Thanks to Suzanne England, I stumbled across
this New York Times article.
It revolves around lawyers who come from out of state, find non-accessible New York stores and buildings, recruit a bunch of plaintiffs, and sue. The plaintiffs, mostly handicapped, receive around $500. The lawyers earn their salaries from this type of work.
So is this legal? Is it kosher?
Let's consider that the problem DOES exist - these lawyers are not finding loopholes in the system. This is a straightforward law, and there are buildings and people that are simply not following it.
Perhaps there are more humane ways to go about making NYC more accesible. Maybe an ultimatum saying that buildings must comply with the law by a certain date, to allow for struggling or mom-and-pop businesses to find the money and the time.
But are there some buildings that just will never be accessible for those with handicaps? Some buildings are as they were in the 1800s and earlier, when this city was formed, and so should the authenticity and landmark-quality of the building be changed?
To be honest, I don't know. For if we say that some buildings should simply not be changed for whatever reason then we are restricting a large portion of the population from ever enjoying them.
Sometimes, yes, there are things that are not possible. But does that mean there isn't a way? Can't we find some compromise? I think it's out there, and I think there's a way. I feel like we just have to find it.
From Google Images