different approach to save the pier.

[montylfl]

Been thinking "how can we save the pier and get the east side back opened?"

Letters to our State employees have netted zero results. ( State Reps)

Letter to our Federal employees have netted zero results. ( Senators and congressman).

Reports on the news have netted zero results.

So what are we to do?

Maybe it is time to use the current laws that were passed in the 1990's to our favor and bring a lawsuit against the City of St Pete, County of Pinellas and the state of Fl for not complying with the American With Disabilities Act. ( Aka ADA).

Seems there was a class action suit brought in CA against the state for hindering access at state parks to people who wanted to fish.

I do not know what you think but closing the gandy pier has prevented people with disabilites from fishing that area.

The closing of the east side makes it very dangerous to fish from a wheelchair now. In fact I hardly see any one in a wheelchair fishing there now. Even Scooter is not fishing as much anymore.
It is just too dangerous.

FDS piers are not that easy to get out on with a wheelchair either.

So I have submitted a complaint to DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and I am in the process of finding a lawyer to work pro bono to file the neccesary papers. Hopefully, this will get some attention and when it does i will make sure everyones knows those "employees of ours who were unwilling to help.





Here is some info on the CA Case on the DRA Legal Wesite.

For more information you may contact :

Stephen Tollafield
[e-mail]


Landmark Settlement of Class Action Lawsuits to Improve Disability Access to California State Parks
Overview Tucker v. California Department of Parks and Recreation
More Details
More details, including links to downloadable files, are found at the bottom of this page.
Two individuals with disabilities, two disability rights organizations, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation announced today that they have reached a comprehensive settlement agreement covering all California State Parks. The settlement resolves two related class action lawsuits alleging a denial of access to California State Parks due to access barriers. The class representatives — Bonnie Tucker, Peter Mendoza, Californians for Disability Rights and the California Council of the Blind — are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a non-profit law center in Oakland, California. Defendants, represented by the California Attorney General's Office, include the State of California, its Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Department's Director, Ruth Coleman. Defendants have denied all liability and wrongdoing. Under the settlement, formalized in a consent decree, the Department of Parks and Recreation has committed to a comprehensive plan for improving access for park visitors with mobility and sensory disabilities so that they can fully participate in the many recreational programs offered at California State Parks.

"With this settlement, California is on its way to having the most accessible park system in the country," said Laurence Paradis, Executive Director of Disability Rights Advocates and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "We are very pleased that the Parks Department has embraced its obligation to ensure that people with disabilities are fully included in programs and activities offered at California State Parks."

Ruth Coleman, the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, commented: "State Parks is already involved in making significant changes at many park locations and we committed to providing greater access with this settlement plan. We are the stewards of some of the most diverse and spectacular resources found anywhere in the world and it is our desire to share those resources with all citizens."

The California State Park system contains the largest and most diverse natural and cultural heritage holdings of any state agency in the nation. Currently, there are more than 270 separate park units, which include state beaches, historic monuments and parks, state reserves, and state recreational areas. A park unit may include undeveloped property, beaches, reservoirs, wilderness areas, reserves, off-highway vehicle areas, lighthouses, historic structures and museums. A diverse range of programs is offered including hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming, boating, historic and educational programs, biking, fishing, and other activities. Over 80 million visits are made to California State Parks each year.

The primary lawsuit, Tucker v. California Department of Parks and Recreation, was originally filed in federal court in 1998. Working cooperatively to resolve the lawsuit, the parties jointly selected an access expert in 1999 to oversee a comprehensive survey of programs and facilities throughout the park system. For more than a year, a team of specialized Department personnel trained by the joint expert conducted surveys of physical barriers and reviewed all Department policies and practices. Under the guidance of this expert, the Department developed a detailed transition plan for physical barrier removal, changes in policies, and other access improvements. The parties then negotiated a comprehensive consent decree agreement to ensure access to all of the programs, services and activities of the park system.

In the transition plan, each state park is assigned a level based on visitation, the number of activities offered, the uniqueness of the programs, and geographic distribution. Pursuant to the consent decree, the Department will first improve parks with the highest number of annual visits. These improvements will include a specified number of accessible trails as well as access to all of the park's recreational, educational and interpretive programs. Other parks will have a longer amount of time to make enhancements and provide access. Additionally, the parties reached creative solutions that will help park concessions, such as food vendors, make their services accessible to visitors with disabilities. The attached fact sheet summarizes the scope and timetable of the access improvements agreed to in the settlement.

The Department started its comprehensive accessibility program in 2002, and has already accomplished significant improvements at several parks. Some of these include Anza Borrego Desert SP, Brannan Island SRA, Doheny SB, Folsom Lake SRA, Half Moon Bay SB, Hungry Valley SVRA, Lake Oroville SRA, Lake Perris SRA, and San Luis Reservoir SRA. The California State Parks' website includes an online resource to identify available accessible activities at these and other state parks in California.

Jeff Thom, president of the California Council of the Blind, an organizational plaintiff in the case, stated, "This settlement will enable thousands of blind and visually impaired Californians and visitors to our state to more fully enjoy the beauty of our state park system and gain a true appreciation of the incredible state in which we live."

"Although many take 'a walk in the park' for granted, people with disabilities have historically been excluded from inaccessible areas of natural beauty," said Plaintiff Peter Mendoza. "This settlement will guarantee to people with disabilities the equal opportunity to enjoy the wonderful resources our state parks have to offer."

The consent decree agreement includes provisions for ongoing reporting by the Department and monitoring by the jointly selected expert and plaintiffs' attorneys. The federal court will maintain its jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree.

The agreement has received preliminary approval from the federal court. Notice of the settlement is now being provided to all members of the plaintiff class. The parties have proposed that the court set a final approval hearing for November 18, 2005.


Let me know your thoughts.

[filletnrelease]

Monty, I applaud your efforts in this matter, but it seems from what I read in your post that there are different issues involved between California's problems and ours. First, though it is obviously dangerous for disabled people, it is not inaccessible. Hell it's dangerous for able bodied people. The closing of both the East spans and the Gandy were about safety issues. Those cannot be argued or disputed. I do not agree that the East side of the pier should still be closed to pedestrian traffic though. The 50 year rule (not law) is intended to insure safety to motorists, not pedestrian traffic. If a structural engineer would certify that the east span is indeed safe for a certain number of people, than perhaps we would have some chance in a law suit. Good luck on that one I am afraid. Another thought, if we could get a law suit as in California, and could prove that it is not safe for disabled people, the state would have no choice but to close the remainder of the pier. I wish I had a solution, but it seems to me, at least for now, that we will just have to live with what we have left. I again applaud you efforts, and thank you and others who are busting there brain to come up with a solution.

[montylfl]

filletnrelease, thank for your feedback. greatly appreciated but that is the fun lawyers love to argue. I see your counter points by I argue. You say the current pier "it is obviously dangerous for disabled people, it is not inaccessible." but I disagree. One there is not enough handicap Parking spaces and for the ones they do have... have you ever seen someone in a wheel chair try to make it to the bathrooms? It is nearly impossible to navigate that single traffic pier. One can barely walk safely.

Also, by bringing the suit it would prevent the state from " proving that it is not safe for disabled people, the state would have no choice but to close the remainder of the pier" The suit would seek from the state to make to pier safe and accessible to all people. That would be like bring a suite against the police for brutally and the state saying we fired the cop so we are not responsible. Therefore, creating an action to prevent a suit from moving forward.

You make some excellent points. All points I would hope a lawyer would love to argue. thanks again for the feedback

[filletnrelease]

No problem Monty, I only hope you are successful with your quest. I won't disagree that Lawyers love to argue, but they also like to win more. I may not have put my point across very well on the closure of the pier. I was not saying the state would close the pier to eliminate responsibility for it not being up to standards, though unless you know the percentage of handicap accessible spaces required of the total spaces supplied, it is unlikely that the State is not complying. I can't state that as fact, it is only an assumption, and I may be in error. Another important fact is that no matter how disgusting the restrooms are, they are Handicap accessible as well as the Bait Shop. My point was if the State does not have the funds to make the changes required in the findings of the court, they would have to close it until said funds are made available and the changes were made. It would likely be in the Judges ruling that this occur. All of this being said, I am in no way an Attorney and we are not in California so anything is possible. Good luck with your quest, our future as Skyway Pier Rats may eventually come down to something like this happening.

[montylfl]

Very good point