Critics say disabled access bill is too broad, too weak

On one side are disabled Californians, who can't believe businesses still deny them access.

On the other are angry business owners, who loathe the lawsuits spawned by a doorway too narrow, a toilet too high, a ramp too steep.

After years of failed efforts, the Legislature is attempting again to bridge the divide with a proposal to curb lawsuits while improving public access for California's disabled.

Democratic Sen. Ellen Corbett of San Leandro has put together a complex bill she believes both Democrats and Republicans – as well as disabled Californians and business interests – can support.

Critics say the plan is too broad – and so conciliatory it won't accomplish much of anything.

The measure, SB 1608, would not affect a disabled person's ability to sue a business and collect damages, nor would liability be reduced for those businesses with violations.

What the bill would do, among many things, is:

• Require every local building department to have a state-certified inspector, known as a certified access specialist, to review a business owner's building plans at the permit stage.

• Allow a business owner who uses a certified access specialist in good faith – and is sued later – to request a streamlined court procedure in which the judge and parties meet early to see if the matter can be resolved. This does not, however, give the business owner extra time to fix violations without penalty.

• Ensure that architects and building inspectors complete continuing education course work in access requirements.

• Require attorneys who send demand letters to businesses, or file a lawsuit alleging access violations, to also notify the owner of his or her legal rights.

• Create a new California Commission on Disability Access to focus on accessibility issues.

The controversy has intensified in recent years, as hundreds of access suits have been filed in California by a handful of lawyers, often using boilerplate language, according to a Bee investigation published in November 2006. Federal judges have begun to deal harshly with some attorneys and plaintiffs, accusing them of unethical practices.

But disabled rights advocates are equally adamant that businesses can no longer feign ignorance of the 18-year-old Americans With Disabilities Act, which ensured disabled people access to public places and businesses.

The bill, which is expected to go to the Assembly this month after recently passing the Senate, has bipartisan support. Backing the measure is an unlikely alliance, from CalChamber (formerly the California Chamber of Commerce) and the California Restaurant Association to the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and the Disability Rights Legal Center.

"Everyone sees it as a historic effort because it is consensus-based and so many different parties are in support of this," said Kyla Christoffersen, CalChamber's policy advocate.

Christoffersen said the bill "balances everyone's interest" and does not bar anyone from bringing "meritorious lawsuits." Meanwhile, she says, it encourages businesses to be proactive about compliance.

But support is not universal. Dan Kysor, governmental affairs director for the California Council of the Blind, said it is well-intentioned but "only creates more layers of government."

"They're trying to do way too much, and it's going to have a lot of unintended consequences," Kysor said.

Kim Blackseth, an Oakland-based access consultant who is quadriplegic, called the bill pointless. He said it creates a commission that appears to have no authority, that building inspectors and architects already go through continuing education and that the early court evaluations already are being done in the San Francisco-based Northern District.

"This (bill) adds a whole level of complexity that brings no benefit to anyone," Blackseth said.

About the writer:

• Call The Bee's Marjie Lundstrom, (916) 321-1055.