Thanks, kalbrandt, that was the article I read. Since it covers the restaraunt angle, there's still room for another story about the non-profit and rail museum danger.
I think there were more paragraphs near the begining when it ran in the Philadelphia "Inquirer", about how in some cases, a lawyer first offers his services for hire as a "consultant" to avoid trouble, he can't be afforded, then the $4,000 per day suit arrives!

Once again, a clarification, and one based just on my understanding of the situations in question:



Balderdash.

As I understand it (and have been told from two sources), the reason the ADA adaptations occurred was simply this:

The Museum had been able to claim exemption from some ADA regulations by being in a vintage, historic structure.

Once the roof collapsed and reconstruction to a better safety standard was mandated, out the window went that exemption. (And I am willing to wager some serious money that the plaintiff that brought the ADA lawsuit used precisely that excuse as a reason for instigating the lawsuit.)

Now, far be it from me to say that the majority of the changes weren't either long overdue or a welcome change for whatever motivation. But the changes in question are still on a scale that a vast majority of our operations either cannot afford to make or are not in a logistical position to make (i.e., you don't spend $150,000 of money you don't have in hopes that one wheelchair a year might attend, say, the WW&F in Maine.....).

The B&O Museum, if I may be blunt, found themselves in what can only be described as a remarkable position, being able to use the plight of the 2003 roof collapse to both play the sympathy card and raise the community's awareness of the Museum anong social, business, and philanthropic circles. At least two local critics, one a B&O Museum volunteer, freely have said that "the roof collapse was the best thing that could have happened to them". Damage to certain "crown jewels" aside, however...........

I stand behind my own interpretation.

Stand behind it all you want. All it is is a positive PR spin on the situation.

Would those changes made for the ADA--wheelchair ramps, paved paths throughout the outside yards, raised platforms for loading, the closing off of the upstairs, etc.--have occurred if the roof hadn't collapsed?

Be honest, now.

Funny, I don't recall seeing any fundraising letters crossing my desk or the desk of the Baltimore Chapter NRHS (which gave more to the B&O Museum post-collapse than the national NRHS) to raise money for these welcome additions and modifications BEFORE the roof fell. And, you know, if they HAD made that a mission before, who knows what might have happened? We might have been able to find a place to contribute design services or elevators at cost or as a donation. H--l, we could have even asked Mr. Railfan Disability Specialist to be part of the solution rather than make himself part of the problem (not that I think he would--I doubt he ever has had a real client, in part because of his very abrasive and hostile personality).

I'm not trying to start a "bash the B&O Museum" thread here. I'm trying, if nothing else, to start a very-necessary discussion and thought process going here and among the preservation community BEFORE these ADA-litigation "vultures" set their sights on the next operation and start licking their beaks. We as an "industry" do need to be more proactive--that way, when a trouble-maker shows up with a camera crew, we can say, for example, "We could have claimed exemption for historic preservation under [such and such regs]; what we did instead was [XYZ], and we don't have the money to spend $250,000 in case one person a year shows up; now if you'd like to help contribute, we have an active committee and fund-raising in progress....." That goes over a LOT better than just "we don't have the money".

Meanwhile, across town, the Baltimore Streetcar Museum went and got a non-Baltimore PCC streetcar, in part so that they could have a non-Baltimore-artifact streetcar to modify as necessary for handicapped access. (It's still under wraps, pending completion of additional shed space and the eventual truck swap to "Baltimorize" the gauge.)

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I have been following this thread with interest because any group who opens a Business (For Profit or Non-Profit) will have to deal with the Physically Impaired at sometime or other.

2 Points:

1-There will always be someone out there that is going to sue. And there is always going to be a very Greedy Lawyer who will do anything to make a buck. Alex's Statement about Extortion by a small group of organized people needs to be looked into and if it can be proven then it should be taken to the courts. this is my take on what he stated at the beginning
It does Affect everyone especially those of us in the preservation business because most of us are working on a shoestring budget and a lawsuite can put us out of business very quickly.

2- Setting Standards for Acessability is good but only if the courts agree with those standards Globally. So what is good for one state holds true in every other state.


Now a question.
How can these standards be set so that those who want to make a "FREE" buck off the rest can be stopped? Lobbying? Write your congressman? Set up a coalition of all Museums through out the US and lobby for Standards that will stand up in a court of law?

Andrew Martin
President

I am afraid that we can set all of the standards we want but we cannot change by fiat the brain chemistry of those who insist on behaving in a manner such as Brother Mitchell has described. These socially challenged individuals will go before the courts not merely because they believe they are right (which they do, often to the point of obsession) but because they can. Access to the courts for redress of grievance is important enough to the rights of all of us that to in any way restrict the access of those who we may perceive as idiots places the rest of us in jeopardy.

Brother Allen above is correct. The solution is to fight back with every weapon available.

I hereby issue a challenge –

Somewhere out there is one of my brother or sister barristers who has a grounding in disability law (I do not), who also has either an extra-curricular or professional interest in preservation, may be a railfan, and is possibly taking some flack from the bar association about pro bono time. This is the type of issue where the courts tend to be amenable to amicus filings. Come forward. I suspect that you will receive quite a bit of support.

GME