# ADA headaches



## Leo G

Common sense says that the extra 1/4" won't make any difference. To go that far to make this a big stink is really all about the pretend power you think you have over people.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie

Kowboy said:


> And an attitude change toward the ADA is in order here also. These aren't mere code violations, this is civil rights law. The building code dictates the position and size of your business's sign out front. Civil rights law keeps you from putting "Whites only"on the sign.
> 
> A professional contractor has an obligation to know and obey the rules. I don't wanna hear the whiney-boy hacks that don't.


You missed the point, which i mentioned in the OP. Several of the findings are fair and need to be corrected. 3/8” to the top of the switch is dumb. And it’s not the contractors fault, the construction drawings probably showed 48” to the center … blame the archy. 

Any we have signs on our businesses … no counter installers allowed.


----------



## Thom Paine

I must be very lucky... I've always spec'd that as o.c. measurement which is 'xactly what that photo shows. 

Never had a problem.. jus' lucky, eh ?


----------



## BC Rollin

Kowboy said:


> You need to do a bit more research. The coffee in question was not at the machine manufacturer's recommended temperature. The woman offered to settle for her hospital bills, but some dumbass at Mickey D's decided to f$%k with the wrong little old lady.
> 
> And an attitude change toward the ADA is in order here also. These aren't mere code violations, this is civil rights law. The building code dictates the position and size of your business's sign out front. Civil rights law keeps you from putting "Whites only"on the sign.
> 
> A professional contractor has an obligation to know and obey the rules. I don't wanna hear the whiney-boy hacks that don't.


Yu no we can’t be readin and rithmaticin in Missippi vary gud.


----------



## Kowboy

Half-fast Eddie said:


> And it’s not the contractors fault, the construction drawings probably showed 48” to the center … blame the archy.


Again, it's a professional contractor's job to know what he's building. Architects can and do draw any damn thing and never get a red tag. If you don't have the balls to stand up to a client or architect when they're screwing up, you aren't going to last very long in this business.


----------



## goneelkn

5226-W


White - 15 Amp, 120 Volt, Duplex Style Single-Pole / Neon Pilot AC Combination Switch, Commercial Grade, Non-Grounding, Side Wired




www.leviton.com


----------



## Half-fast Eddie

Kowboy said:


> Again, it's a professional contractor's job to know what he's building. Architects can and do draw any damn thing and never get a red tag. If you don't have the balls to stand up to a client or architect when they're screwing up, you aren't going to last very long in this business.


No it’s not, the gc should build what’s on the plans. That’s why you hire a licensed design professional. Like Thom Paine said … he always shows centerline height. Probably everyone does. Except the scumbag lawyer for the equally sh1tty client who says it’s 3/8” too high because of a strict interpretation of the definition. 

You are aware that 2 doors in series, like a store entrance, the doors have to be spaced about 7 ft apart. (Leave it at that, don’t argue exact numbers). There is a discussion going on at a building inspector forum (commercial guys, like permit office types) about a fire marshall who says a security door over the front entrance of a home is a door in series and thus a violation. Needs to be spaced out from the front door.


----------



## Thom Paine

@*Kowboy #25*

@*Half-fast Eddie #27

Gentlemen, gentlemen......*

You are each correct in your respective perspectives ..... 

Often, others' interpretations, outside our individual influence, dictate
circumstances. Most of us might share a story of an asinine 
interpretation of a code. 

Sometimes we must push back; sometimes we must accede and 
"keep on keepin' on"

Make a great day !


----------



## BC Rollin

Thom Paine said:


> @*Kowboy #25*
> 
> @*Half-fast Eddie #27
> 
> Gentlemen, gentlemen......*
> 
> You are each correct in your respective perspectives .....
> 
> Often, others' interpretations, outside our individual influence, dictate
> circumstances. Most of us might share a story of an asinine
> interpretation of a code.
> 
> Sometimes we must push back; sometimes we must accede and
> "keep on keepin' on"
> 
> Make a great day !


👍🏻 Blessed are the peacemakers


----------



## Rio

Kowboy said:


> You need to do a bit more research. The coffee in question was not at the machine manufacturer's recommended temperature. The woman offered to settle for her hospital bills, but some dumbass at Mickey D's decided to f$%k with the wrong little old lady.
> 
> And an attitude change toward the ADA is in order here also. These aren't mere code violations, this is civil rights law. The building code dictates the position and size of your business's sign out front. Civil rights law keeps you from putting "Whites only"on the sign.
> 
> A professional contractor has an obligation to know and obey the rules. I don't wanna hear the whiney-boy hacks that don't.


The coffee issue is correct, apparently the woman sustained 3rd degree burns when the paper cup dissolved when she had it nestled between her crotch (which was a stupid place to put it) but the rest of this post is a bunch of hogwash. 

The ADA laws are specifically designed to punish people and are a gold mine for lawyers which is why they are so intolerant. If the goal was to provide a service to the handicapped then the first rule would be an opportunity to fix the problem(s) rather than just a way to churn money (many cases are resolved out of court with a payment and never fixing the so called problem), they also would have flexibility in the interpretation without the splitting of hairs that is so prevalent. 
It's a toxic law, so typical of so much of our government where money isn't any problem because they're spending our money, not theirs.


----------



## rrk




----------



## Half-fast Eddie

Rio said:


> 1. The ADA laws are specifically designed to punish people and 2. are a gold mine for lawyers which is why they are so intolerant. 3. If the goal was to provide a service to the handicapped then the first rule would be an opportunity to fix the problem(s)


I added numbers to your comments. 1 is wrong, it was created to assist handicapped people get around buildings and such. 2 is correct, but lawyers find gold everywhere. 3 is wrong. The ADA code/law has no teeth, no enforcement power. Cities will refuse a permit or CofO if you don’t comply with the code, but unlike a speeding ticket they have no power to fine you. It takes a civil lawsuit to punish the building owner. Theoretically a complaint is filed and the owner corrects the problem. Unfortunately the lawyers have fast tracked the lawsuits. And the courts don’t throw them out.


----------



## Kowboy

Half-fast Eddie said:


> No it’s not, the gc should build what’s on the plans. That’s why you hire a licensed design professional.


You're an absolute idiot if you follow this advice. I've seen winding stairs that could not be built to code as drawn. So go ahead, whip out your beloved plans and show them to the inspector as he red tags you. I'm sure your archy is going to reimburse you for the rebuild.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie

You missed the point. The AoR is responsible for code compliance in the design. The gc should be giving feedback for things that can’t be built, and suggesting improvements or better ways to do things, and pointing our obvious code violations. If you’re going to pull full responsibilty on the gc, why do we need architects?


----------



## builditguy

I understand you have to make changes, to meet specs. BUT.....That switch is higher than we normally put them. Admittedly, I've only been in trades for a while, but 48 1/2" down from ceiling to top of box is standard. That makes it about 48 1/2" up to top of box.
Why did they install this box at the wrong height?
Doesn't matter now.


----------



## Rio

Half-fast Eddie said:


> I added numbers to your comments. 1 is wrong, it was created to assist handicapped people get around buildings and such. 2 is correct, but lawyers find gold everywhere. 3 is wrong. The ADA code/law has no teeth, no enforcement power. Cities will refuse a permit or CofO if you don’t comply with the code, but unlike a speeding ticket they have no power to fine you. It takes a civil lawsuit to punish the building owner. Theoretically a complaint is filed and the owner corrects the problem. Unfortunately the lawyers have fast tracked the lawsuits. And the courts don’t throw them out.


1. If it was created to assist people then it would have specifically been written to give an opportunity to correct the problem and also would be more flexible, would have had ranges to comply instead of being so absolute and also wouldn't have been so complicated. It's designed to screw over the design and construction industry by creating another gold mine for lawyers.

3. It is a law, not a code and is designed to screw over the working class by allowing lawyers to file complaints and receive outrageous amounts of money by doing so. There's been numerous exposes of this being done and the problem being forgotten about as soon as the extortion money has been paid. Tell anyone who has ever run afoul of the ADA that there is no enforcement mechanism.

Another point about this overreach of a law is it keeps expanding into more and more areas of all of our lives. It also keeps getting more and more complicated as all government practices do. It's a prime example of the saying 'the road to he!! is paved with good intentions' although in this case it's clear the intentions were never good to begin with. It was written by lawyers for lawyers benefits.


----------



## Kowboy

Rio:

Familiarize yourself with the drawings and specifications of the jobs you do and know the ADA and local codes, and I promise you, you'll never have any trouble with either.


----------



## Rio

Kowboy said:


> Rio:
> 
> Familiarize yourself with the drawings and specifications of the jobs you do and know the ADA and local codes, and I promise you, you'll never have any trouble with either.


I'm on the design side these days. We sub out the ADA stuff to a specialist, it's too dangerous to touch it, too easy to get screwed by this malevolent system. Everything on this thread is backing up that decision. Incidentally I think it's California who has somewhat come to their senses and now allows a range that systems have to fall within, think it's Cali that does that now.


----------



## Kowboy

Rio said:


> We sub out the ADA stuff to a specialist, it's too dangerous to touch it, too easy to get screwed by this malevolent system.


Pfffttt. It's a binder with some simple easy-to-read-and-comprehend dimensioned drawings in it. Geesh.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie

Kowboy said:


> Pfffttt. It's a binder with some simple easy-to-read-and-comprehend dimensioned drawings in it. Geesh.


Right. They have done a very good job of providing clear guidelines. 

And like many government things, the ADA was well-intentioned. Unfortunately the government and lawyers have mucked it up.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie

builditguy said:


> but 48 1/2" down from ceiling to top of box is standard.
> 
> Why did they install this box at the wrong height?


Bad method. The ADA specifies distance off the floor … why would you measure off the ceiling? And what you propose only works for 8 ft ceilings. In commercial space it’s usually higher, and it’s not fair to the electrician to ask him to calculate off a ceiling that might change from room to room. 

The box wasn’t installed at the wrong height. The drawings called for 48” to the center of the box … that’s what they did. Problem is the auditors are measuring to the top of the toggle. Can’t blame the electrician here. The archy should have called out 47”.


----------



## rrk

builditguy said:


> I understand you have to make changes, to meet specs. BUT.....That switch is higher than we normally put them. Admittedly, I've only been in trades for a while, but 48 1/2" down from ceiling to top of box is standard. That makes it about 48 1/2" up to top of box.
> Why did they install this box at the wrong height?
> Doesn't matter now.


you do know there are different ceiling heights ?


----------



## reggi

In some jurisdictions, persons with disabilities ride around tethered to ceiling mounted monorail systems and they need to be able to reach a switch 48" from the ceiling.


----------



## Leo G

Half-fast Eddie said:


> Right. They have done a very good job of providing clear guidelines.
> 
> And like many government things, the ADA was well-intentioned. Unfortunately the government and lawyers have mucked it up.


It's just "lawyers"


----------



## dbbii2

Was doing a remodel years ago. During inspection, we had to upgrade a wall to fire rated. No big deal, right? Just add a layer of drywall to each side. Oops. One side had an ADA toilet room. Now, the water closet is too close to the finish wall by 1/4".


----------



## JoeStanton

I've never heard of switches measured down from the ceiling. So 10' ceilings the switch is 5"11 1/2" from the floor? Find a sparky with a laser level so the backsplack doesn't look like crap is a whole different discussion.


----------



## DeskJockey

Kowboy said:


> So go ahead, whip out your beloved plans and show them to the inspector as he red tags you. I'm sure your archy is going to reimburse you for the rebuild.


So true!
AND you have to watch out for different interpretations from the same agency. In one locality we build in, the city outsources the plan approvals. We did an external staircase per APPROVED plans.
The local inspector came out, said "I don't care if it's approved, it's wrong" and red-tagged it. We had to rip it out and do it over.
That's life.


----------



## Jaws

Kowboy said:


> You need to do a bit more research. The coffee in question was not at the machine manufacturer's recommended temperature. The woman offered to settle for her hospital bills, but some dumbass at Mickey D's decided to f$%k with the wrong little old lady.
> 
> And an attitude change toward the ADA is in order here also. These aren't mere code violations, this is civil rights law. The building code dictates the position and size of your business's sign out front. Civil rights law keeps you from putting "Whites only"on the sign.
> 
> A professional contractor has an obligation to know and obey the rules. I don't wanna hear the whiney-boy hacks that don't.


I bet some of the whiny boy hacks rolling their eyes at that chit wouldn't leave a homeowner to with a flooded house waiting on a plumber from a sink they dropped. That's little ***** boi status down here, wouldn't let that guy cut my grass.

I dont even have a company sign in front of my office and comparing that or this switch to Jim crow laws Screams ignorance.


----------



## Jaws

Half-fast Eddie said:


> You missed the point. The AoR is responsible for code compliance in the design. The gc should be giving feedback for things that can’t be built, and suggesting improvements or better ways to do things, and pointing our obvious code violations. If you’re going to pull full responsibilty on the gc, why do we need architects?



This guy doesn't know dick about building anything

The statement you quoted from his is a perfect example - any builder with any product on the ground out there has had architects stamp plans that were out of code and compliance- and if we just changed said stair case etc... we are violating our contracts, ****ing AIA law suit territory, the engineered drawings, every sub and vendor bid touching that stair case in any way bids are subject to change 

Or you could do the proper thing and respond in writing or email and RFI or RFC (during red line hopefully) that the drawings are out of code and can't be built as drawn - in my case I usually include the solution as I'm sure you and other proefssional builders do to have scribble boi fix the drawings up

End of the day it's down to the inspector you get. I had a fire Marshall force a full masonry fire wall penetrating through the roof even though it had a 4 rock firewall drawn. Not a MF thing I could do - usually the stamp ends the conversation but it didn't. 27k that POS cost me


----------



## Jaws

DeskJockey said:


> So true!
> AND you have to watch out for different interpretations from the same agency. In one locality we build in, the city outsources the plan approvals. We did an external staircase per APPROVED plans.
> The local inspector came out, said "I don't care if it's approved, it's wrong" and red-tagged it. We had to rip it out and do it over.
> That's life.


Yep


----------



## hdavis

Not really my area, but around Philly you couldn't build town homes or condos without the masonry wall going above the roof.

Prevents having a failure of your firewall system if there's a roof system structural fail.


----------



## reggi




----------



## Jaws

hdavis said:


> Not really my area, but around Philly you couldn't build town homes or condos without the masonry wall going above the roof.
> 
> Prevents having a failure of your firewall system if there's a roof system structural fail.


Bro this was attached to an unsprinklered POs building, my 4k sq ft addition was a diamond in a goats ass lol

I was aware of the penatrating firewalls - but to seperate a bad ass new building from a pos old building to PROTECT THE NEW BUILDING (which is what he adamantly and vehemently defended) from fire damage beyond a 4 sheet of type X 5/8


----------



## hdavis

LOL, at least if the goats ass burns, your addition will still be there.

The contempt welling up again is tough to miss...


----------



## builditguy

JoeStanton said:


> I've never heard of switches measured down from the ceiling. So 10' ceilings the switch is 5"11 1/2" from the floor? Find a sparky with a laser level so the backsplack doesn't look like crap is a whole different discussion.


Obviously you wouldn't measure down from a 10' ceiling. The reason they are measured down, at first to establish a height, is the the drywall. That way the seam in the first sheet is right across the top of the box. You don't have to cut it that way.
It's been done this way long before I started.


----------



## builditguy

rrk said:


> you do know there are different ceiling heights ?


Obviously it's only done on 8' walls.


----------



## builditguy

Half-fast Eddie said:


> Bad method. The ADA specifies distance off the floor … why would you measure off the ceiling? And what you propose only works for 8 ft ceilings. In commercial space it’s usually higher, and it’s not fair to the electrician to ask him to calculate off a ceiling that might change from room to room.
> 
> The box wasn’t installed at the wrong height. The drawings called for 48” to the center of the box … that’s what they did. Problem is the auditors are measuring to the top of the toggle. Can’t blame the electrician here. The archy should have called out 47”.


Obviously you wouldn't measure down from a 10' ceiling. The reason they are measured down, at first to establish a height, is the the drywall. That way the seam in the first sheet is right across the top of the box. You don't have to cut it that way.
It's been done this way long before I started. Every electrician I know, has a story pole for setting boxes. The box clips into the pole so they can go around and set all the boxes. They only measure the first one. And really, they don't even have to measure that one. There is a mark on the pole for the box height. At least that's how it's done in my part of the country. I'm sure other places do it differently.

If you had a print and it was set to the height the print called for, that is on the architect.


----------



## Kowboy

builditguy said:


> If you had a print and it was set to the height the print called for, that is on the architect.


Let the inspector know and I'm sure he'll put the architect's name on the red tag. lol


----------



## hdavis

I'm not sure where the drywall issue comes from, don't others just hang both sheets over the box and then route it out?


----------



## builditguy

hdavis said:


> I'm not sure where the drywall issue comes from, don't others just hang both sheets over the box and then route it out?


Yes. All boxes get routed out. But it's alot easier if you don't have to route the top 1/2" of a box, then when you hang the bottom, you route the bottom half. Imagine being able to hang all of the top sheets, without having to take out a small notch. It saves alot of time.

If you don't want to do it that way, don't do it. 
I don't know why people are getting worried about this. It isn't even related to the original question. I'm sure we all do things just a little bit different. When I see someone doing something easier than myself, I copy them.


----------

