Disability Perspective: Supe. Adapts Southern Civil Rights Strategy On Disabled Access

Second-class status for the disabled is being suggested as a very real option to debate and codify!

The evolution was strikingly similar to what many Southern states followed in the post-Civil War era, after Reconstruction ended. Suddenly, all the federal civil rights passed during that era were subject to local ordinances that cut back, thwarted, or suspended those same civil rights. Such local undermining is what surfaced in the Land Use Committee hearing on 19 Oct. Though only one Supe. pushed the NIMBY approach to disabled access, certainly the Planning Commission's decision to require posting of notices calling attention to safe and accessible elevators helped give aid and comfort to the enemies of disabled access.

All this lengthy opposition advocacy came from ONE Supe., with not one person in the audience speaking against the item. The question of enforcement of civil rights and of workers' safety never was addressed.

[[ To see for yourself the one-sided unrelenting NIMBY attack on disabled access, go to the Board of Supes. website and click on the "Video-on-Demand" button; then select the 19 Oct. Land Use Committee hearing. Though the elevator legislation is the 2nd item on the agenda, it might be instructive to also view the first item for another example of how a simple decision went far beyond the scope of the agenda to unexpectedly become a code-amending brain-storming session. ]]

It's worth noting that almost all the various members of SF's diverse disability communities who came to speak did so simply and to the point, without being harangued. The lone target from the disability community was an authority figure--a co-chair of the Mayor's Disability Council [ MDC ], who was peppered with questions about how many disabled people there were in SF and whether all might need access to the roofs of new buildings with elevators. Again, the simple decision before the Land Use Committee ( bringing the Planning Code into conformity with the city's Building Code, with state code, and with federal law ) just never, ever, ever was addressed in the machine gun blizzard of questions to the MDC co-chair.

it's also worth noting that the most recent survey by a major Bay Area public interest law firm of its clients and of its referring / partnering agencies showed that the issue most in need of its services was: HOUSING,

and the constituency or demographic group most in need of representation on civil law matters was

"Disabled Clients".

Should it be a shock that housing is the biggest need of the Bay Area's low-income population? Similarly, should it be a major surprise that, when so much of this city is inaccessible, the group most needing legal representation is the disabled? The need for housing is so obvious and the link between lack of housing and lack of access shouldn't be a major hurdle to realize.

Why then, does this simple code conformity item get so off-track and divert over to suggestions for thwarting disabled access--and even suggesting housing size be reduced for the low-income, senior, and disabled populations just so that views won't be impaired?

What's the hidden agenda behind all this delay and smoke screen? Why are the disabled being held hostage on this? What's there to gain by these delays--other than lawsuits?

What happened that implementing civil rights and properly housing those in need suddenly became an afterthought to protecting the perks and privileges of the "haves"? What Bizarro-world transformation took place that SF now hears views so reminiscent of what was expressed and enacted in the post-Reconstruction Southern states?

Maybe we'll find answers to some of these questions, or even see action taken, at the next episode of this disability-focussed legislative drama. Wed., 2 Nov., at 1 pm is when next this item should come before the Supes. Land Use Committee. If members of the public and of the media attend, then they'll see directly what surprises and disrespect the disabled endure when this simple item comes up for another hearing.