Does the ADA Act apply to Campground Bathrooms?

[RonLC]

I am the OP. I agree that it as gotten out of hand. Thanks for all the pertinent information. Mod should take over now.

[hohenwald48]

Originally Posted by RonLC

I am the OP. I agree that it as gotten out of hand. Thanks for all the pertinent information. Mod should take over now.

I have been away from the site for about a week and was surprised to see how this thread has grown and drifted from the original question. However, after reading the entire thread I believe the thread should continue. I found a lot of the posts to educational and informative. Like many threads, there are a few snarky comments but they are easy enough to overlook.

[DocHaley]

Originally Posted by RickLight

I regularly work with ADA in construction projects. Kcdogger has a clear and accurate description of how it works, but there are variations by state. I've also heard of (a few) folks that make their living on lawsuits for non-compliance. I suspect few of those folks go camping. The construction codes have a long history of accepting that old buildings are hard to change.

The word 'reasonable' shows up often in these rules and the court cases. While it's hard to define it does place limits on both ends of the spectrum. Small things are fairly easy to achieve and become all but mandatory. Rebuilding a bathhouse could easily be burdensome.

Years ago, decades ago, I became certified as an Architectural Barriers Consultant since my Plumbing/HVAC/ELE businesses regularly updated facilities nationwide such as Greyhound Bus Terminals to come into compliance with the ADA rules.

ADA is for all public access places. Even if it's a private facility that occasionally has a concert or some public event.

ADA is not a bad thing. Businesses just don't like to make their places accessible to 'everyone' if it's going to cost them money. Just simple economics. If you don't like the public being on your property just say so and be done with it. If you don't like the establishment because you are disabled like me then don't patronize them. Pretty simple.

Now to the Racism statement. This is so stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO RACISM. There is but one race on this planet and it is the human race. We are all a part of this race since Adam and Eve started it off.

What we have is a Social Construct started in the 30's that ended up with the term Racism coming to the surface because we western Europeans just love to use labels for everything. We're not satisfied unless we can give something a label.

We need to start using the correct term:

Ethnic Injustices

This allows all groups (white, black, brown, yellow, red, old, young, man, woman, children, LGBT-eieio (i don't know all the letters they use) religion, and so on to be represented equally by an ethnic group standing.

When you say or hear there are ethnic injustices as described above it rings with common sense and is more easily understood than someone yelling at you that you are a RACIST! How Stupid?

When you hear Racism you hear 'hate'. And to accept the term Racism means that everyone in a racist because we are all part of the same race and therefore with the meaning of racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular ethnic group"

You can see that if you are calling someone a Racist you are damming all persons of the Human Race to be Racists. This is illogical. You can't be a Racist to your own group for Gods sake!

There are ethnic injustices and we should work together to fix these but it takes everyone's efforts to do this. Tax payers can't pay for the raising of dozens of generations of ignorant poor uneducated people. All people need to be educated, dads need to be a part of the family, moms need to not pop out babies like a puppy mill, kids need to be given the chance to learn and grow and become better than their parents and to continue this effort for many centuries before all the mean and nasty people on this spinning rock have died and only the new breed of people that care for themselves and for others is left.

Much like the hippie era I was a part of. Everyone got along, did their part and if you did not you were expelled from the camp.
God I miss those days of peace and happiness.

Cya, I'm old.

Doc

[David-n-BJ]

Originally Posted by kcdogger

I believe the point of the Appalachian is that the location is not accessible by a disabled person confined to a wheelchair. If that is the case, would the location be exempt from ADA compliance. There are many similar situations such as remote hunting camps, back country campsites in national parks etc. These locations sometimes have primitive pit toilets or composting toilets. If the Park Service or the outfitter chose to renovate or replace such a structure would it need to be ADA compliant even though the location is inaccessible for wheelchairs?

Yes, it would be required to be accessible. Being in a wheelchair is not the only way to be "disabled".

BTW, when I owned RV parks we spent thousands of dollars making sure our facilities were compliant. What I take exception to is when requirements forced us to abandon amenities, such as the miniature golf course as I posted about earlier. I am lawsuit adverse and not willing to take a chance as to whether or not upgrading to ADA compliance would be ruled to be excessively difficult or expensive. Without a system to examine a proposed construction and rule it exempt, it is just better to do without it. As for lawsuits, what bothers me is not that I can be sued, but that the threat of a suit is used to blackmail otherwise innocent business owners. I know my rights and obligations, have the financial strength to fight when necessary and have a dang good attorney, but others do not. Faced with a demand letter from an attorney saying pay $xxxx or we will be filing an ADA lawsuit, many business owners panic and just pay, whether or not the criteria to file that lawsuit has been met. It is legalized extortion under the cover of "helping the disabled" when in fact it is nothing of the sort. That is why our modus operandi with disabled guests was to make no effort to extend their stay, no effort to seek to have them return and never go out of our way thinking we are helping, when in fact we may be painting ourselves into a corner.

Which is why the guidelines indicate whether something is reasonable or not. Steeper slopes are allowed (to a point) if there is no way to achieve the required slope.


As a building official I had to quite literally argue a local venue into providing access when they clearly had the space for an accessible ramp. Somehow they felt that bunching everyone up in one area to the side of the stage met the ADA. And they adamantly refused to widen the first tier to allow room (we will lose valuable ground seating!). When arguing you cannot meet the ADA because your profits will suffer, and that is your only concern, you lost the argument before it started.

The flip side is the requirement that public buildings come into compliance regardless. One volunteer fire department (usually only 2 or 3 firemen on duty living at the station for short periods of time) had to put in an elevator for access from the truck bay to the dorm room. That might be handy for tours of the station, but if someone cannot climb the stairs are they really going to be useful as a fireman?

Lately I have been working on the remodel of the 2nd floor of a historic courthouse (now in use as a city hall) and to meet the requirement they added on to the back of the building for elevator shaft and accessible restrooms. It kind of matches the style of the building and doesn't look too bad.
The privately run community center and senior food service in a historic building, however, were able to make the kitchens accessible but since the restrooms were block walls under the concrete front porch, we could not make them upgrade as it was completely not feasible to do so. They did add grab bars to facilitate access but that was as close as we could work out.

Feasibility and reasonableness are subject however and open to the interpretation of the building department who is reviewing and inspecting the project.

[BruceDeville]

Originally Posted by Linda Bohr

For crying out loud, people, this thread has gone from a question re: campgrounds being accessible to the handicapped to racism????? Not everyone you meet is a racist, whether black or white or somewhere in between. No business is supposed to discriminate against anyone for race or handicap. Get a grip. If some business person doesn't want handicapped people, I don't have to trade with him. If his facilities are on a mountain and really dangerous for the handicapped, then when a handicapped person sees the site and can't manage, he/she can leave. That's why we have wheels. We as customers have the greatest power in the world. Our mouths. Mouth to mouth advertising is best you can get. It trickles from one to another at lightening speed, especially if the person is bad mouthing a certain park or place. I've been in business for more than 47 years and I can attest to the fact that a good recommendation is worth its weight in gold. If there is a host who is not nice, or something is not up to par, LEAVE!

I totally agree, markets are competitive today. Go to one that wants your $.

[David-n-BJ]

Originally Posted by richardskaff

Hello.

I continue to be amazed that after so many years, there is such a complete lack of understanding about such an important national civil rights regulation!

So do I. I am also amazed at those who think they know what it is

So, I won't go into the details necessary to help you truly understand those requirements, but will say that specifically, new construction MUST BE FULLY ACCESSIBLE, while existing facilities (public and private facilities open to the public) must become accessible. The ADA has been a federal mandate since 1990 when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became a national disability rights law. Neither "historical" or "older" buildings are exempt, but must be analyzed to determine what areas within those buildings/facilities must be made accessible, and how they should be made accessible..

Unlike many state building codes, (like the California Building Code), which trigger accessibility in existing buildings when remodeling takes place, the ADA is a civil rights regulation that has been in place for 30 years and requires buildings (both public and private, open to the public) to become accessible, whether remodeling is taking place or not!

Not true.
According to the Justice Department:
"The 2010 Standards set minimum requirements -both scoping and technical- for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities."
*from page 1 of the 2010 ADA Standards

The Justice department quite clearly indicates it applies to new construction and alterations. It does not require existing structures to become accessible unless they are altering (remodeling). Except in specific cases.

The ADA is a federal law and the ADA Standards within that law are only enforceable by one of two ways - the federal government - or by individuals with disabilities or one representing a person with a disability.

As federal law it applies to federal buildings. You are incorrect that there are two ways though, the third way is through state adoption of the ADA Standards as their code reference, or through adoption of another accessibility standard such as the ICC-ANSI 117.1 which many states have adopted.

California adopts and modifies the IBC and through title 24 modifies IBC Chapter 11 to suit their accessibility requirements.

It is important to keep in mind that the ADA publication, 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, is just that... a standard. Not a law or building code. Building codes incorporate standards, but a standard isn't law or required on its own.

Title II is where the requirement for all public facilities must be made accessible is found. Including the exception for structural impracticability.

Title III Reiterates at the beginning what the Department of Justice quote I used above.
101.1 General. This document contains scoping and technical requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements by individuals with disabilities. The requirements are to be applied during the design, construction, additions to, and alteration of sites, facilities, buildings, and elements to the extent required by regulations issued by Federal Agencies under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)


Per section 101.1 the Standards only apply to new construction or remodels. An existing facility does not have to become compliant unless it is remodeling unless it is a public/government building.

101.2 reiterates this:
101.2 Effect on Removal of Barriers in Existing Facilities. This document does not address existing facilities unless altered at the discretion of a covered entity.

And for those who want to argue that a locality cannot adopt stricter rules,
103. Equivalent Facilitation. Nothing in these requirements prevents the use of designs, products, or technologies as alternatives to those prescribed, provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability.

Accessibility requirements are enforced by the local building departments based on the codes or standards they adopt. Most states have adopted some form of the International Building Codes, and either fully adopt Chapter 11 of the IBC, or modify it in some way, and/or adopt and modify the ADA or other standards.

California adopts and modifies Chapter 11 and the ADA through their Title 24. Oregon and Washington adopt and modify Chapter 11 and the ICC ANSI 117.1, while Idaho adopts and modifies Chapter 11 and has adopted the ADA as it's accessibility standard.

And that is probably more than anyone wanted to know.

The short answer to the Original Poster is:
Yes, campgrounds do have to meet accessibility codes. But only during new construction or alteration.
Caveat: If new construction is addition of, or re-alignment of sites and no work is being done on the restrooms, showers, etc. then the only part that will need to comply is the part being altered or constructed new.

[kcdogger]

Originally Posted by David-n-BJ

Yes, it would be required to be accessible. Being in a wheelchair is not the only way to be "disabled".



Which is why the guidelines indicate whether something is reasonable or not. Steeper slopes are allowed (to a point) if there is no way to achieve the required slope.



Feasibility and reasonableness are subject however and open to the interpretation of the building department who is reviewing and inspecting the project.

I agree with everything you posted, however "reasonableness" is not a standard I can justify spending $100,000 or more dollars on. If I get sued for a steeper slope is the building department going to pay my lawyer? Is the county going to pay if the Jury decides it wasn't reasonable in spite of the fact the building department signed off on the project? Call me bigot, a racist (too late, someone beat you to it) a horse's arse, or whatever else you want, but I believe the ADA has gone way beyond it's initial purpose and has turned into some kind of legal octopus with tentacles stretching into places it was never envisioned to reach. I support basic accessibility, that is not only a good thing but should be a law. But there has to be limitations. I don't expect an elevator to be built to the top of Mount Everest because I don't have the physical capacity to climb there.

[hohenwald48]

I wonder if the ADA remodel requirement explains why so many RV park bath houses are old and outdated?

[kcdogger]

Originally Posted by hohenwald48

I wonder if the ADA remodel requirement explains why so many RV park bath houses are old and outdated?

More likely just due to costs, period. A bathhouse remodel will easily run $150,000 or more. They don't generate any additional income in the short run and a marginal amount in the long run. It might even have a negative effect on the occupancy mix depending upon the goals of the park.
Bathhouses are most important to the lower end of the camping scale. Tenters, popups, small RVs are the ones usually most in need of those facilities. 2nd greatest users are large families and groups who need more than the one bathroom in the RV. Those demographics don't appeal to many park owners. Put that $150,000 into landscaping and improving sites and that is likely to draw more self contained RVers who couldn't care less about the bathhouse facilities. If those RVers are the target market of the park, that is a better use of the money.

[AJMike]

Originally Posted by FL420

I asked the other guys if they knew why we were paying so much less than the listed going rate which we would never have been able to afford. One of the guys who was from the south explained that he was told it was the rate to be quoted to people who weren't of the "white persuasion."

He was told.

So, you base your entire post on the fact that someone told you that he was told that was the reason. Not that he knew that for a fact, but someone told him. That is how rumors and false information gets started all the time. A story gets told with no attribution and someone else believes it, fact or not.

I am not from the south but I lived there for many years and I knew a great many southerns, both transplanted and native, white, black and other flavors, and I have never heard any such story nor seen anything to back it up. Have I seen posted rates that were different from what I was paying? Sure, but it was not racism, it was usually seasonal differences. The law is very clear, and has been since the 1960s, and charging different rates to different people because of their color or religion or national origin is against the law. The idea that someone could get away with it is just fanciful.

Not everything is racism and using the term when it does not apply does nothing but cheapen its use when it does apply.

[David-n-BJ]

Originally Posted by kcdogger

I agree with everything you posted, however "reasonableness" is not a standard I can justify spending $100,000 or more dollars on. If I get sued for a steeper slope is the building department going to pay my lawyer? Is the county going to pay if the Jury decides it wasn't reasonable in spite of the fact the building department signed off on the project? Call me bigot, a racist (too late, someone beat you to it) a horse's arse, or whatever else you want, but I believe the ADA has gone way beyond it's initial purpose and has turned into some kind of legal octopus with tentacles stretching into places it was never envisioned to reach. I support basic accessibility, that is not only a good thing but should be a law. But there has to be limitations. I don't expect an elevator to be built to the top of Mount Everest because I don't have the physical capacity to climb there.

On that point there is no argument. Courts are almost the opposite of fair or balanced or any other word that used to be described for a court. And the lawyers, the few give the many a real bad name.

[FL420]

Okay. I've remained silent long enough.
The OP was about ADA compliance requirements for campgrounds. The Americans with Disabilities Act was, as accurately described by Richard Skaff, was all about civil rights. Specifically, equal rights under the law for a long ignored minority of American citizens.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act (CRA) which had been very strongly opposed, including a record filibuster, by almost every Democrat Senator and Representative from the eleven states which had seceded from the Union in 1861 in the summer of 1964.
..."The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS and racial segregation in schools, employment, and PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civi...ts_Act_of_1964
Congress, without the help of southern Democrats, passed and President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act(VRA) in the summer of 1965.
..."The*Voting Rights Act of 1965*is a landmark piece of*federal*legislation*in the*United States*that prohibits racial discrimination in*voting.[7][8]*It was signed into law by*U.S President*Lyndon B. Johnson*during the height of the*civil rights movement*on August 6, 1965, and*Congress*later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7]*Designed to enforce the*voting rights*guaranteed by the*Fourteenth*and*Fifteenth Amendments*to the*United States Constitution, the Act secured the right to vote for*racial minorities*throughout the country, especially in the*South. According to the*U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal*civil rights*legislation ever enacted in the country.[9]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voti...ts_Act_of_1965
My great grandfather, who was a remarkable and brave man of whom I am very proud, did one thing of which I am not too proud. He served in the Arkansas legislature after the Civil War as a Representative then a Senator and was a co-author of the Post-Reconstruction Constitution of the State of Arkansas. As such he helped lay the groundwork for the Jim Crow laws that followed.
Jim Crow laws*were state and local laws that enforced*racial segregation*in the*Southern United States.[1]*These laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white*Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by Black people during the*Reconstruction period.[2]*The Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.[3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
Now, finally, to my point. My first exposure to covert discrimination in the summer of 1965 occurred in a time of great upheaval in this country. , The protests, marches, demonstrations and riots made it a very dangerous time, maybe more so than what we have recently experienced.
Most of it was a result of discrimination against African Americans all over America but especially in the southeast due to Jim Crow laws. When the CRA of 1964 outlawed discrimination in PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS the hotel and motel owners who still wanted to discriminate were faced with a choice: ignore the law at great risk or influence their state legislators to pass creative legislation to help them keep blacks out without running afoul of the federal CRA. The result in many southern states was the posting of bogus rates on the inside of each hotel/motel door that no one could afford. The federal government wasn't going to get involved in rate setting and they didn't have the resources or the supporting legislation to investigate and prosecute everyone who was "price gouging" on the basis of skin color.
The VRA of 1965 was passed to stop those states(the usual suspects) who were disenfranchising poor white and especially poor black voters by enacting state laws requiring prospective voters to pay a poll tax, pass a literacy test, a comprehension test or even prove they owned property in a few cases before being allowed to vote.
If someone can't see strong evidence of "white privilege" and "systemic racism" in the above information perhaps they need to pass a literacy and comprehension test before posting on the subject.
Now, I'm not going to go to the trouble of quoting any previous poster on this thread. I will point out that several have given me the impression that they have sterotyped a particular protected class of citizens as more trouble than they're worth and they are more interested in saving money than spending anything to make RVing accessible to ALL of us. The rationalizations they use seem to me to mirror the same excuses the opponents of the CRA and VRA used.
My advice to you is: If you go into business to serve the public, do all you can do to serve ALL the public or go do something else.

[barmcd]

This thread has veered far off course and is closed.