Robert is Sam's son.
And his name is Richard (it changes to Robert half way through the post). Everytime I think of Sam Bernstein, I also think of Wade Blasingame.
http://thetravisty.com/
Saturday_..._Dog_Lawyer.htm
I have a question, and I know there are people here who can answer it: when I see comparisons to ND's stadium, it occurs to me that (IIRC) much more of ND's stadium is above-ground. (I have been there only once, and I was more fascinated with how small it felt and with the insanely tight restrictions they have on student tickets.) Does that make it more difficult to install compliant seating all over the stadium? I mean, are they talking about only ground-level and above compliant seating, or are they asking for seating closer to the field? And would it be more difficult to add compliant seating to the below-ground parts of the stadium?
I've been wondering about that since the suit was announced a while ago, but I've never actually asked anyone who might be able to answer.
That's what drives me nuts about Pollack, the handicapped seating thing is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed and he's tying it in with the luxury suites which are a whole separate thing. Then his ramblings make the seating issue look like a silly attempt to stop the changes.
I'm handicapped and no matter where I have a ticket I'm stuck in one of the end zones when I come back for a game. No matter where my friend has a ticket, they have to sit in the end zones if we want to sit together. If too many handicapped people show up for a game, my friend has to leave because there isn't enough seating-yes this has actually happened to me. (don't get me wrong, I'd watch a Michigan game by myself in the middle of a category V hurricane, but I like to watch them with my buddies too)
The ADA is crap legislation to begin with, and while I have sympathy for the less mobile among us who would like to see a Michigan game live, the bottom line is it's not anyone's constitutional right to see a Michigan game live and this whole business of inconveniencing and rearranging the rest of the world to suit a small minority of folks is a quixotic and foolish affair.
If that makes me sound insensitive, I'm sorry. But I still consider this kind of action to be selfish bullshit.
This is how the ADA works. I am director of parks and recreation for a county in Michigan and when we make any changes to a facility, be it a building, a parking lot, a playground, etc. we have to comply with ADA. There is a pretty clear line between what is a "repair" and what is an "alteration". I completely support the new plans for Michigan Stadium but if this were to go to trial I am quite certain that this would be considered an "alteration" and not a "repair". This being the case, U of M would have to be totally compliant with ADA. I am no attorney, but it is my understanding that there is no gray area regarding this point. Heck, when we do playground renovations it is spelled out for us exactly how many activities need to be accessible based on the size of the new playground.
Of course, when we do renovations, I want to make things more accessible to our visitors. To that end I support the ADA. But it does complicate things and it does add cost.
It does add cost, and BM will have to build MORE luxury suites to pay for the extra cost (and to piss Pollack off).
I'm no fan of Pollack, but I've got to side with the ADA folks on this one. I'd like to know what UM's reasoning was in the first place to not include more handicapped seating? It seems to me renovations like this would be a perfect time to make changes.
The parsing of 'alterations' and 'repair' is exactly why people hate lawyers. I'd just like to hear why (without triggering the legal defense arguments), from the AD and the architects. What's the reasonsing for not putting in more handicapped seating?
I'm not an architect, but I am loosely aligned in a design profession, and as such, it seems to me that the new concourses to be created below the luxury boxes and above the current seating bowl would be perfect places to have disabled seating, and a lot of it. I'd rather be able to debate this from an informed base, but without specific drawings, it's kind of hard. With that said and given the available information, I've got to side with the ADA people on this.
1. Is Richard Bernstein actually a "professor"? (Or is this web page just out of date?) Note the separate sections for "adjunct faculty" and "lecturers."
http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/
fac...cultyAlpha.html
2. Bernstein is on the Wayne State Board of Governors:
http://www.bog.wayne.edu/members...s/
bernstein.php
3. Cork boat in question. He wrote a book on it.
http://www.corkboat.com/photos.html
As a lawyer, Bernstein makes me ill. U-M should comply with the ADA in its redesign of the stadium, as it is the right thing to do, but Corkboat can go eat it.
Also, I direct you all to the following news bulletin:
http://www.theonion.com/content/
..._im_going_to_be
I'm also curious why U-M is fighting so hard here. [Name redacted] has 1,000+ of these seats.
"With a capacity of 101,568, Ohio Stadium boasts 1,108 wheelchair-accessible seats, the result of a renovation completed in 2001."
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/...d=1499&
zoneid=9
Wait, "Stadium-wide compliance would include making 1 percent of all seating handicap accessible..."
For Notre Dame, 400 wheelchair-accessible seats / 80,795 capacity = 0.5% < 1%.
Was this "1 percent" law passed after Notre Dame had refurbished their stadium in 1997?
Crist to ND
Mustain to USC.
Zia to lunch.
Read the "About Corkboat" section, I just about died laughing. This is the best quote:
"In the late 1990s John Pollack was working as a Washington speechwriter when, frustrated by the cynicism and hypocrisy on Capitol Hill, he quit his job to pursue a boyhood dream: to build a boat made entirely of wine corks and take it on an epic journey."
The ADA compliance is a serious issue, and Pollack becomes the political hack that he is trying to put the AD in a bad light. what's BM going to do if he is forced to comply say "ah screw it, can't build luxury boxes anymore."
I guarentee that the Tiananmen square comparison was Pollack's idea too.
Honestly, doing research at the Bentley a year ago and reading a book about the construction of the stadium, the ADA compliance would be seen by Fielding H. Yost as allowing all taxpayers of the state to watch Michigan football, something that he was strongly in favor of (because at Ferry Field the demand superseded the availablity of tickets students and alumni wanted Yost to cap the number of tickets avalable to the general public. This is something Yost did not want to do, saying that state taxpayers have the same right to watch the game as alumni and students do. I little history lesson FWIW)
Pollack just needs to grab a Styx cd, get on his corkboat, and sail away.
I think we already knew that ND had more handicapped fans than we did.
The "Homepage" link below will take you to a URL of Notre Dame stadium's seating chart. With the accompanying pictures that pop up as you put your mouse over various parts of the stadium, you can see how ND has arranged seating for wheelchairs.
Michigan has put it's wheelchair accessible seats in consecutive sections. If you count each section individually, (Bernstein does not seem capable of making this disctinction between seating for 45 and seating for 10), then Michigan has 10 sections of seating, not 2.
You will also note that 13 of the 17 sections at Notre Dame are all made possible by the renovation that basically added an entire new shell to the stadium to accomodate the expansion. With such construction came the ability to put in elevators that can easily bring patrons to the upper level.
The seats (at ND) that are closer to the field are the equivalent of "ground level" or row 72 in Ann Arbor. It is interesting that Bernstein holds Notre Dame up as a model of "compliance" after that full renovation only gave them (by his count) 400 handicapped accessible seats in a stadium that lists it's capactity as 80,000.
The same is true of the Rose Bowl. Wheelchair accessible seating is in one row - around the entire stadium - at ground level, which happens to be in the 30s in Pasadena. If you have a ticket for the press box or suites - then you take elevators like everyone else does.
I find it boggles the mind that talk about concrete replacement to the 1927 bowl is being construed by some as an "alteration" just because Michigan waited to long to fix it before putting the boxes on the table for discussion.
The question remains, if Michigan is adding 70 wheel chair accessible seats at the level of Row 98 on the western sideline (seats currently occupied by the likes of Mary Sue Coleman under the press box). Aside from wanting them on the east side too, where else should they be placed? Do wheelchair patrons want to go back into the endzones on the field? Seems to me that is where most of them were pre-1991.
Should Michigan be required to build elevators that go into the ground and tunnel to row 25 for a special section? Isn't that where the ADA standard of "readily achieveable" and "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense" comes in?
Ok, first of all, I've got a physical disability, and I am absolutely positive John Pollack is crazy. Tienanmen Square? Holy crap. But that being said, yes, the newly renovated stadium should absolutely be ADA compliant. I don't have the time to parse the legislation, but it seems rather obvious to me that this is an "alteration" and not a "repair" and therefore the U would have to follow guidelines for a "new" stadium:
So yes, Michigan Stadium is woefully below that 1% threhold. The question really is, where does that 1% come from? Probably a nice sounding round number, but is it too big a number? According to the 2002 U.S. census, about 3.6% of the U.S. population over age 15 has a disability that causes "severe difficulty walking."
So this isn't all that unreasonable, and while I personally don't need handicapped seating, if I was somebody who did, I'd want it to be there for me. Because the disabled population is not small. And with respect to Dave's comment, even though it's not my "right" to see a game live, neither is it for fully abled. And yet, there's something they have that grants them access to the stadium: $60 for a ticket. Guess what, the cripples have that too.
Crap, links didn't show up. Let's try that again:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/stadium.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/d...ab02/
ds02t2.pdf
I can't stand John Pollack, and think luxury boxes should happen. Having said that, I also think there should be handicapped accessible seating of approx. 1100 throughout the stadium. I agree with the article that said there could be handicapped seats near the proximity of the actual entrances (is vomitory a real word?) into the stadium from the outer concourses. I think the point of the exception for grandfathering old buildings is not to financially cripple churches, schools, etc., that would be put out of business by retrofitting. U of M is not financially insolvent . . . they can certainly afford on some level to put in more dispersed and numerous handicapped seating.
I'm not saying I hate "cripples" or am opposed to accommodating them when possible, but I still think the ADA is crap legislation, which is easily abused by ambulance chasers and hacks (exactly as is being done here) to pile unnecessary costs onto everyone else for the supposed sake of a small minority of folks, who may or may not care a whole lot in any case.
I am skeptical there was a spontaneous uprising of outraged disabled vets over the stadium renovation.
I think it would be easier for Martin just to cave on this issue, because fighting it out in court is iffy, and I don't think it would be that difficult to resolve things.
At the spring practice I entered in the SW corner then proceeded toward the eastern side of the field, so I walked along the wheelchair area (much wider walking space than along any row).
I don't see why it would be that difficult to expand that to the center area of the eastern sideline, thus providing a lot more such seats. It would cost two rows over part of the stadium and the seats could be made up elsewhere. Lawsuit gets dropped, everyone who claims to be unhappy loses the right to do so.
And Corkboy is thwarted again and throws a hissy fit. As does his puppetmaster, "Dude".
Maybe they sent Bill Martin some of those address labels and he never sent them a check?
Here's another reason I'm for ADA compliance. As an alumni in the Chicago area, I'm sick and tired of the arrogance and hubris seemingly displayed by U of M in not only this, but in other areas. When the elections didn't go the way Mary Sue wanted them to, it was incredibly arrogant for Coleman to say, "We won't comply with the electorate" (they're just ignorant boobs and we know better.) I see this nonsense with Chicago politicians all the time . . . I'd like to think Michigan was better than that.
Here with the stadium renovation project, Martin (& Coleman, and the regents) are saying, we don't need to comply. Worse, they are using lawyerly language to skirt the clear intent of the ADA provisions. Even if the Michigan lawyers could prevail in this matter, I think it would be morally wrong. Lawyers manage to prevail in all kinds of cases, finding a weaselly way to circumvent the clear intent of a provision.
U of M is basically saying, "we don't want to comply, and since we have good lawyers and deep pockets, we don't have to comply." This is a morally bankrupt decision. Normally, it would seem odd to bring "morality" into this discussion. But Michigan really brings this on itself by claiming to take the ethical high road, to do things the right way. (for reference, see comments on Ed Martin scandal and see comments on Amaker and now Beilein.) If we can get away with fewer handicapped seats with the help of lawyers, what's to say that we won't find lawyerly ways to pay student-athletes, and to unethically recruit student-athletes, etc., etc.
To sum up, Michigan should be concerned with following the spirit and intent of the ADA law, not just the letter of the law.
I have to say Bernstein's claims that the work that has been going on over the last couple of summers counting as alteration is just one-hundred percent crap. I will agree however that the plans moving forward would be an alteration and should include more wheelchair accessable seating. The difficulty becomes in dealing with a stadium that is built into the ground. It doesn't matter that Notre Dame's little stadium is designed after ours, they are almost if not entirely above ground. The cost of adding handicapped accessible seating for above ground is much less than below ground.
Some form of a compromise should be worked out, but I don't see any way for below ground ADA seating happening unless they use the tunnel entrance, which is a possibility but frankly I'd be concerned about the security of that a lot more than the planes flying overhead that Martin & Co. had such a hissy-fit over.
I'm still looking for confirmation of this, but a friend of mine mentioned an article he read which said that the average handicapped attendance at Michigan football games is less than 100 people. If that's true (again, I'm trying to find where that number came from,) is it really necessary to have 1000+ handicap-accessible seats in the stadium? Compliance with regulations is all well and good, except for when politicians base those regulations on numbers pulled from their collective ass.
Steve, I've got to disagree with you about the comments made by Mary Sue Coleman after the election...she was hired to be the president of the university of michigan and as such it's her job to do what she thinks is in the best interest of the university. If she breaks the law then state officials will have to deal with it, but in her opinion is that having a diverse student population is in the best interest. As you may have noticed the university is working to continue to have a diverse population (not that it really is representative of Michigan's population to begin with)
while meeting the strict letter of the ridiculous new law.
By the way the university has also had to fight to maintain benefits for same sex partners...proponents of that ballot issue specificially stated that it was only about marriage and wouldn't affect benefits, but as soon as it passed they sued. Smarmy lawyer action definately goes both ways.
OK..
1) wow...after being off the intranets for 2 days, i fully expected a baseball vs EMU post that basically said: watching live baseball is fun, unless it's 45 deg and rainy. instead, it's actual ummm, researched work, on an engaging topic that affects many issues... 'n stuff. way to blow away expectations, show off.
/sarcasm
2) i know i was the guy who introduced the word 'blackbody' to these threads, but try to stay with me, here:
A) the lower (current) bowl is being 'repaired.' ie, they are replacing the *already existing* concrete & bench seats. thus, no additional ADA upgrades are required.
B) the NEW structures, having *not existed before,* constitute an 'alteration.' thus, ADA codes need to be upheld *in the new structures.*
sarcasm/
As I see it, points A & B are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE....sooooo... 1% of the *not yet corporeal/in existance* seats should be handicap accessable. the currently existing seats do not need to be ammended WRT the ADA. w/o running the numbers, this seems to be what Michigan is doing, and then some.
I think I just found what he was referring to:
"Currently, 52 season ticket holders request accessible seating, according to U-M officials."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs...PDATE/
704170423
So that's the number of season ticket holders, not an average number. So taking that number as a base, adding in handicapped people who buy individual tickets, plus the people who are temporarily on crutches or whatever, I still think the total is going to be far less than the 1% law says we need.
I'm all for making sure that handicapped people get equal access to football games, but I'm definitely NOT for setting aside seats which will never be used just so we can comply with some regulation. I want that stadium FULL!
umm sarcasm may have been the wrong word...condescention maybe? no malice intended, i just see things in more simple terms than most i guess.
It's certainly understandable to be cynical over the fact that Bernstein brought his lawsuit on behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, but in reality, does it matter who the plaintiffs are in this case? I'm not entirely sure about how the statute works (I haven't looked at the ADA since my first year of law school), but I think he could have filed his lawsuit on behalf of a single wheelchair-bound fan and the University would still have to deal with it. As to the fact that the ADA deals with a small minority of people, well, yes. And the law is the law. Calling it "crap legislation" solely because it deals with a small group of people sort of misses the point. The rights of Americans w/ Disabilities aren't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution - that's why there is an ADA.
As for John Pollack, he may well be a prick for all the reasons that Brian has set forth in this post and in previous ones, but in this case, if the University was trying to avoid ADA compliance by calling this a "repair" (and I'm not sure how anyone can call BUILDING SKYBOXES) repair, then at least in this case, the UM comes off looking far worse than Pollack does.
Actually, I was under the impression that ALL of Notre Dame's seating was handicap accessible... mentally handicapped, that is.
The whole bloggers vs. real journalists thing is getting tiring.
I believe I understand where you and others are coming from, Gnarls, but even though "the law is the law," I can and do still have an opinion about it.
And of course the rights of Americians with disabilities (however defined) or not enumerated in the Constitution, because the Constitution enumerates the various powers of the federal government (and I would argue, passing a law like the ADA is not among them).
But I'll shut up now in the interest of not turning Brian's comments section into a political playground. I am sure we all would prefer this lawsuit not to have been filed, and for the stadium to have some accommodations for people with special needs, but I agree with JLo - it would be nice to have it be based on reality and not some invented, mandated governmental number. It's when laws don't necessarily match reality that institutions like UM need to hire lawyers to call luxury boxes repairs in order to keep their project costs more reasonable, IMO.
Just my own two cents, nothing more.
I spent four years in Ann Arbor listening to all of UofM's social justice crap. If they don't step up to the plate on this it's going to seem just a wee bit hypocritical.
It seems like this is one of those times that the "Leaders and Best" mentality should come into play.
Dave: You're right. You do sound insensitive. You may not actually be, but that's how you sound.
JLo: Is it possible that attendance by handicapped people is less than or equal to the number of available seats because, well, it couldn't possibly be more than the number of available seats? Isn't it also possible that fully abled people could stand in any unoccupied handicapped seating areas, thus preserving precious decibels? I guess I just don't think it's that big of an issue that it requires inconveniencing the disabled.
I don't see why UM has such a problem with this. It's a bit embarrassing to me as an alum.
If, god forbid, something ever happened to any of us, I'd like to imagine we'd still be able to take comfort in attending a home game without inconveniencing Dave and JLo too much.
Bill Martin has said time and again that Michigan will always accommodate disabled fans. Never before has someone been turned away because there weren't enough handicapped seats (Excess handicapped fans sit in MSC's box - instead of her). Following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of same is causing the problem.
Fair enough Dave. Avoiding political discussions on this board is definitely preferable. It's more fun when we're calling Jimmy Clausen an emu.
I also hate America. :)
Pollock is a prick. I had the "pleasure" of picking him up at the airport and driving him to a book talk he was giving. The entire conversation between Detroit Metro and his suite in the hotel (Jackson, MI) was a complaint about the other passengers on the plane.
From the hotel to the lecture site, he ranted about the hotel staff, room, room service, food, the car I was driving (company car no less), and anything else he came across.
He is an unhappy little man & pissed at the world and I wish he would just go away.
As for the ADA, it is not a law. The only recourse a slighted party has is to get a court injunction on thier behalf. And how Martin and the rest of the folks are going to end run around this one is beyond me.
The wheelchair seating is a problem as life codes dictate that you must consider the egress of the handicapped from the area in case of emergency. In other words, putting in a bunch of seating at the top of the stadium with elevators is a "no-no" in case of fire, plaque, earthquake, ect. Therefore, the seating areas have to be on the ground level, or have quick non-mechanical access to the ground level (ramps). This means turning "prime" seats with the greatest ticketed value into handicap areas (and Martin can not crank the price up on them).
Not sure how this will turn out as far as the new design, but I am sure that ADA will rule the day here.
Dave, be honest with us. You kick puppies, too, don't you.
Seriously, I'm not sure where I should come down on this issue. I'm sort of halfway between the two sides, where I have a genuine physical handicap but I can sit wherever I can get a ticket.
Three points here (and I'll try to be into the whole brevity thing):
1) My brother is developmentally disabled, but manages to live on his own in an apartment. He rides a motorized wheelchair to get around town (can't drive a car). He shops for his own groceries, goes to work, and volunteers at a retirement home. Before the ADA, he would not have been able to do any of those things. In fact, he couldn't have even gone down the block because none of the sidewalks were curb-cut. People may say that it's "crap legislation" or that there are nuances with the law that are not ideal. But the point of the law is that in America we believe in equal rights, and that includes the rights of a person who can't walk up stairs going to a football game. I totally agree with OTTom's point about Michigan being Michigan and stepping up to the plate here. Do we need 30,000 accessible seats? Obviously not, but we should be in compliance with the law.
2) I knew Rich Bernstein when I was at UM, but only briefly. We were on a study abroad program together one summer. He was the kind of guy who meant well and was nice enough. He was WAY too into student government, although I suppose that isn't a character flaw. My frustrations with him were mainly that he had a very hard time seeing the perspectives of other people, and would often overtalk to win an argument. Sounds like you got to experience that part of his personality, Brian. But he could have been a much worse character, considering his dad was constantaly on TV chasing ambulances. Finally, I don't see how he could be a full professor at this point. He's likely 32-33 years old and clearly went to law school. But I don't know the intricacies of becoming a professor at Michigan.
3) This was also in the news a while back.
The whole bloggers vs. real journalists thing is getting tiring.
Not the point of this post. I was just trying to clarify what I was doing with the talking-to. The facts are laid out in the AP and Daily articles and the point here was to do something other than regurgitate that. Sorry if that was unclear.
--If, god forbid, something ever happened to any of us, I'd like to imagine we'd still be able to take comfort in attending a home game without inconveniencing Dave and JLo too much.--
Classy.
Anyway, do the current number of handicapped seats fill on a regular basis? If we add more, how many more people do we expect to show up who would need these seats? I really don't know the answer to either of these questions. All I'm asking is that we do a little research and allocate a reasonable number rather than blindly adhere to some regulation handed down from on high.
Also, does anyone know how it would work if they sell handicapped seats to Average Joe? I'm sure they have to hold those seats for people who NEED them until the last possible second. That's my concern with the "anyone who wants to can stand there" argument: although anyone COULD stand there if the seats are unsold, I don't think anyone WILL since they have to save the seats for handicapped people.
I'm not trying to be contrary, so if anyone has answers to either of these I'd be glad to hear them.
I've been disabled for about 5 years (4 football season) and I've been to games in 2004 and again twice this past season. (Wiscy and MSU). Each time I've been there the handicapped seats have been filled. Purely anecdotal I know, but that's my experience.
You've gotta remember too that these 'seats' are marked off on the bleachers with the same width as the regular seats. Obviously the person in the wheelchair remains in their wheelchair and 'sits' in front of their seat, but you can do the math on the width of a wheelchair and figure out that 15 regular seats don't accommodate 15 people in wheelchairs.
As far as holding the seats I haven't seen that either. I can't call up the week of OSU, tell them I'm disabled and get a ticket(I've tried).
Thanks for relating your stories, SoFlaDave. That makes me feel better about allocating more seats.
I just want to see us strike a balance between making sure that we don't exclude anyone from seeing a game, and making sure that we don't have empty seats, either. In my opinion, having an empty seat reserved for a handicapped person while someone outside can't get a ticket is just as bad as a handicapped person with no place to sit. I don't want to see either one of those happen.
jeez, JLo, sorry your delicate sensibilities were disturbed - i guess your use of the phrase "numbers pulled from their collective ass" made us think you were a little more hardy than is the case. like i said, jeez.
just to throw in my usual two 'architect-ey' cents in - greyback is sorta right - the ADA is, in fact, a law, but NOT an enforceable building code. in other words, you can't compel the university to build an ADA-compliant facility. you can, however, sue their pants off once it's built and rights have been abrogated.
however - the state of michigan HAS adopted a separate barrier-free standard that can be used by building inspectors...it's a fine distinction, but an important one. it allows the buiding inspector can a) refuse to issue a building permit, b) shut down construction, or c) refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy, to any facility that doesn't meet the state-adopted barrier free standard. just an outline of what could happen from here forward. right now, it's just saber-rattling.
it should also be noted that the ADA (and all barrier-free codes & standards) are NOT just about wheelchairs - they are really meant to address all "disabled" people - blind, deaf, wheelchair-bound, walker users, everyone - and most of us know someone who benefits from that kind of assistance...for whatever that's worth.
last, i've been an architect since just before the ADA was adopted, and i can tell you - when it came out, we as a profession completely freaked out. bathrooms and hallways and doors suddenly became HUGE. but once we adapted, it became second nature to design to that standard, not only because we were compelled to do it, but because it made sense. designing a facility - especially one that reaches across virtually every demographic you can name - is foolish and, frankly, unnecessary. make it work.
sorry for the long-windedness.
Another perspective on the ADA issue and why the DetNews reports that there is only demand for 52 handicapped seats: some folks who are handicapped are deterred from coming to the games anymore because the current configuration of the stadium makes it too damn difficult.
I've got a good friend (and rabid Wolverine fan) with MS who gave up his alumni seats 2 years ago for just this reason. Getting in and out of his seats was completely unfeasible. He's not in a wheelchair, but can't be on his feet for too long or deal with the pushing crowds and whatnot that accompany most games. I can't imagine he is the first person with a disability to go this route.
Something tells me there are more than 52 people with disabilities who'd actually like to attend games if it was a bit easier.
It seems in this day and age they could do some sort of modular seating that could be inserted or removed seat by seat...at fairly minimal cost. Doing this for 1% of seats couldn't be too difficult.
Then all you'd need is an accurate count of how many are actually handicapped and insert the required number of modular seats. Then there is little risk of having unoccupied (unless they are paid for) handicap seats.
Brian:
I have enjoyed reading mgoblog for sometime now. Your attention to and knowledge of the ins and outs of recruiting and on field issues could not be more stellar. However, I think this post reveals that despite your love for sports and UM sports in particular, you've got a lot of reading to do about the nature of institutions and modern, bigtime college athletic departments in particular.
You seem to think that the interests of ordinary fans and the UM athletic department are one and the same. That Bill Martin must be fighting for "me" and everyone "like me." In turn, this must mean that folks like Pollack, this attorney and "his paralyzed veterans" are working against Martin's -- and therefore your interests.
But the truth of the matter is that while the interests of the ordinary fan and the athletic department certainly line up in some ways, they are not the same thing. Because of the financial context in which modern college athletics operates, the atheletic department is interested in making money, catering to big donors, and serving as a platform for the university as a whole to do these things. While certainly I want the athletic department and the university to have the support and money of big donors, while I certainly appreciate what they do for the program and the facilities, I do not want to have their support at all costs. Namely, I don't want to cater to the needs of big donors at the expense of the experience of ALL University of Michigan fans.
Which leads us to the "mother fucker", the "delusional idiot" and those paralyzed veterans that they rounded up. You do not have to agree with Pollack or with the Vets to see that they are fighting for something they believe in and what they perceive to be the common good of all UM fans. You say that the AD has "constraints here." Yes, those constraints are the financial incentives to not make accomodations for veterans and to build a bunch of luxury boxes. Given that the proposed plan is a quarter of a billion dollars, I would say that, at the very least we can afford to meet the legal standard for disabled people.
That you could understand those who oppose luxury boxes or support handicapped seating as selfish (a vets organization? a lawyer working pro bono? a grass roots internet campaign?) and understand the AD and Bill Martin's interests as completely consistent with that of the average fan is a serious misunderstanding of reality. There are trade offs to be made between meeting the every desire of big donors and staying focused on the needs of you and me. It seems pretty clear to me that Martin and the current administration are intent on serving the needs of big donors first, foremost and last.
dh
Travis wrote: "It seems in this day and age they could do some sort of modular seating that could be inserted or removed seat by seat...at fairly minimal cost. Doing this for 1% of seats couldn't be too difficult."
It's amazing what they come up with these days:
http://www.tablesnchairs.com/NPS...ing%
20Chair.jpg
Build the accessible seating. If those 'seats' aren't taken, say, an hour before the game, sell them to able bodied individuals and give them one of those.
I agree 100% with JLo, the University needs to do further research and determine how many people actually need accessible seating.
There are only 52 people who currently request it according to U of M, so how much would that increase if the total number were to increase to the 282 seats that will be available after the luxury box renovation? And if those seats are sold to non-handicapped people either way, how is an additional amount of "available" tickets going to help the situation?
I'm all for an increase in barrier-free seating, but U of M and the plaintiffs need to find a middle ground. Even the example cited (Notre Dame Stadium), only includes .5% accessible seating.
Alex: your suggestion takes up too much space, remember each of our butts is only allowed 4 inches of seating space. =)
DH: I agree with your point (though the tone of it sounds a little snippy). I do think that these people are doing what they believe is best for a larger population, not for their own selfish desires.
While I'm not against the luxury boxes or for Cork Boat man's plans, he did grow up in A2 going to Michigan games. I think that makes him just as vested in the subject as any student that comes to Michigan and spends 4 years going to games. You may not like his plan or his means or his reasoning (I sure don't like them) but I think you need to be honest with yourself and acknowledge that he has a right to his opinion and a vested interest in Michigan Stadium. I hate to defend him, but it's like the ACLU defending the KKK.
BTW, when do we get the new mgoblog banner? Will it be ADA compliant?
I'm pretty sure Brian is well aware that Martin is juggling interests, but his point is that, ultimately, his concern is for the fans, even if he has to make concessions to reach other goals. If there's one thing he rarely comes off as, it's deluded about the way the world works. If ever. In the very least, it's pure speculation either way to "know" what Martin's intentions are. I'd say his tenure thus far has been more or less about creating a better atmosphere for the participation in and observation of Michigan athletics and to that end, I'm willing to believe Martin before Random Professor and Corky McDisingenuousAsshole.
I think that if Michigan takes any more negative publicity on this, somebody in the administration is going to tell Bill Martin to just put in the damn accessible seats.
On the other hand, it seems like the athletic department can just take the nuclear route and put the whole renovation on hold. I have a hard time believing that any ADA group would rather see the status quo than a renovation plan that includes better seating options for them.
In the end, the only way that Pollack wins is if Martin refuses to budge. As soon as the University changes tactics (like, say, giving in to the demands and putting in the seats) Pollack loses. I can handle crazy, I can handle dumb, but right now he seems to be both.
(If the preceding post seemed exceedingly negative, please address all complaints to Lang, Robert and Hasek, Dom.)
I think some of you are misunderstanding U-M's position. We're not fighting this just to be jerks. The stadium's 80 years old, built long before the ADA was passed, so of course it was not built to be accessible to handicapped fans. Fixing it up so that we can allocate 1,000 seats for disabled fans is no simple task, made considerably harder by the fact that the majority of the seats are located below ground level. Anyone who says that Michigan Stadium's situation is "just like ND" is being wilfully ignorant.
Pollock doesn't give a rat's ass about handicapped seating, which is why he never brought it up back when the renovations were discussed. Only now, when his pathetic anti-renovation plan has exhausted all other legal options, has he suddenly "taken an interest" in the issue. The man's a fucking joke.
Dan:
"A) the lower (current) bowl is being 'repaired.' ie, they are replacing the *already existing* concrete & bench seats. thus, no additional ADA upgrades are required.
B) the NEW structures, having *not existed before,* constitute an 'alteration.' thus, ADA codes need to be upheld *in the new structures.*"
---------------
I bet all of you on the waiting list/in the endzones who were pricing wheelchairs are like "damn".
OT: O RLY Brian McFirst-Person?
"I am not a journalist! That's the point of this enterprise. blah me blah IANAJTTP blah blah me blah blah.
FWIW I'm more interested in what Chad Henne had for breakfast, no offense.
I think that would hold if they weren't changing the width of every seat and every aisleway. But it's pretty clear that what they're doing constitutes a renovation of every seat in the place.
re: media stuff. perhaps the tone was off. I wish to be clear: beat writers and general news-reporter-guys have always and will always beat me on just the facts. I don't have beef with them. Sometimes my beef with other media aspects (eg: analysis and columnists) bleeds over into newsy beef; this is unfortunate and unintentional.
Kevin:
It's not that I don't think Martin believes what he's doing is right, the point is that his INTERESTS are fundamentally skewed in a way that Pollack's and the ADA supporters are not.
The guy sees things in terms of dollars and cents. While that is sometimes good, important, and necessary it can also lead you to overlook the best interests of UM fans as a whole for the sake of big donors.
dh
Whoops. Meant to say Colin -- way to bag on the guy who agrees with me.
dh
It's entirely possible that this will come off as poorly argued or even non sequitur, but I'm breaking from arguing from the Joe Christmas:townsfolk::Faulkner:Us analogy. Roland Barthes! Text! Writing! On to the response:
Dh,
Right, but Pollack's conception of "best interest" is a ludicrous prospect. Simply because his access to us in unmediated by further interests doesn't mean he's actually doing us any favors, which is the fundamental issue. And that's Brian's perspective, I believe. He takes the luxury box issue to mean, specifically, that Martin IS in fact acting in our best interest, regardless of the assorted "incentives" you perceive. I guess I don't see the difference between one guy acting on his own self delusion and another juggling the demands of the job. Arguing intent past my own subjective position on the matter (I like the decision, therefore he's doing it for me) seems to be an impossible task, ultimately. Brian was doing his best to parse the issue along those lines and maintained a moral stance: the handicapped have a right to access if they bought a ticket. I'm not sure what else you can ask or what else there is to object to.
Brian,
apologies if i misinterpreted your stance.
...it's hard out here for an english major
ha!
Free wheelchair to the first English major who volunteers to grade my 120 Freshman English (as a second language) midterms.
Did the background color on mgoblue turn to a nasty shade of red that reminds me of a bad school in a bad state!?!?!?!
Please tell me I'm the only one who has a screwy computer that is doing this and it's not a sign of the apocalypse?
I think they need to find a way to increase the number of wheelchair- accessible seats in the expansion plans. Whether it needs to be 1% or not I haven't a clue, but I gotta believe there's a way to make room for more. That's why they're paying the architects the big bucks, right, Shorts?
That being said, Bernstein and the vets he's representing would be smart to put a lot of space between themselves and Pollack. You never truly profit by association with complete dickheads, and Pollack defines the term. Anyone who compares himself to not only the lone shopper on Tienanmen Square but Gandhi has his cranium nestled up somewhere past his duodenum.
The core of his argument, that sitting in Michigan Stadium is some sort of egalitarian lovefest where all class and economic distinctions are erased between the "haves" and the "have nots" while they cheer their beloved Wolverines is a naive, ridiculous fantasy, and only a fantasy that someone blinded by his own affluence and his duodenum-lodged brain could indulge in.
When I look around me in the stadium, do I see any genuine "have nots" in the seats around me? I sure as hell don't. I see a hundred thousand people who are well-dressed, well-fed, and who've been to dentists and doctors on a regular basis. Only a self-centered, pampered jackass who attended one of the most elite, expensive private institutions in the country — Leland Fucking Stanford Junior University — would think otherwise. He must view sitting in the bleachers at Michigan Stadium as some sort of droll slumming experience, where he gets to sit with the unwashed lower classes too unfortunate to live next door to him in Greenwich Village. The truth is, all of us have the disposable income to spend a good chunkful of change on parking and beer and tickets and concessions. We wouldn't be there otherwise, and it was that way in '71 when I started attending games as a student, too.
Are there people in the stands who are way more affluent than me? Damn sure, and they've got a good chunk of the best seats near the 50-yard line. I don't give a rat's bleeding ass if they're sitting on bleachers in the rain with me or up in some enclosed suite, either, any more than I care that there are people sitting in first class behind the curtain while I fly coach. For all of Pollack's whining about the suites somehow ruining the atmosphere, there will STILL be well over 100,000 souls out in the open air, on hard bleachers, cheering (or not) for Michigan. I couldn't care less that there will be people up in the suites eating over-priced barbeque and drinking over-priced Miller Lite, and their presence won't have the smallest particle of effect on how hard I will root for Michigan, or how I feel about the institution that I lowered myself to earn two degrees from, in contrast to John "I tongue-bathe public institutions in theory but actually attended a private school" Pollack.
I will say this for "JP": any man with suc
I will say this for "JP": any man with such an obvious talent for lying, exaggeration, puffery, and shameless self-aggrandizement has a great career in politics ahead of him.
KB,
The misanthropist in me is wondering if I can use whatever standard I want to compare them to. The capitalist wonders if I'll be able to take pay proportional to the standard. If the difference is between the one Kramer would have picked out versus George, then the next Eliot isn't getting an A. I demand brakes.
Don,
Alcapowned.
Also, Burt Ward and Adam West have the exact same pair of lips in that picture. Seriously.
Don wins the thread.
The egalitarian hugginess people claim to love is simply a side benefit of the architecture of the bowl and not a benevolent rolling pin or tenet of the University. I don't think my [admittedly comfortably middle class] family with their 88th row end zone season tickets feels humbled to be in the same open-air stadium as Joe Millionaire with his $2,500 seat rental fee over on the 50. I've felt all along I'd rather there BE social stratification. Put the quiet stodgy types in their boxes; leave the outdoor seats for people who care about the game and want to make noise.
I snuck over to watch pregame from the 50 once. As much as I complain about the quiet old types, I saw that many of them know and sing all the words to "Varsity," and that makes me happy.
Alcapowned?
I have no clue what that means, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.
And another thing about Pollack: his bio on danaroc.com is preceded by these words: "by John Pollack as told to Dana Roc." He then proceeds to talk glowingly about himself in the third person, which is immediately indicative of colossal asshattery.
Frankly, I would be far from surprised if his achievements are in reality far less than he describes.
Ever thus to deadbeats, Lebowski:
they get al capowned
OK, Don, Jeremy, (and to a certain extent Colin and Brian), you convinced me.
I think we should think of Bill Martin as sort of being like our father. Papa Martin thinks that we ought to have huge skyboxes and that we can't spend the money to make room for disabled UM fans. But you know what, he knows what's best and he always thinks of UM fans as whole, not big donors, first. That's why he's decided to do a quarter of a billion dollar renovation to the football stadium and build a new indoor football practice facility and leave lovely Crisler Arena exactly as it is (now that's tradition!) and keep Tommy Amaker on for six years. Sure it's big donors who are setting these priorities, but I don't care about basketball, the handicapped or those skyboxes either, so it works out perfectly!
In fact, as Don suggests, there's nothing I would enjoy more than thinking about that oak panelling in the sky boxes. Nothing would make me more proud than to sit with other dentists and look up at the really big donors sitting in those skyboxes above me. I hope the administration fights this tooth and nail -- maybe they can even reduce some of the spots for diabled people and put some extra fancing crown molding in the skyboxes. In fact, I have a RIGHT to look up at those sky boxes and dream about what might be going on in them -- Papa Martin knows this and knows I would enjoy looking at skyboxes that an ordinary fan will never enter because at least I can dream about what they might be like.
And this is why a guy like Pollack is so infuriating. I mean the guy spends hundreds of hours of his own time to speak for what he thinks is in the interest of all UM fans, when he doesn't understand that Papa Martin ALREADY knows what's best for me. I think we should dump even more vitriol on the guy - mother fucker and delusional idiot aren't enough. I mean anyone who would let someone else on a website compare him to that Tienemen Square protestor is truly reprehsible. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Tienemen Square protestor would be psyched about the skyboxes too, because after all the more big donor money we have, the better we'll be in football, and the more jobs for the Chinese folks who make the t-shirts!
Also, having a degree from UM and two parents with two degrees each from UM, I can assure all of you that the University administration and the AD have ALWAYS thought about what was in the best interest of the students, alumni and fans. I mean no students have ever had to fight for the University to be more diverse, or keep tuition low or stop using sweatshop labor. And the fact that UM is perhaps the premier public institution in the United States of America is mostly because administrators always knews what was best and students, faculty and fans never questioned what they wanted.
I look forward to having our University and our athletic venues look exactly like every other university in America, just barely meet the civil rights standard
ards, and basically be just a bigger, richer version of OSU and MSU. What makes us different are the colors Maize and Blue and the Block M. We don't want to distinguish ourselves as fans who actually THINK and who actually recognize when the interests of the institutions that we love are veering down a path that is not the best interest of all of us. I look forward to deferring to Papa Martin for the foreseeable future and never taking any action to ensure that the institution represents the values and ideals of a great university.
First time commenter, long time reader bla bla bla…my favorite site Brian. Like Matt I graduated just before ADA was enacted and Matt is right on all points, the exact numbers are 6 seats plus 1 for every 100 seats in assembly spaces (stadiums) with over 500 seats, not 1%. The terms alteration and renovation are defined as the same thing in the ADA. The point is the extent of the alteration, if the construction affects under 25% of the total building/structure (check my numbers Matt) no action is required. Many developer types use this loophole and phase their construction so as not to comply. With Martin’s back ground he may be doing this and is being called out on it.
The funny thing is; if the Luxury Boxes go in, that will require the whole facility to be accessible. If I’m in a wheel chair I want the boxes built. The alliance with Pallock is a joke….spin baby spin.
In the ADA there is an exception for things “Technically Infeasible” which may allow the seating below grade to remain as is. All accessible seating and entrances (at least 50% of them) above that will have to be evenly spread through out the rest of the facility. Alex’s point about removable seating is also correct and provided for in the ADA. If those seats are reserved until the stadium is sold out than any one can use them; the ADA does not require accessibility to sold out events.
Pollack, as so many other times, like him or not (not in my case) is not really apart of this issue. Our University should provide the required accessible seating even if it does cost us a couple hundred seats, The Michigan Difference shouldn’t just be lip service.
DRP
The ADA allows each disabled patron to bring an attendant, so those 50+ disabled ticket holders actually are doubled. Those attendants have to pay for their tickets too, so everyone in the stadium is paying their way. Furthermore, the ADA allows for unsold, accessible seats at sporting events to be sold to non-disabled people if they are not bought by disabled patrons by game-time. So we don't have to worry about the stadium not being filled.
Also, most stadiums use those seats for people who have "regular" season tickets, but may have broken their legs, or have some other sort of one-time issue that doesn't allow them to get to their seats. Most people would rather sit in their seats on the 50, but if it means sitting in the end-zone or not going at all, you'll be pretty happy that the stadium has accessible seating.
It sucks that some people are born handicapped or, as I like to say, "deficient", but that's life. If Bernstein were born 300,000 years ago in Africa, he would be eaten by a lion on the way to the bathroom.
Others would lug around with their club feet and not be able to catch food. Still others would be eaten by other animals besides lions. They would be picked off as the weaker animal.
I'm sorry.
At least you get TV now and don't die before you're old enough to mate.
He worked for the Clinton's, need I say more. Adjunct means the school doesn't pay for whatever an "adjunct" has to offer.
Commenting by HaloScan
