. If you have existing conditions, you have the privilege to determine whether it's readily achievable. A million-square-foot building may develop a five-or-seven-year program to implement what the survey tells us it needs to come into conformity with the law. That becomes a fairly reasonable period for the annual capital budget that a building has. "Gee, we're already going to do the fifth floor. We might as well now do it to the standard. That take care of that cost."

What's the extra cost? It's hard to assess. I think the question of cost probably comes in particularly in a place like Manhattan. A small retail operator, if he has consulted someone other than his spouse, to lay out the tables in the store, or the lacks, he has done it so as to put as many racks, as many tables into that space as he can. The act contemplates a suburban environment where land costs are not as dear. You can kind of put that extra half-foot around the table so that anyone coming in can have easy access to services and whatnot. There you get a little bit of confusion and tension.

One of the things that I think the act will draw out is this greater consciousness of the area. People will be more comfortable speaking up. If a person comes into a retail establishment and can't get access, he'll let the proprietor know. If the proprietor has his head where his heart is, he'll say. "Gee, I ought to do something to help this out," and start to make the accommodations, because that's what his customers want.

Rizzo: I think that's the answer I was really looking for to get out of this, because, yes, this is really a longer-term process. Even the law itself says that if you do have only two or three years left on the balance of your lease, that's real key element in making a determination of whether it's readily achievable or not.

Davenport: I don't think they actually specify, though, two or three years. Do they? They talk about the length of time being one of the factors, but I wouldn't want to see in print that it is two or three years.

Employer Requirements

Korval: But the fact that Title III is out ahead a little bit timewise ahead of Title I, I think is going to be very helpful to employers - Whether they be in the property management business or small building owners - because as they bring themselves into compliance with barrier removal, construction obligations on the public accommodation front, they'll already be achieving accessibility accommodations that their employees may otherwise be asking for under ADA [Title I].

Weisman: I think a huge problem with the attitudinal thing, the approach problem, was caused by two things. One is the negative stuff you get in third class mail now, "Come to my seminar." I saw one that said, "Eight ways to legally avoid compliance." This guy we should put the cuffs on. You know, the hidden time bombs, that's one. Also all the preambles, the Wall Street Journal calling in the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act." Before we started, Mr. Kandel said it absolutely is not a lawyers' statute, and it's not. I mean, it's another cause of action if someone comes in to you and has a grievance. The thing the public misses is that these people don't go around looking for lawsuits. If one occurs, if you're aggrieved, you don't think in terms of, "What statute did they just violate?" You know you're upset. If you're upset enough to see a lawyer, a lawyer will do some research and say, "Oh, they violated this law, that law, this law, that law."