The lack of prompt and knowledgeable rebuttal in the 2 June Budget & Finance Committee meeting to Supe. McGoldrick’s suggestion to look at eliminating corner fire alarm boxes makes me write this, lest staff go far down a road they can’t realistically travel.
Despite claims of advances in communications that may seem, at least to those who only focus on themselves and on others who also are able-bodied, to make eliminating corner fire alarm boxes simply a matter of budgetary savings, a basic acquaintance with the 15-year old Americans with Disabilities Act should have made such a suggestion impossible to voice, let alone research.
The corner fire alarm boxes are a method of communication of an emergency. As a method of communication, they fit the ADA-based parameters of a “program”. Right now, those who have any of various disabilities can report a situation requiring SFFD attention simply by pulling the lever.
Some people can’t afford cell phones; others can’t use cell phones. But, in an emergency, anyone–whether or not able-bodied or able to afford a cell phone–might understandably flee a burning bldg. or auto crash. So, the availability of cell phones can’t be a plausible reason to consider eliminating a communications program for reporting emergencies requiring SFFD attention.
It should be an embarrassment to the Board of Supes. and to all city staff present that all let such a suggestion be floated without bringing in the reality of the provisions of a 15-year old law. Again and again, the disabled have to fear loss of facilities and programs because the able-bodied steadfastly stay ignorant of this civil rights law.
Why and how it’s politically acceptable for city policymakers to make uninformed suggestions that could precipitate unnecessary staff work and make the disabled fear being put at risk for misguided intents to save money is more than a rhetorical question. It’s an indication that collegiality is more important than compliance with the law.
