should get into compliance," Eastwood said in a telephone
interview Wednesday. But he added, "I think there should be a
better way to get people in compliance." http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36340
http://overlawyered.com/archives/00may2.html#000518b
Here, I believe, both you and I agree with Mr. Eastwood. Thousands of businesses have been hit with charges that their facilities are out of compliance with the ADA; most of the complaints can be traced to a small network of activists linked to lawyers who obtain legal fees typically in the thousands of dollars from defendants eager to settle. These suits weaken the ability of any legitimate ADA lawsuits that do need to be addressed. It is the way in which this problem should be resolved the the disagreement seems to play out. One side see this as "a direct attack on the civil right of 56 million," the other side see it differently. "We say; if there are problems with lawyers and their ethical practices, don't fix the problems by eroding the civil rights of people with disabilities!"
"This proposed amendment is a direct attack on the civil rights of 56 million Americans with disabilities and must be stopped," said the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) in a March 30 press release. "We say; if there are problems with lawyers and their ethical practices, don't fix the problems by eroding the civil rights of people with disabilities!"
As HR 3690, the bill died quietly last year in spite of a great deal of attention given to it by the actor/director Clint Eastwood and, therefore, the mainstream media. In May, Eastwood testified before a U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Constitutional Subcommittee in support of ADA Notification. At that time, he was being sued by a woman who claimed that Eastwood's Mission Ranch Hotel in Carmel, California was not accessible to people who use wheelchairs. A jury in October determined that Eastwood was liable for three accessibility violations, but did not order him to pay damages. http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/access/notification.htm#040401
Eastwood Found Liable For Not Providing Access
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
October 2, 2000
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA--On Friday, a jury decided that Clint Eastwood was liable for three violations regarding access at his Mission Ranch Inn, but did not order the actor/director to pay any damages to the woman who had sued him.
After four hours of deliberations, the jury announced the verdict, in which it found that Eastwood's resort should provide a ramp to the registration office, a second accessible guest room and signs about the accessible restrooms -- which are 234 feet away. Eastwood said those changes are already "in the works". http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/access/notification.htm#100200
That said, I cringe every time I see a story about lawyers' abuses of the ADA. The latest: A May 9 article in the Wall Street Journal about actor Clint Eastwood's campaign to get Congress to amend the law to give businesses more leeway to comply with it. Eastwood is livid that, as the owner of an historic, 32-room hotel and restaura! nt in Carmel, Calif., he along with hundreds of other small-business owners have been sued for failing to conform quickly enough with the accessibility requirements of the ADA. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2000/nf00510d.htm
CtrlAltDel aka Dave
C4/5 Complete - 29 Years Post
Texas, USA
Your Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tabloid fits what passes as big city newspapers now days incld the NY
Times (which many small papers use to fill their own).
Eastwood had a small resturaunt not a resort. Carmiel isn't very large
and IMO he was targeted only because his name would make it a big issue.
Yes I'd like to get into most places, like a local speakeasy where my
late grandmothers 2nd husband was a celeb. But it was a historical site
and I'd think commonsense dictates that if making it accessible takes
away from maintaining the authenticity it would be wrong to do so.
If an older building can't be grandfathered in, many of our other laws
would also be in danger of violating others rights.
If a major exterior redisign was to be done, then at that time I could
see forcing compliance. I thought the ADA law was org written along
those lines.
Stunt
> ! Hi Stunt,
>
> I don't like to be used by others for them to make money, either.
The site I gave lists lawsuits filed, so if Mr. Moore settled before
the suit was actually filed, it wouldn't be listed.
>
> As far a any lawsuit being filed against Mr. Eastwood just because he
has money, the outcome of any lawsuit is determined on its merits.
That's the way our legal system works. It may not be perfect, but it
is better than most people on the earth live under.
>
> I do understand that while Google doesn't retrieve everything, but do
a quick check and you'll find the sites run as much against Mr. Moore's
movie as for it. I think a fair reading would give both sides of the
issues you say the media ignores. I'm not a tabloid reader so I'll
take your word on their coverage, but both sides of the issue are in
print.
>
> If I am not allowed to visit a resort for the simple reason that I
d! on't live in the community it is in, that is wrong. Either AB or a
person with a wheelchair should have that right. If I am not able to
get into a court room or Federal building, then they are doing the same
wrong. But two wrongs don't make it right. Change must be made across
the board. In the 'Left' and in the 'Right.' To stand against change
for what is right, is wrong for both sides, AND the middle!
>
> IMHO -- If we as a Country are not moving forward, we are moving in
the wrong direction, and all the effort that you and your fellow
Veterans give to this Country would be lost. I pray that never happens.
>
> With Love,
>
> CtrlAltDel aka Dave
> C4/5 Complete - 29 Years Post
> Texas, USA
>
