I agree that that is a ridiculous way to address a court-ordered repair of county buildings's lack of accessibility, except that one point made in the article is correct: it's not just people who can use stairs who benefit from accessible water fountains. I can use stairs, but I really need the accessible water fountains. In fact, I frequently run into situations where something I use is not accessible for me, because people in charge of buildings will only put the adaptations (electric door openers, lever handles on sinks, etc.) in wheelchair-accessible spots. So to a certain extent, good for them for recognizing that there is a level of accessibility they can address even without wheelchair accessibility.
Now they just need to get off their butts to address wheelchair accessibility.
Fair point. It's still stupid, because if they're only going to put in one new accessible water fountain, why is it on the floor that isn't as accessible?
It might make sense, at least in the short term, if they have more employees needing that accessible fountain on the 2nd floor than on the 1st floor. That way, those employees wouldn't have to go down one floor and back up, which might be strenuous even if possible. (Note: I have no idea how likely this is, or whether they do.)
oh, absolutely. Without question they should have put it on the first floor. I'm kind of derailing from the facepalm nature of an incredibly stupid decision with my general pleasure that they are acknowledging that all accessibility doesn't mean wheelchairs and vision impairments. But I don't think they are acknowledging that because they really mean it, I think there are acknowledging that to cover their stupid decision.
no subject
Now they just need to get off their butts to address wheelchair accessibility.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject