On the recordMay 8, 2012
In reclaiming my time, it's all well and good to say that; but what these owners will say is their liability comes as soon as the lawyer walks by and the pool doesn't have it. They're not going to risk having the liability. They're not going to risk doing that. So you'll have less access because it's simply not ready. Having this go into effect in less than a month from now, at the end of this month, is simply not reasonable. What we're about is trying to find a solution that is reasonable and affordable and that will increase accessibility for the disabled. This doesn't do it. That's why the amendment was offered in the committee. It was to take this back and have something reasonable. All of us have the same goal here; but the regulations, as they're put forward, are not reasonable. Think about that for a minute: a small apartment complex that has a pool open to the public and then imposing that kind of cost and liability on them. Even with the equipment, when it does become available, it's more likely that they will simply shut the pool down because they won't want to deal with that liability. We have resorts in Arizona that have had portable lifts available for years and years. Some of them inform us that they've never been asked once--or one time in 10 years. There are ways to do this. It's reasonable and prudent to say you ought to have a portable lift available; but a fixed stanchion, or a lift, for every body of water? It just is unreasonable and too costly.…





