posted
Gotta love the Chicago area. In the same week that a major news story involves a 15-year-old with cerebral palsy found dead from malnutrition (and the newspaper describing him as "suffering from 'cerebral palsy' rather than 'starvation'), we have another heartwarming story of a Condo that has a strange idea of what accessiblity means for people with disabilities.
I think the Chicago Trib requires registration - here's the article:
quote:Condo rule biased, suit says Boy in wheelchair told to use back door, parents say
By Matt O'Connor Tribune staff reporter March 16, 2004
A 9-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair because of physical and developmental disabilities has been forced to use a rear service entrance by the board of a suburban condominium complex where he lives, a federal lawsuit filed Monday alleges.
The suit, which says the restriction violates the U.S. Fair Housing Act, contends the boy was barred from using the front door of Triumvera Towers Condominium in Glenview out of unwarranted concerns that the wheelchair could damage the entrance.
"My son is not a piece of furniture. He is a human," said Claudio Trujillo, whose son, Jaime, cannot walk or speak because of a seizure disorder. "He is entitled to every right."
The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages for "pain, suffering and humiliation" from the 16-story condominium complex's board of directors and its president, identified as Sarah Stollberg.
Stollberg did not return a telephone call seeking comment on the allegations.
In a statement, Access Living, an advocacy group for the disabled that filed the lawsuit on the family's behalf, compared the prohibition on wheelchairs using the front entrance of Triumvera Towers to African-Americans being forced to sit in the back of the bus or drink from "colored-only" water fountains until the 1960s.
Claudio Trujillo and his wife, Luz, both Colombian immigrants who came to the U.S. seven years ago, sought the approval of the complex's governing board to buy a two-bedroom unit last summer, according to the lawsuit. The couple have a second child.
During an interview with the board, Claudio Trujillo mentioned that his son needs a wheelchair, prompting Stollberg to announce that was a "problem," the suit alleges.
Citing concerns of damage to the front entrance, Stollberg said Trujillo's son was prohibited from using it and must use a rear door "otherwise reserved for furniture delivery and garbage disposal," the suit says.
In a telephone interview Monday, Claudio Trujillo said he wanted to oppose the rule, but feared if he did, the board would block his family from buying the condominium.
After the family moved in last September, they attempted to use the rear entrance with Jaime, but the door was barely wide enough for the wheelchair to pass through, the lawsuit says.
So the Trujillos used the front entrance without incident for several months. But in a letter last month, the condominium board reiterated that the rear entrance must be used, the suit alleges.
On March 4, as Jaime waited in the building lobby for his school bus with a nurse, Stollberg announced that he couldn't use the front door, and when the nurse objected, Stollberg "became angry and hostile," the suit says.
Allegedly raising her voice, Stollberg threatened to fine the Trujillos $50 every time Jaime used the front door, according to the suit.
Later that night, Stollberg told the Trujillos that the association's rules required furniture, strollers and wheelchairs be moved through the rear service entrance, the suit says.
"I have never felt so discriminated," said Claudio Trujillo, a front-desk clerk at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Chicago. "You cannot imagine the feeling inside ourselves, especially since it's our son. He is our precious treasure."
posted
Wait...the front door had a ramp and was wide enough and everything, and they still made him use the rear? Lawsuits are a necessary evil precisely because of such dimwits.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
If this is a private institution (hard to tell from reading), then WTF? This lawsuit is groundless. If it's public, then it is worth looking into.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I had a chance to talk with the lawyer representing the family on Wednesday. He's the same lawyer who has written our organization's briefs in the Terri Schiavo case.
I don't think the lawyers for the Condo association knew anything about this. They're stuck with clients who are both vile and stupid.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not there is a legal basis for an attack, I don't care. This is a private organization. Hence, I don't care how much they discriminate.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assumed the wheelchair easily goes through the front door without damaging anything. If that's the case, they're screwed. If a lawyer had been involved, there would have been a letter saying, "there was a misunderstanding, of course he can use the front door. We are taking the following steps to protect the entrance."
As it is, I'd bet a lot of money this violates Chicago fair housing laws, and it may violate the ADA. What surprises me is that condo associations are controlled by the owners. I can see one or a few overzealous condo board members wanting this (I've met some you wouldn't believe), but do the owners in the building really care?
What matters here is the law. They're in violation of it. It really doesn't matter if you don't care about the discrimination, because in this case, the law DOES.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think Condos mean what they used to mean. This place sounds more like an apartment complex with the apartments being individually owned. So I think it's probably set up differently than the residential Condos out in the burbs where everyone has their own little house or townhouse and a little yard.
I still live in an apartment, and haven't had much reason to check up on any of this. Housing issues don't come up much in the bioethics, euthanasia and "end of life" debates I get involved in. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sheesh. Even the Navy takes into consideration any visitors to the ships that are disabled. They make every accomodation they can to help the person. Including a hydraulic lift so they don't need a ramp to get to the main deck.
I do believe there is a federal law that could be invoked on this too. I'm not to be quoted on that tho. I know in MI, thermostats (temperature control) are mandatory to be at a max of 4 feet high off the floor. This is to accomodate the disabled.
I hope the company has to pay out their yin yang for this one.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing it would be a catagoration or generalization. Too bad I meet two of them (not protestant). I am somewhat miffed that all white males are thought of that way.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't care about private people discriminating because it's none of my concern. They can be ba----s all they want. It isn't my job to police private activites. If I own a club it should be my right to let only those I like into it.
I'll quote something for you.
quote: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That's what we call the Bill of Rights.
What do you have against the south, btw?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please Dag and Stan. I simply picked the only group who have never been discriminated against by vast numbers of people. I myself qualify for most of them.
And I have never been discriminated against.
But I still have enough empathy to realize that millions of people ARE discriminated against, and can't imagine someone who doesn't think thats something that should be against the law.
I certainly can't imagine someone who falls into any minority whatsoever having that stance.
posted
So uh, where does the BOR say anything about discrimination? No one said anything against the south.
EDIT: Xavier beat me to it. And I do know and WORK with a black male who is racist. If you want to go further. A couple years ago in the NHL a black player was suspended for making racist comments to a Native American player.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Let's say I call you a racial slur in my own house. What right does the government have to persecute me?
-
Let's say I throw a party. I don't let any blacks come. What right does the government have to persecute me? Don't I have the right to only let certain people into my house?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because you don't invite any blacks to your house does not make you racist. Maybe you don't know any black people (hypothetically, 'cause I don't know you). For BUSINESS equal rights is a huge issue. This is a lot different than your own house.
EDIT: Xavier for being able to type faster. Maybe I'll go to jinx mode....
[ March 21, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
You should visit Boston, New York, or Chicago sometime if you think racism is restricted to the south. Obviously, the south has a much more potent history with racism, but don't pretend it's somehow unique there.
No matter how you slice this situation, a law prohibiting what they're doing is an infringement on the property rights of the condo owners. I happen to think it's a justified intrusion on their property rights. Phantos evidently disagrees. But his position is still based on his interpretation of an important individual right and it's relative weight compared to other important rights.
Discussion like these would be a lot more productive if people would at least try to acknowledge that people on the other side aren't ogres.
quote:If you have a business though and don't let blacks inside, then yes, the government does have the right to arrest you.
At least get your facts right. This would be a civil case and involve civil penalties, not criminal. It does make a difference.
And a condo is not a business. It is an association of individual property owners who own the common areas of a shared building for maintenance, liability, etc.
Again, to be clear, I totally oppose the condo association in this and hope they get theirs in court. But understanding the underlying situation is important whenever the coercive power of the state is brought to bear.
quote: You should visit Boston, New York, or Chicago sometime if you think racism is restricted to the south. Obviously, the south has a much more potent history with racism, but don't pretend it's somehow unique there.
Did I ever say that?
No, I just have lived in NY, and now California, and I know that while there are plenty of racists. A lot of people in the south however, feel their racism is perfectly socially acceptable. The ones I know in NY though seem to realize that it isn't considered okay to be that way in modern society. And NONE of them have admitted to wanting to go back to segregation.
posted
So if private institutions are allowed to discriminate in your view, does that mean that you favor the government providing housing for everyone? Or what do you think Equal Opportunity Housing means? P.S. By "you" I guess I'm addressing Phanto
[ March 21, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Discussion like these would be a lot more productive if people would at least try to acknowledge that people on the other side aren't ogres.
It might also help to refrain from using "hugs" in a way that comes across as sarcastic.
I'm not in a good position to look at the history of the Fair Housing Act and how this got to be law (with disability being a late addition).
I do know it doesn't apply to every bit of housing. For example, best as I recall, you can discriminate as much as you want if you're renting out an apartment in a small building you own that you also live in. But I don't remember what the cut-off for the number of units was.
quote: So if private institutions are allowed to discriminate in your view, does that mean that you favor the government providing housing for everyone? Or what do you think Equal Opportunity Housing means? P.S. By "you" I guess I'm addressing Phanto
This does make a little sense, I'll admit. But it doesn't make enough sense.
And, everyone, please remember my legal views are not my personal views. I agree it's indecent and rude.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite (or perhaps because of) my post above, count me in with the defenders of private property. Someday* I'd like to own a brewpub where no blondes are allowed, and I will object highly to any attempted government intervention. If you don't like it, feel free to take out ads bashing my institution for being hairist -- in other words, exercise your freedom of speech instead of restricting my freedom of association and enterprise.
*tongue, meet cheek
Besides, if anyone thinks that laws can eradicate [identifier]ist tendencies, you've clearly never studied demographics. There's a reason politicians are able to manufacture results by micromanaging which side of the street they draw from.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I hope this doesn't get to court, either. When I talked to Max (the lawyer), I didn't even bother to ask him about the idea of settling - it's none of my business until it's public.
But I have a strong hunch the Condo lawyers will be urging their clients to go for an early settlement. I think that would be best for everyone. But I don't have all the information and it's not my call.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to jump out of this while I can. However, I will leave some links that might help. This stuff is quite large so...... here: ADA lots of other stuffPosts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explain... well, this is one of those ideas that I didn't know I had until it came up. One of the benefits of Hatrack.
Okay, if you are a laissez faire type (and here I'm not using a Phanto specific "you", just any conservative who gets nauseated by lawsuits over rights violations) and you don't like government interference, you should do the same. You should not interfere with your tenants by dictating what they can and cannot do on your property. If you are a laissez faire conservative. (apologies if I mis-spelled that, I'm not a french guru).
If they can pay their rent and not damage the place, you don't bother them. If you don't like the type of tenants you are getting, your only recourse is to raise the rent. If damage occurs, you put up a video camera so it's easy to prove who did it, and you charge them for each occurence.
The fear, and the probable reality (edit: from the condo board's messed up point of view), is not that the wheelchair will damage the entrance, but that the apartment building will be perceived as an invalid care center.
By the way, I'm informed that EOH is kind of a joke in Chicago. The work very hard to keep folks with their own kind. I guess all the realtors are in with the city and mafia etc.
[ March 21, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Instead of going into a litany of all the "isms" that different minorities can exhibit against one another, I'll use my own family history as an example.
Most of my father's side of the family is of Irish descent. So his grandparents came to America facing "no Irish need apply" signs in shop windows as well as rampant anti-Catholicism. Over the course of a couple generations, things got better for my father's family.
But...
I had relatives who served in the Fire Department at a time when it had racist hiring policies and they supported them. Other relatives quietly tolerated the fact that the places they worked and the places they shopped had significant barriers to blacks. This wasn't the South. It was Upstate New York. Right up through the mid-1960s.
For many of my relatives, being descendants of a group that had experienced oppression didn't sensitize them one bit to the plight of others in a similar situation.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize I (along with a few others) have derailed your thread somewhat. I think my righteous indignation at the condo board spilled over when I read Xavier's first post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess when folks talk about Irish as minorities I can sort of see where talking about Asians as minorities bugs the "real" minorities. Though what really bugs me (as an Asian) is not that I've been de-minoritized, but that at the same time the minorities of homo/bi-sexual and Hispanic have been created. I'd be happy if there were a general move away from regarding folks as minorities. But it's more like we've been pushed off the lifeboat to let someone else on. Housing, by the way, is one area where I feel Asians and Jews are still targeted.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I wrote too fast. Obviously, in most places, Irish-Americans aren't thought of as minorities any more, by ourselves or anyone else. But we were at one time. I was just offering an example of how being from a group that experienced oppression does NOT mean one will be empathetic toward other groups being oppressed or discriminated against.
I feel like I am on solid ground when I use my own family as an example than when I say I have seen (fill in the blank) minority exhibit discrimination against (fill in the blank) minority.
And Dag,
Don't apologize for derailment - it's a natural, unpredictable, uncontrollable and inevitable phenomenon.
I'll delete my posts if you guys want. I'm about as miserable right now as I have ever been, and couldn't think of a motivation for phanto that didn't involve him being racist or anti-something.
I realize that was stupid of me.
Whatever, I am no longer involved here. Maybe I will delete my posts anyway.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to stand up for the South vis a vis racism. The other parts of the country have never been less racist than the South. What they have had is fewer problems at a time when they had a lot less racial diversity. The civil rights movement in the South basically succeeded. Elsewhere in the country not so well.
Thank goodness Jim Crowe laws were defeated, thanks to Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP legal team, and to direct action campaigns from people like SNCC and the SCLC. Southern blacks were the ones who spearheaded these campaigns.
Every part of the country has well-educated well-brought-up people who are not racist, and every part of the country has some people who are ignorant and don't have the advantages of a good upbringing, too. I've noticed whenever there is a racial incident in the South, people in other parts of the country tend to say "that's the South for you" but when a racial incident happens in their home city, they don't then think "that's the Northeast (West Coast, Midwest, etc.) for you."
Two different black friends who have lived and travelled all over the U.S., when speaking candidly with me about racism, have told me their families experienced far less racism in the Southeast than in any other part of the country. African-Americans make up a substantial part of the population in the South, in both urban and rural areas. In other parts of the country this is much less true. It seems that African-Americans are more urban there.
I myself have seen the worst incidents of racism of my life in Michigan, both in Detroit and in smaller places like Grand Rapids. Second worst was Washington D.C. It definitely strikes me that Yankees are a lot more racist than Southerners. (The word "Yankee" is used in the Southeast to mean anyone from any other part of the country.)
A lady I know from California made comments about racism in the South during the Rodney King trial, for instance. When I mentioned Rodney King, she was quite surprised, as though that did not reflect on the level of racism in California. The Watts riots don't indicate racial problems in that area either, to her. The systematic racism which was shown to pervade the LAPD didn't either.
In a way, the false feeling of superiority that the rest of the country was able to hold toward the South helped a lot for the civil rights movement to succeed. It's much easier to see the true rights and wrongs of a situation which doesn't affect you. If only that same critical eye were then turned back towards home.
Sorry to derail this conversation about the rights of the disabled into talking about the South and racism. The rights of all minority groups in this country were helped tremendously by the civil rights movement, which set all the legal precedents. I see this as being part of the broader movement for human rights worldwide that is going on. For me, it's wider than human, in fact, I see quality of existence for all living beings as the issue at stake, but that's a different story.
quote:Okay, if you are a laissez faire type (and here I'm not using a Phanto specific "you", just any conservative who gets nauseated by lawsuits over rights violations) and you don't like government interference, you should do the same.
Can I get a "hell yeah?" So-called conservatives who want to dictate private lifestyles disgust me.
Thanks for your report, AK. I've heard similar stories from other well-traveled citizens, and while my own resident time outside the South wasn't too long, it's pretty clear how much more segregated blacks (among others, but especially) are into the worst conditions. Ethnic ghettos are a way of life in its big cities, encompassing both the charm of Little Italy and the hopelessness of Chicago's South Side.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I've never owned a condo, but I've had many discussions with friends who do, and read the Real Estate section of the paper regularly. It's pretty clear that many (most?) condo associations are no longer dependent on and reporting back to the owners as once was the case. Many are effectively distinct entities, and many owners end up fighting the fines and rules they impose.
I don't have any idea whether it's true in this case, but it is all too possible that the majority of condo owners are against this rule. (Of course, with the Fair Housing Act, even if they're not, tough cookies. )
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your arguement seems to be the following:
Because government shouldn't interfere, neither should private property owners.
But that's kind of ignoring my entire point, which is private property owners should be free to be racist or hairist or whatever.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, I think we've decided in this country that businesses are NOT allowed to be overtly racist. I think it's a very good thing we did, too. I remember what this country was like when the laws didn't enforce equal treatment. Even now when they do, there is still a huge amount of racial discrimination in housing, bank loans, and many other areas. When they didn't, this country was a far worse place to live.
If you want to do business in our country, you have to treat people fairly. There's no way the law can enforce total fairness, but it can uphold that principle, and it can punish the worst offenders. I, for one, am quite glad of that. Going back to the bad old days is a very very bad idea.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, you've ignored everyone every single time they mention your use of surrounding the name of the person you are replying to in parentheses, but could you answer this one question? You do know that parentheses indicate hugs, right? Do you intend to hug everyone you reply to?
If this is a private institution (hard to tell from reading), then WTF? This lawsuit is groundless. If it's public, then it is worth looking into.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Whether or not there is a legal basis for an attack, I don't care. This is a private organization. Hence, I don't care how much they discriminate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(((sndrake )))
Unfortunatly, yes, the law does [require fair housing regulations]. I'm merely expressing my opinion that I wish it didn't.
quote:Xavier:
Why the hell not? Are you a white potestant male with no disabilities and in good shape?
If so, perhaps you can use a little thing known as empathy?
Are you from the south?
Do you wish we still had Jim Crow laws?
Your stance boggles my mind.
Javie's ill at the moment, so I'll try to clarify what I think he was trying to point out. Phanto doesn't believe housing regulations should exist if the apartment complexes, like most, are privately owned -- and he doesn't believe that discrimination against certain types of tenants should be prosecuted.
Javie's annoyed at this, so asks, essentially, if Phanto's ever been the subject of discrimination -- leaping to the probably correct conclusion that Phanto's a white heterosexual Protestant male.
I'm a fairly libertarian dude, so I'm not entirely in disagreement with Phanto -- however, I think raising the question of racism's a fairly valid debate tactic, given history's record of denying, on this related issue alone, equal housing rights to colored people. Phanto, be consistent -- if you think this apartment complex has the right to discriminate against the disabled, support their right to deny housing or equal access to colored people for no other reason than their unwanted appearance at the front door where others can see them. Which, presumably, is the sole reason this apartment complex has for denying the boy the right to enter through the front door, if there's no damage being done by his wheelchair.
Re: racism in the South, from what I've been able to tell, it's a hell of a lot more accepted down there than it is in the Yankee states. Politically speaking, Southern Republicans (and historically, Dixiecrats) are know for their nod-and-wink regarding racial issues, since it's no longer acceptable to be open about racism. Historically speaking, that acceptance has been crammed down the South's throat from the Civil War to the civil rights movement. Culturally speaking, the South's notoriety for being the richest breeding ground for the KKK and related movements isn't exactly a state secret. New York, Chicago, and Boston aren't without their own pet bigotries, but please don't claim the North and South are on anything near equal ground regarding bigotry.
I'm saying this from Los Angeles, where Whitey isn't exactly friendly to minorities, either. But I know of no open KKK cells, and the only open white supremacy I know of is found in neo-Nazi street gangs, which aren't exactly talked of with pride. For better or worse, rightly or wrongly, the South is the homeland of accepted white supremacy -- and denying the notorious white pride sentiment the South is, again, rightly or wrongly known for is to deny centuries of history and political movements affirming exactly that.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Xavier for being able to type faster. Maybe I'll go to jinx mode....![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
