AAB Decision: A Civil Rights Victory

Posted by John B. Kelly

Yesterday's Architectural Access Board (AAB) decision is a civil rights victory.

I want to thank everyone who supported in any way our efforts at the "Great Fine Hearing of 2006," whether attending, submitting testimony, helping with measuring violations , making a storyboard, coming to a protest, and all the other ways people have contributed. This is the start of a very accessible season!

The Menino administration, along with its institution friends like Symphony Hall, has acted over the last few years like they could do whatever they wanted in our neighborhood and get away with it. Even if it was illegal. The city wanted to pretend that crossslopes between 2% and 3.1% were no big deal. It wanted the board to just let them off the hook without question. But the AAB reminded them that 2% was the legal maximum for good reason -- that it takes 50% more effort to move across a 3% cross slope than a 2% crossslope.

The bottom line is this: the city will have to dig out the asphalt base under the bricks along Huntington Avenue, and bring every cross slope under 2%. This means that we can offer Mayor Menino another bite at the apple: he has another chance to do the right thing here, give up on this awful brick and replace it with a smooth surface. Sometimes, the best option is also the cheapest option.

Taking up the entire sidewalk, re-laying an asphalt base, and putting down those irregular bricks again will cost the city more in every way, in terms of cash and reputation. It has already lost at least $40,000, the money it threw away on Saturday in its last ditch attempt to persuade the board that sort of and mostly compliant is the same as compliant.

Hopefully, the AAB will stand by its decision to fine the city, since no one, whether private individual or institution or local government, should be able to get away with taking away civil rights. When a thief steals something precious from you, and a couple of years later reluctantly returns it in worse condition, they must still be punished.

This city stole our access by putting down irregular bricks that were noncompliant, and then made every effort to not fix them. Even if by July 1 this sidewalk is technically regulation, the city must still pay for the three years we were excluded from going down our own neighborhood street. Risking our life in the street, exhausted and stressed if we stay on the sidewalk, and frustrated and demoralized if we go around.

No one wants to have to penalize a city (there are so many needs, and never enough dollars), but we are always hearing about the word "responsibility", and it is time that the administration that went to court to argue that it is not "the responsible party" for this sidewalk, take responsibility for its actions.

City officials seemed to hope that last second touch ups and some cool charts would get it off the hook, but they sure were wrong. It amazed me that Commissioner Spinetto had no justification for the variance he applied for. Remember this is language that the Architectural Access Board uses to make its decisions:

the Board can only grant variances if compliance with the regulations is proven to be technologically infeasible or the cost of compliance is excessive without any substantial benefit to persons with disabilities.

This means that the city had to prove to the board that fixing the problems was just impossible, or (and this is what the city tried to argue) that the remedy would cost so much and hardly help disabled people at all (the magic phrase "substantial benefit"), so that a variance makes the most sense.

Because Commissioner Spinetto and the project engineer admitted that they could make the sidewalk regulation, they had no choice but to argue that it would cost too much. They did not bother to explain why fixing the sidewalk would not "substantially benefit" disabled people. Under sharp questioning, Commissioner Spinetto said that remaining violations would only "minimally" bother people. We know better.

Eileen Brewster made the excellent suggestion of questioning Commissioner Spinetto's appropriateness for the position of ADA compliance officer for the city of Boston, since he opposed-- under oath-- basic ADA regulations. How can someone enforce a law that he actively opposes? More on this soon, especially when we have the transcript.

In other news, the AAB will be able to supply us copies of the hearing on CDs. I will have important parts of the hearing transcribed, like when Commissioner Spinetto said that bricks were the community choice and that illegal crossslopes are not a problem, and (my favorite moment) when the project engineer said that it was very difficult to work with the bricks because "they are so irregular."

We could also transcribe people's testimony.