Downtown Parking

[Just the facts]

Government buildings are NOT exempt.

Yes they are. They fall into an exclusion group classified as "under other regulations". I know this because I read it right before I made the post to be sure it was accurate. Even some leased buildings are exempt

[Steve]

Hopefully I will catch you tomorrow.. I will be in and out!!!

I have a couple questions I need to ask and maybe get verified..

I'll be there at noon.

[Urban Pioneer]

Not necessarily. I'll be at Peacock for lunch tomorrow. Long story short - of all the POSSIBLE sites, most folks I talk to say your corner is the least likely to be chosen.

Is there a map of these sites and what do you think the top 3 or 4 are?

[Skyline]

Is there a map of these sites and what do you think the top 3 or 4 are?

This reminds me of the CC site selection process.

Remember what happened to those top 3 or 4 sites? haha

[Urban Pioneer]

I just hope wherever we o this we actually "wrap" the thing with something useful at ground level. There is interest on our streetcar committee on the whole "Park N' Ride" scenario thus the question.

Also, long with Reno/Walker fighting his site, I would suspect Dowelling would have a problem with his as well. Lol

[Just the facts]

Maybe the city snatching up lots for parking garages will get the squaters moving.

[Pete]

Wanted to paste this from Steve's article for future reference, as links are often broken over time.

Sites proposed were:
• Compress Avenue and Reno Avenue just west of the U-Haul building in Lower Bricktown.
• The block at the northwest intersection of Reno and Walker avenues (currently home to the Peacock restaurant).
• A long narrow block bordered by Dewey Avenue, Main Street and Shartel Avenue.
• The surface parking lot immediately south of City Hall.
• The corner of NW 10 and Robinson Avenue
• Mostly vacant land between Dewey Avenue, NW 5 and Walker Avenue.
• The corner of Hudson Avenue and Park Place.
• The Oklahoma City National Memorial surface parking lot at NW 5 and Robinson.
• NW 9 east of Broadway (across from the Iguana Mexican Grill).


Read more: http://newsok.com/new-oklahoma-city-...#ixzz1gcy08ha7

[Rover]

Is the site across from the Iguana where S&B is going in or west of that?

[Pete]

They are probably talking about the property that is between S&B and the RR tracks.

[Rover]

[QUOTE=Just the facts;491129]Maybe the city snatching up lots for parking garages will get the squaters moving.[/QUparking it should. First, the squatters may realize thE city could get their properties at lower appraised value. It takes inventory of lots off the market and reduces supply (raising prices and encouraging sale or development), and raises the value by increasing people traffic in the immediate area. Win for all, potentially.

[rcjunkie]

Yes they are. They fall into an exclusion group classified as "under other regulations". I know this because I read it right before I made the post to be sure it was accurate. Even some leased buildings are exempt

Having worked for the government 29 years, I promise your wrong, but believe what you wish.

[Just the facts]

Having worked for the government 29 years, I promise your wrong, but believe what you wish.

From the ADA website run by the federal government.

http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm

The executive branch of the US federal government is exempt. Go down to 'miscellaneous' at the bottom.

[rcjunkie]

From the ADA website run by the federal government.

http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm

The executive branch of the US federal government is exempt. Go down to 'miscellaneous' at the bottom.

Good thing the parking lot's / garages were talking about are City and Not Federal !!

[mcca7596]

But isn't JTF talking about the employer's responsibility to provide ADA acessible parking/sidewalks, not who owns the garage?

[Lauri101]

Having worked for the government 29 years, I promise your wrong, but believe what you wish.

All I can speak for is my 33 years of federal service and the fact that, when IRS decided to not fund handicapped parking for employees or taxpayers, I took it to arbitration and experienced the worst a$$-kicking of my union career.

At that time, we were leasing the entire building and no private companies were located there. T

The Rehab Act of 1974 does still apply to federal space, leased and owned, but the Americans with Disability Act does NOT apply in most instances where federal employees are the main tenant. The leased space considered "common use" (lobby, restrooms) are still subject to ADA rules, but someone has to complain.

Don't try to make this a logical set of rules. When you are dealing with GSA as a landlord, there's no such thing as logic.
Disclaimer - I can only speak to what I know personally in my IRS work. Can't speak to how other agencies deal.

[bluedogok]

Government buildings are NOT exempt.

Yes they are. They fall into an exclusion group classified as "under other regulations". I know this because I read it right before I made the post to be sure it was accurate. Even some leased buildings are exempt

Most of the government buildings and lease space that I have worked on for the past 20 years have had to be ANSI/ADA or TAS (Texas Accessibility Standards) compliant, most office type buildings are not exempt. There are a few specialized military buildings that had parts of them that were exempt but the majority of spaces where a person with disabilities needed to have access were accessible. We were required to design to local building codes. The days of most governmental entities excluding buildings from codes or standards because they want to has pretty much been long over.

The new OKC Federal Building is ADA compliant, the new IRS auditor offices in Austin to replace the one that was hit by the airplane are TAS complaint, we had to have a TDLR review by a RAS to get a building permit from the City of Austin.

[Just the facts]

For the love of Pete:

http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Americans with Disabilities Act
Questions and Answers

Q. Is the Federal government covered by the ADA?

A. The ADA does not cover the executive branch of the Federal government. The executive branch continues to be covered by title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination in services and employment on the basis of handicap and which is a model for the requirements of the ADA. The ADA, however, does cover Congress and other entities in the legislative branch of the Federal government.

Now I can tell you first hand I work a lot with Sarbanes Oxley law and know for a fact that people who claim to be experts tell me all kinds of stuff I know not to be true (because I actually read Sarbanes-Oxley myself). They usually tell me that because either A) They don't want to do something, or B) They want to be paid extra for doing something that isn't actually required. I suspect the same thing is true in the construction industry with regards to ADA. The IRS, which is the subject of this sub-plot is a part of the Excutive branch - and thus - is not subject to ADA.

[Rover]

So, you are an accountant? Not an urbanist planner?

[Just the facts]

Not an account - just a New Urbanism Activist.

[rcjunkie]

During my time with the City of OKC, anytime we did a remodel or new construction of a City owned building, it had to meet Federal ADA Guidelines.

[Rover]

Whether technically required or not, I don't remember working on a Fed building in the last few years that didn't require us to provide ADA compliant equipment.

[Just the facts]

During my time with the City of OKC, anytime we did a remodel or new construction of a City owned building, it had to meet Federal ADA Guidelines.

Fair enough - local and state governments are required to comply with ADA.

[Lauri101]

For the love of Pete:

http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm



Now I can tell you first hand I work a lot with Sarbanes Oxley law and know for a fact that people who claim to be experts tell me all kinds of stuff I know not to be true (because I actually read Sarbanes-Oxley myself). They usually tell me that because either A) They don't want to do something, or B) They want to be paid extra for doing something that isn't actually required. I suspect the same thing is true in the construction industry with regards to ADA. The IRS, which is the subject of this sub-plot is a part of the Excutive branch - and thus - is not subject to ADA.

This!
Thank you!

[bluedogok]

Accessible parking is not required adjacent to a building unless there is parking required by code. For most downtown office buildings, they don't have parking tied to a building so the only requirement is for whatever remote lot to be accessible and on an "accessible route" to the building. Most suburban office buildings have accessible parking because the parking is required by code, so it must be provided at a ratio determined by building, land use or zoning codes.

Like Rover stated, most federal buildings including the IRS are compliant, the only reason why I can think that the IRS building in OKC is not compliant is because I think it was built before 1991 when the ADA went into effect. Even though the IRS may be are technically excluded per the ADA statutes the city still has to grant a building permit for work done inside the building and most cities (and I know the State of Texas) would press for a reasonable accommodation and expects anything new or remodeled these days to meet ADA/TAS. The agency requesting exemption would have to demonstrate a need to not comply, I don't think most would request that anymore.

It is also one more reason why I think the ADA should be codified and enforced by code officials instead of all complaints having to go through the Department of Justice or the TDLR in Texas.

Believe me, between what I do and who I am married to (a public advocate for people with disabilities) I know more about the ADA than I really ever cared to know.

[Reno and Walker]

Yawn Yawn