Store kicks out disabled woman driving scooter

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Reaper

No one is forcing people to be entrepreneurs. There are other ways that people can make a living. If a "barely-profitable business" is unable to afford the costs of conducting business then why should it be afforded special treatment? It's not like these regulations we're discussing are recent developments.

No one is forcing these people to buy from these businesses either. You have to admit that most business in Calgary are really good when it comes to accomidating the disabled. In this case, how do you expect the owner to reduce his square footage for sales in such a small place? It is not reasonable....that is all we need to do is have common sense...plain and simple.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ericschand

According to Ontario, you must make your store accessible. Backed
up by the Constitution, government, and the courts (incl. SCoC).

I realize the small store has lower profit, however, how can you
argue with the law? Get it changed. Until then stores must comply.

And I ask the same question as Reaper, why should wheelchair bound
people be expected to wait outside? Do you not see that as demeaning?

As for some of the clothing shops in SouthCentre, I have seen them
accomodate a wheelchair person, by moving display racks to help
them inside, and those things can't be light. Once inside, I see no
harm in helping them retrieve items. This is where the lady in question
is in the wrong.

ers

Why do people keep talking about Ontario when this happened in Alberta.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I'm being a dick because i feel as though small barley-profitable businesses should not be held to the same standards as multi-billion dollar corportations?

Yeah, ok.

Pretty simple, don't go into business then.

1997 Alberta Building Code

3.8.2.1. Areas Requiring a Barrier-Free Path of Travel

1)A barrier-free path of travel from the entrance of a building shall be provided throughout all normally occupied floor areas.

[RogerWilco]

"I just don't believe every structure needs to be fit for the disabled. As i have said, I just feel your at a loss when you have a disability and the entire world cannot function to your liking nor should "building codes" include every which business. Society does it's best to make life easier, but you cannot expect every building and store you enter to be fit your your needs." ------Also from eazyduzzit

It doesn't matter what you believe. The Alberta Building Code says you have to accommodate the disabled. The Alberta Building Code is binding law not just a suggestion. Building to the ABC is just like any other cost of doing business. If you can not meet the costs of doing business than get out of business.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No one is forcing these people to buy from these businesses either. You have to admit that most business in Calgary are really good when it comes to accomidating the disabled. In this case, how do you expect the owner to reduce his square footage for sales in such a small place? It is not reasonable....that is all we need to do is have common sense...plain and simple.

I wouldn't put the blame completely on small businesses. Their costs are effected by the mall owners and they are put in the position of having to cram their floor space in order to make a profit. I'd go after the mall owners and they are rarely considered small business.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Why do people keep talking about Ontario when this happened in Alberta.

I couldn't find a link for something equivalent in Alberta, hence "everyone"
is talking Ontario, my thinking being that Alberta can't be that far off
the law from them.

However, RogerWilco seems to have confirmed that in Alberta the rules
are similar.

ers

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I think exits fall under Saftey

Forget i even brought up the profitability of small businesses, this was not the focal point of my argument.

I just feel as though a private business should be able to conduct things how they want to, with exception to saftey guidlines because this is a given. Larger corporations which are publically owned through shares etc have more of an obligation to cater to everyone than a private business which is familly owned.

Your talking in the sense that all businesses that open are opened from square one. I think the majority of those open are done so in already build property. Some cannot afford a ton of square footage so they have to deal with what they have, hence not being able to make the aisles as wide as they would have liked due to not being enough room for all of their products. As an avarage "Joe" i feel as though i have an obligation to provide my customers with saftey (hence following the Saftey Guidelines) but when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, if there isn't room for your wheel-chair, sorry, move along to the next store. I just don't think it's reasonable for cater to all special needs in every store.

You are correct in that the building code does only apply to new construction/renovations. So alot of buildings that do not meet the current barrier free designs and they are being grandfathered in. So eventually these buildings will be phased out. But if you did leave up to the store owners/developers/clients they are almost always going to side with no wheel chair access. In no way is this fair. It is reasonable, as the measure's for this are already in place.

As for wider aisles and bigger bathrooms not affecting the cost of building, i wouldn't be so sure. Square footage in this city is a pricey business and you may brush off a double sized bathroom and wider aisles in lets say a 10 aisle store as not affecting the cost but it certainly does.

That's a terrible attitude. You would rather have an extra 100 square feet so you can put more **** in your store than "cater to these unreasonable customers."

Live with it.

You have a disability, we will do our best to accomodate you with laws/regulations within reason but going completely all out just dosen't make sense.

How about someoen replys to this:

I just don't think it's reasonable to hold small time operations up to the same standards as corportations such as Wal-mart it just is not reasonable. (saftey guidelines aside).

Basically the best example i can come up with was when i was in San Francisco. Lots of small businesses are operated there and when i went on a boat tour of the bay and around Alcatraz island. There was a disabled lady who was confined to a wheelchair and the boat that was taking about 15 of us on the tour said they did not have the facilities to accomodate the wheelchair but the captain gave the family a name of a company which did (which was on the next piere over) and instead of going off in a huff expecting everything to be catered to their needs, they accepted the fact everything on every corner can't cater to them and where very polite in thanking the captain for the information for someone who could.

Basically the moral of the story is, if you can't buy goods from one store, count your losses, move on and find one which can everything can't suit you.

This is basically how i feel, i have nothing against disabled people, and you can probably see me helping the odd old lady accross the street, i just feel it's not reasonable to expect these tough guidelines on everything.

What i find ridiculous is people are insinuating i'm a bad person because i have a little reason, dropping the hint i hate old ladies and scuff at disabled people.

Clearly we are on opposite sides and are no where close to convicing each other of our stance. I can see where you are coming from as a small store owners stand point. They feel that this is their business and they worked darn hard for it and don't want some pushy government telling them what to do. I can sympathize, however I do not agree. Once you open your business to the public they have to be able to get in. Now you can't cater to everyone clearly. Realisticly you can't wheel in a hospital bed into your store. That is unreasonable. A wheel chair is completely reasonable. I refuse to believe that it is not.

You say that your willing to accommodate people with disabilities in reason. But if your not letting them into stores, what are you allowing then? That they can go on sidewalks, and that's it? The problem with saying "oh don't give your business then" is that your not giving them the choice, because they can't get in anyways. Also by restricting wheel chairs in your store, your restricting yourself from hiring someone in a wheel chair. Which again is discrimination.

Look people in wheel chairs have it hard enough, why should we make it harder for them? Your very much concerned with the store owners livelyhood, well I'm going to side with the wheelchair user as it is their life.

[Flames_Gimp]

I don't get the "you're disabled, so you're supposed to have problems with accessibility" point a few posters are trying to make.

I don't have to just accept it and "live with it".

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by ericschand

I couldn't find a link for something equivalent in Alberta, hence "everyone"
is talking Ontario, my thinking being that Alberta can't be that far off
the law from them.

However, RogerWilco seems to have confirmed that in Alberta the rules
are similar.

ers

The building codes in all provinces are based on the National Building Code of Canada. They are all very similar with some differences due to special environmental needs of geography. The barrier free section of the code is pretty much the same for all locations. The reason some shops may not meet the requirements is because once the building or space is approved by the building department the owner has control over the space. The architect has no control over how the space is used after the fact. If the owner decides to place merchandise in such a way that it inhibits the spirit of the code that person takes all action by third parties into his/her own hands. If the store owner does place merchandise in a way that inhibits barrier free access the owner opens them self up to law suits.

[transplant99]

The lack of compassion and understanding about physically disabled people in this thread is disgusting and abhorrent.


Unbelievable.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The lack of compassion and understanding about physically disabled people in this thread is disgusting and abhorrent.


Unbelievable.

I agree 100%. As an architect I do all I can to ensure that barrier free design is upheld on a building project. Not only does barrier free design help make mobility better for people with disabilities it makes building projects better for all people. That is the point in the end. In the places you work or shop you can either expect the minimal 3rd world design or you can expect the quality of design that should be and is manditory in a country like Canada. It is difficult for authorities to keep on top of all problem situations that occure in the real world. That is why people that detect problems in public spaces need to come forward and point them out. It makes the built environment better for all people.

I also want to throw into this discussion that the Alberta Building Code is the absolute bare minimum that you can do. Any building project that is worth much of anything exceeds the building code. The building code is the guidline that allows you to do the absolute minimum that the law will allow. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I try to go beyond mediocrity in my life. Isn't that what Alberta and Canada is all about anyway?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Burninator

YOU learn to read. First sentence in the article.


I never said anything regarding a scooter/wheelchair user causing damage or being rude and kicking them out. I said you can't compare kicking some out of your business because they are drunk/underage and refusing service for someone in a wheelchair. I really don't know where your getting this from.

Yes maybe that was a bad example. But that's just what it was. An example of a situation where reason does allow for removal of a human being from a business.
And from the same start of the thread in the article, perhaps you missed:

Samnani admitted it was "a delicate situation," but said he was concerned about merchandise toppling off shelves. "She was forcing her way in," he said.

That's what is under debate with me at any rate.
Was she somehow destructive or beligerant? If so was it fair to remove her?
Or was she fair and was the owner at fault (completely possible) for asking her to leave if she in fact wasn't forcing herself around etc.?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

They don't want, or need your sympanty, especially since you're an idiot.

Why exactly am I an idiot, a poster said I didnt understand disability because of my comment on the dude in the plus 15 who could walk, someone who cant walk like a few who frequent the EauClair YMCA I assist when asked to. You can tell the diff if some dudes legs are 5 inches thick compared to someone who leaves tghe chair at the locker to go on the bike.

I wouldnt expect you to have read the above posts though.

MYK

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

"I just don't believe every structure needs to be fit for the disabled. As i have said, I just feel your at a loss when you have a disability and the entire world cannot function to your liking nor should "building codes" include every which business. Society does it's best to make life easier, but you cannot expect every building and store you enter to be fit your your needs." ------Also from eazyduzzit

It doesn't matter what you believe. The Alberta Building Code says you have to accommodate the disabled. The Alberta Building Code is binding law not just a suggestion. Building to the ABC is just like any other cost of doing business. If you can not meet the costs of doing business than get out of business.

LOL

I was challenging the law in practice, putting forth my view. I wasn't saying what he currently did was alright under current laws.

Originally Posted by Burninator

You say that your willing to accommodate people with disabilities in reason. But if your not letting them into stores, what are you allowing then? That they can go on sidewalks, and that's it? The problem with saying "oh don't give your business then" is that your not giving them the choice, because they can't get in anyways. Also by restricting wheel chairs in your store, your restricting yourself from hiring someone in a wheel chair. Which again is discrimination.

I was simply giving a small business prespective. Many more stores and shops that are run by corporations and publicly owned enterprises thru stocks are available to these disabled people.

Look, if you don't have legs, you aren't playing in the NHL - your at a loss for being disabled. Not being able to access EVERY store is the exact same thing. You cannot expect everything.

Originally Posted by Burninator

Look people in wheel chairs have it hard enough, why should we make it harder for them? Your very much concerned with the store owners livelyhood, well I'm going to side with the wheelchair user as it is their life.

Well boo hoo, she couldn't buy chips from that 1 corner store downtown so move a long and find another one, just like i had to go into 3 stores to find what i needed today.

Just because your disabled, that dosen't mean every place should be catered to you.

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Basically the best example i can come up with was when i was in San Francisco. Lots of small businesses are operated there and when i went on a boat tour of the bay and around Alcatraz island. There was a disabled lady who was confined to a wheelchair and the boat that was taking about 15 of us on the tour said they did not have the facilities to accomodate the wheelchair but the captain gave the family a name of a company which did (which was on the next piere over) and instead of going off in a huff expecting everything to be catered to their needs, they accepted the fact everything on every corner can't cater to them and where very polite in thanking the captain for the information for someone who could.

Basically the moral of the story is, if you can't buy goods from one store, count your losses, move on and find one which can everything can't suit you.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Just because your disabled, that dosen't mean every place should be catered to you.

Who said anything about "catered"? It's the law after all. And it's a goddamn wheelchair, not a 747.

Any store that can't afford to keep it's aisles wide enough to accomodate a simple wheelchair shouldn't be in business in the first place.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Well boo hoo, she couldn't buy chips from that 1 corner store downtown so move a long and find another one, just like i had to go into 3 stores to find what i needed today.

ya because it's just easy to run around shopping at different stores when you're disabled.. glad it was easy for you to drive/walk/take a cab/bus/ride a bike/ get your ownn coat on and off and go to 3 stores.

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Just because your disabled, that dosen't mean every place should be catered to you.

holy ****, just getting imto a store is not being catered to, its the bare freaking minimum!

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

ya because it's just easy to run around shopping at different stores when you're disabled.. glad it was easy for you to drive/walk/take a cab/bus/ride a bike/ get your ownn coat on and off and go to 3 stores.



holy ****, just getting imto a store is not being catered to, its the bare freaking minimum!

There's probably some other codes too that would be broken if a wheel chair couldn't even fit. Fire codes? don't know just a guess.

[Vulcan]

Bout time for eazyduzzit and a couple other morons to spend 24/7 time in a chair for a week or so to find out it's not so eazyduzzit.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Bout time for eazyduzzit and a couple other morons to spend 24/7 time in a chair for a week or so to find out it's not so eazyduzzit.

Some of you are missing the point and thinking people are against the disabled. There is a duty to accommodate disabled people and when it can be done it should be done. These people did not choose to be disabled and we should do what is nessesary to help them. Having said that...duty to accommodate is not an end all. If it brings undue hardship onto a business than other alternatives should be considered. They do need to comply with legislation but just because a disabled person cannot access a certain area, doesn't mean the company or owner is bad and against the disabled. According to the owner he offered to help the lady get what ever she needed, but she refused. If the owner was willing to accommodate her by being her personal shopper...then what the hell is the problem?

How many home businesses are there that do not accommodate to the disabled? Do you expect a small business owner who owns her own hair shop run out of her house to have ramps/lifts and large enough rooms or hallways to accommodate a disabled person that may or maynot use her services?

Do you expect hotels that have waterslides and pools to have elevators at each slide or ramps into the pool so wheelchair bound people can use the equipment.

It is common sense people. Both parties have to be willing to be the solution. When you have either party demanding it to be one way...well it just does not work.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Some of you are missing the point and thinking people are against the disabled. There is a duty to accommodate disabled people and when it can be done it should be done. These people did not choose to be disabled and we should do what is nessesary to help them. Having said that...duty to accommodate is not an end all. If it brings undue hardship onto a business than other alternatives should be considered. They do need to comply with legislation but just because a disabled person cannot access a certain area, doesn't mean the company or owner is bad and against the disabled. According to the owner he offered to help the lady get what ever she needed, but she refused. If the owner was willing to accommodate her by being her personal shopper...then what the hell is the problem?

How many home businesses are there that do not accommodate to the disabled? Do you expect a small business owner who owns her own hair shop run out of her house to have ramps/lifts and large enough rooms or hallways to accommodate a disabled person that may or maynot use her services?

Do you expect hotels that have waterslides and pools to have elevators at each slide or ramps into the pool so wheelchair bound people can use the equipment.

It is common sense people. Both parties have to be willing to be the solution. When you have either party demanding it to be one way...well it just does not work.

Not missing the point at all and I'm not judging this store owner. He may be trying to do the best he can. I'm bashing some of the posters on this board who are quick to judge the disabled. Being disabled may mean you will never play in the NHL but you should be able to buy food and use a bathroom, and perhaps maybe if they are suitably grateful watch[being sarcastic here] an NHL game or go to the movies. It's about respect for fellow human beings and some posters don't seem to have it.