Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: Disabled activist files suit against Pepin Restaurant, May 21.
Pepin is a good example of why the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) was created in 1990. For the same reasons, the Civil Rights Act was created in the '60s: to ensure equal rights to minorities in our wonderful country. The ADA provides a set of mandatory guidelines that require businesses that are open to the public to "level the playing field" for citizens with disabilities. Removing obstacles to accessibility allows disadvantaged members of our society to more easily partake of the goods and services that are offered to the general public. Additionally, the U.S. IRS Sections 44 and 190 provide tax credits and write-offs for businesses that remove obstacles to accessibility. Removing obstacles is not only good business, it is good for business: People with disabilities tend not to patronize businesses that are not "accessible." The accessibility issues at Pepin are parking, entrance and bathrooms.
Pepin is also a good example of why business owners get sued. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the ADA has been around since 1990. Additionally, the Florida Department of State Notice of the Public Access Requirements for Individuals with Disabilities is included with each annual renewal or newly issued business occupational license. Presumably, Pepin has an occupational business license.
Your May 21 article said "Pepin denied it was violating the ADA." Ironic, now that they have been caught violating the law, they are pleading their innocence. It's like trying to talk the police officer out of writing you a citation after you've been caught speeding at 90 mph in a 65-mph zone.
The owners have had sufficient time to correct their ADA code violations. Mr. Locascio notified Pepin almost two years ago of the restaurant's deficiencies. On Nov. 26, 2001, an accessibility evaluation inspection was conducted by a local ADA consultant, Jack Humburg. Accompanying Mr. Humburg were the attorneys for Mr. Locascio and Pepin. However, at that time, Mr. Humburg was not allowed to inspect the ladies restroom. This was a "red flag" that indicated Pepin did not have intentions of complying with the ADA. According to Mr. Locascio, a former Pepin manager, Steve White, had negotiated a "trade exchange" with a local building contractor who offered to trade meals for his work to correct the ADA deficiencies, but the owners of Pepin nixed the deal. Pepin eventually agreed to make renovations by Oct. 31, 2002. It failed to do so, even after being given an additional six-month "hardship" extension. A lawsuit was filed only after Mr. Locascio exhausted almost two years of conscientious and patient efforts. He tried to achieve compliance without having to resort to the courts. This is an example of good advocacy. PVA and people with disabilities commend George for doing the right thing.
Re: Pepin restaurant.
I am a businessman who has been confined to a wheelchair for 41 years, and I have been a resident of St. Petersburg for 30 years. I find it appalling that Pepin's owners will not comply with Americans With Disabilities Act standards for handicap accessibility. The business is in violation of codes pertaining to parking, building accessibility and rest room accommodations.
The owners of Pepin have been cited by the city of St. Petersburg for not complying with ADA codes, but the restaurant continues to violate these codes.
I would like to be able to patronize the restaurant for business and social occasions, but in order to do so, I must depend on the person accompanying me to assist me with parking and entering the building. Once inside, I cannot access the restroom facilities.
Most area restaurants have voluntarily complied with the codes imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA codes are not optional; the ADA codes are the law. Has the time not come for Pepin to respond to the previous citations concerning ADA code violations and be compelled to comply?
Re: Beach trolley.
The Suncoast Beach Trolley is a valuable asset to all the businesses in the beach area, but it does create many problems for motorists on the beach, especially in the narrows area between Park Boulevard and Walsingham Road and also continuing up the beach where there is a center lane for turns only.
Instead of pulling to the side to pick up passengers, they stop right in the traffic lane to load and unload. Many of the passengers require change, making the delay longer.
Recently, I observed a trolley stopped in the narrows area with at least 20 cars stopped behind it. In the rest of the area through Indian Rocks Beach, people are afraid to pass them when they are stopped, because the center lane is for left turns.
I'm sure that there are areas along there where they could safely pull off of the roadway. Perhaps some motels would allow them to pull into their parking area. The Nature Park in Indian Rocks Beach would be another good stopping place for both directions, too. Along with being a nuisance, stopping in the roadway to load or unload passengers is dangerous.
Re: Annexations.
Whenever possible, you should be able to choose in which municipality you live. If you want, you should be able to not live in a municipality. In other words, the decision to annex or not should be left to the individual whenever possible. Pinellas County has said that you should be able to live where you want. Why, then, does Pinellas County work so hard to oppose voluntary annexation?
At every Largo Commission meeting, the commission considers requests for annexation. At every meeting, the public hears about the county trying to block annexations. Recently, the Largo Commission took up the issue of some properties that had received sewer service with the understanding that the property would annex to Largo once it became contiguous to Largo. You did, and the city is ready to annex. This isn't good enough for the county.
You have weighed the pros and cons and chosen to annex, just as the county has said you should be able to do. Then the county says, "No!" Why? Because the county hates annexation. It sees itself as giving up tax base when properties annex into a city. Never mind that you pay county taxes anyway.
Never mind that the county forces municipalities to provide services to nonresidents who don't pay municipal taxes. Never mind that the county wants to raise its tax on gasoline. Never mind that the sheriff needs more and more money to provide police protection. Never mind county budgetary chaos beyond anything you'll see in a municipality. You don't decide whether or not you annex into a municipality, the county does.