Disability meets Bethpage Black

[PThomas]

I always thought it was wrong that Jack opposed the cart for C Martin..and then really bad when he later one used one himself

[peter_mcknight]

Mr Hamm:  My comments were specifically directed as to the potentially, and logically public policy conclusion if this were to be introduced into the federal courts.  I have offered no comments as to efficacy or the value of ADA.

Now that this has turned into a political situation, as I learned with the Yale golf course posting some months ago, I will offer no more commentary on said situation.  However, I will not remove the posts (unlike the Yale posts) because what I have written is basically an explanation of ADA from a public policy position, not a political position.

[Cliff Hamm]

Don...I do believe that some would take advantage.  But really what percentage of folks would lie about a disability?  25% and I think that is quite high.  What does it matter to your experience?  That is a relevant question or why would you care?...As mentioned previously utilizing a handicapped license plate would be a likely means test...and let's not worry so much about precedent.  If someone could make a case that their handicap prevented them from waiting overnite so be it.  Again, this case is simple.  As I and others have stated the right thing to do is to allow the cart.  What is the big deal?  It is resistance to doing such that has brought us laws like ADA.

[Bob_Huntley]

The man qualifies under the "disabled category", his driver's license allows him parking priveleges in Manhattan. For God's sake what does it take to allow him to ride a cart at Bethpage?

I do wish that every person who contibutes to this forum, would put on leg braces and heavy boots and try to get around as the rest of us do. There would be no opposition to accomodation at State owned parks.

[Cliff Hamm]

Peter...I apoligize if I have turned this into a political arguement.  It started as a discussion on should someone with a substantial disability be allowed a reasonable accomodation? - golf cart - to play golf on a public course and I thought my comments were directed to this question.  They are not meant to be political.  I do not see this as conservative/liberal  or whatever.  It is, however something I feel passionate about.  Can you tell?

[Michael Whitaker]

Beyond the image of golf reasons, I think it's the right thing to do.

Damn right, Bill, it's the right thing to do! It's a public facility paid for by public funds. Give the guy a cart and a caddie and help him in any way possible to get around the course. And those of you who don't want him to have a cart should be ashamed of yourself.

Chechessee Creek and Secession in SC are walking only.

[Don Herdrich]

I never had an opinion whether he should or shouldnt have a cart.  Morally he should get one.  Legally, that is another question.

Obviously, for this to get to the press, someone at the NY Parks Dept said no somewhere along the line.  Maybe this story has been overblown, maybe it has been settled and he played with cart today.  
 

[Anthony_Nysse]

Isn't that part of the mystique to The Black though...no matter who you are you have to play by the rules that are there-you have to wait in line/overnight to get a tee time, you have to walk, it's the same for everybody. I just think that they would be opening up the floodgates if they did so.

[Ted Kramer]

Golf is a gentleman's game, and a true gentleman would find a way to accomodate someone with a disability. The idea that an injured cop isn't being "taken care of" especially when it comes to "state property" is simply appalling to me.

-Ted

[john_stiles]

Secession allows carts on an extremely limited basis.

[Phil_the_Author]

What has not been mentioned is the logistics of compliance for the Black Course.

In order for cart paths to be installed many severe obstacles need to be overcome. For example, how does one reasonably get a cart to the 2nd green/ third tee complex? Left of the green is out because of the severe hill, trees and closed-off parking lot for the maintenance facilities. Going up the hill on the right brings players directly into the line of play, and therefor a dangerous situation, from those hitting off the third tee.

How do you construct a cart path for the 4th hole without impacting on its design? How do you get from the 8th tee to the 9th tee reasonably, or the 15th green followed by 16 tee?

This is absurd! What is the greatest logistical nightmare in this is how will one get a cart across Round Swamp Road? Going all the way back to the tunnel by the first hole and then back to the 15th tee will cause tremendous delays in the way the course is played and at tremendous financial cost as well. How will you prevent cart drivers from attempting to cross the road? Will new fencing require walkers to have to go all the way around and back to the first hole tunnel?

Yes, ADA requires that REASONABLE accomodations be made so that the handicapped can have access, but it doesn't mean that it MUST happen. For example, some of the great places to climb in our country are in Federal & State parks. Does this mean that means must be provided to ferry any disabled person to their tops or peaks simply because of ADA & access? Of course not.

There are also exceptions to the rules. For examples, though most federal buildings have complied voluntarily, If memory serves me correctly (it has been a while since I've examined the code) they arenot required to.

Also, where compliance must occur, immediate and complete compliance (there's a tongue-twister) is not. A full plan for compliance in all applicable areas (e.g. - fire alarm system upgrades) can take time to develop and then only a percentage of the plan needs be acted upon annually to be compliant under the law. This is how many buildings & the owners paying for this work, legally delay in doing the work.

Consider what else must be done in order for "full compliance" to take place. Handicap-access rest rooms where they exist for all. This is found at the 5th hole on the Black. Since electric carts are used at Bethpage, when they break down on the course, what facilities are made for emergency notification by the handicapped player?

Really, there is a LOT more involved here than "Give the poor guy a cart!"

In many ways, Bethpage Black will provide the perfect legal test case for how the phrase "reasonable accomodations" is both defined and applied in a golf setting.  

[Mike_Golden]

As much as it makes absolutely no sense to not allow a disabled policeman a cart on the Black the cost of such allowance, as Phil says, might boggle the mind.

Since there are no cartpaths now and some areas that would be quite dangerous to ride in without them it's possible that the addition of such would significantly change the nature of the golf course.

I don't have an answer for this except maybe the use of something other than a standard golf cart for this very limited exception.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Having gone through a year and a half when I couldn't walk more than 50 feet, and needed a cart to play golf, I think I have a sense of the situation.  When a golf course was closed to carts due to wet conditions I didn't play golf, and I didn't ask for an exception.

I also didn't play golf at courses that required walking.

I didn't feel that I had a right of entitlement that would allow me to impose my special needs interests upon any facility, especially when they were counter to the clearly established policies and practices of that facility.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

You wrote, "I don't have an answer for this except maybe the use of something other than a standard golf cart for this very limited exception."

This is not the case of a, "very limited exception." This is not an accomodation for an individual but a demand that accomodations for ALL disabled be created using ADA as the force behind it.

In this case he has already lost the ability for the Park to help out a "Friend of Bethpage" quietly and behind the scenes. He has also prevented them from doing this behind the scenes for anyone else for at least the immediate future.

His exercising of his "legal recourse" has actually limited his options and those of other disabled golfers who want to play at Bethpage.

[Cliff Hamm]

As to the cost of providing access for the disabled - correct it will cost.  That is the price of an enlightened society that has established the right of the disabled to have reasonable access to public facilities.  It seems to me that Bethpage has substantially increased their revenue over the past few years and some of this could be earmarked for diabled access.  I am also not sure that paths are necesarilly required altho from those who have played Bethpage it seems they would be needed for access to some tees.  I once had an addition put on my house and asked the contractor if something could be done and the response was "For a price anything is possible".  I suspect for a price cartpaths could be provided, if necessary, without substantially affecting playing conditions.

Out of curiosity I played BB around 1974 before its more recent notoriety.  I can't recall if at that time carts were allowed or not.  Wondering if there was any change in policy with the upgrades for the Open.

Pat - I would be curious if your home course allowed you to use a cart?  If not would that might have changed your mind?  Is it not different for one who has a permanent disability?  Your so-called right of entitlement is law. ADA is really no different than other civil rights laws.  If BB did not allow those of certain gender, color, religion to play because that was "the clearly established policies and practices of that facility" it would be a civil rights violation.  One must understand that one of the major achieviements in America over the past 10 years or so is to expand civil rights to the disabled and for this we should be proud.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would be curious if your home course allowed you to use a cart?  

Only when conditions permited, and it applied to the entire membership.[/color]

If not would that might have changed your mind?  

No.[/color]

Is it not different for one who has a permanent disability?

No, Mine might have been permanent.
I had no guarantee of recovery.[/color]

Your so-called right of entitlement is law.

Not necessarily.  Golf is an athletic endeavor.  The question is, is the law applicable in this case ?[/color]

ADA is really no different than other civil rights laws.  
That's not true.  The determination of the application with respect to participating in an atlhetic endeavor is a material factor, and differs from the fact that you exist as an entity or legal entity.

Will the deep, vast bunkers at BPB have to be reconstructed with ramps if the plaintiff wins ?[/color]

If BB did not allow those of certain gender, color, religion to play because that was "the clearly established policies and practices of that facility" it would be a civil rights violation.  

That's a flawed analogy.

If the golf course was restricted to golfers with handicaps of 18 or less due to its difficulty and the time necessary for high handicap players to complete a round in a timely fashion, I would imagine that a lot of 19 and 20 handicap players would file suit rather than work on getting their handicap to 18.
It's a sign of the litigious times we live in.

But, to humor you, BPB does descriminate against Matt Ward and TEPaul.  They're charged more to play.  Do they have a case ?

The golf course is a field of play.
Taking it to an extreme,
If you're a wide receiver and have a bad knee and can't run fast, should you be provided with a motorcycle when you play in a Stadium owned by a government or governmental agency ?[/color]

One must understand that one of the major achieviements in America over the past 10 years or so is to expand civil rights to the disabled and for this we should be proud.
I think everyone would agree with that, but I think there's reasonable doubt if and when it applies to an athletic endeavor.  I think that's a legitimate distinction.

I suspect that there's more to this case than meets the eye.
I would also suspect, as Phil Young mentioned, that this could have been worked out behind the scenes.  Now that the issue has been thrown into the judicial arena I'd prefer to see BPB prevail, which wouldn't preclude a behind the scenes solution.

[/color]

[RJ_Daley]

While I am the disadvantage of never having seen BB, I still think Cliff Hamm has all the right thoughts and arguments here.  

It was mentioned earlier that carts were used to shuttle folks to their tees in shotgun starts, and other examples of vehicles on the course for tournament administration.  The maintenance equipment obviously has to get from point to point.  These little one man disability carts or scooters are pretty versitile and smalish.  I can't believe they can't negotiate whatever paths the walkers take.  It seems to me the only impediment would be paths that also use stairs.  In that case I still believe an alternate path could be provided around the stairs.  If a stairs leads to a specific tee where reasonable accomodation of a rideable path is not possible, then a path to a forward 'ladies tee' sort of starting point for that hole is another alternative.  If a certain hole must be skipped, so be it.  Skip it and provide what is "reasonable" and you should be in compliance.

As also noted, it isn't like every faker grifter sucking off of the ADA law to cheat their way into parking spaces at the mall are also going to show up at BB to play golf.  I say, if someone is seen as abusing the excemption, then give them enough rope to hang themselves, and when they are documented to abuse it, throw them out.  Like if a guy shows up in a motorized scooter and then is seen dancing the Manhatten Mambo around the green and back to his scooter after he sinks a birdie putt.  

I also think that the issue we previously spoke about as to what is reasonable was about if they had to reconstruct bunkers for easy ingress and egress for a handicapped player.  I think we suspected that would not be reasonable to tamper with integral architecture, and the very reason the a place like BB is a tournament venue, due to degree of difficulty of a hazard.  Thus, the same idea applies that if getting into the hazard is a dangerous act for the handicapped, then they take an unplayable drop, and you go figure if it is a stroke penalty or not.  They don't have to give you an aqua-lung to go get and play your shot from the pond, do they?

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

Are you saying that you advocate permiting a handicaped individual to be exposed to dangerous conditions ?

Is there a point where the inherent danger of the property and the activity outweigh the right of access ?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, heck no.  I'm not saying that a person should be exposed to an obviously dangerous situation.  But, any set of even mundane situations can become a hazard or dangerous if common sense is not applied.  You can't park your cart, not walk and stand infront of a tee where others are teeing off.  The person receiving a handicap accomodation has equal responsibility to recognise their limitations and exercise due reasonable cautions.  Yes, I think that there is a point where the inherent danger of a property and the reasonableness of engineering an accomodation is beyond what must be provided.  I'm pretty sure there has been plenty of cases defining that already.

We don't have to do all things for all people that have a disability.  We just need to be reasonable and generous and compasionate to the best extent we can withing reason.  

Perhaps Stehen Hawking is the perfect guy to send into space on the publicly funded and built and nationally owned space shuttle.  Yet, with his unfortunate disability, that isn't going to happen because it would be inherently risky to his well being and to insure his safety would be extremely difficulty.  Yet, with enough money and engineering it may be theoretically possible...

[Cliff Hamm]

pat...I am not going to get into refuting every one of your points.  You are incorrect, however, as to the courts not having ruled as to golf being an athletic  endeavor and does ADA apply - see Casey Martin vs PGA.  The courts have been very clear in that case that indeed it did apply.  They have also ruled that the basic playing field being chanaged is not a reasonable accomodation.  Hence if one cannot run and wants to play major league baseball they are not entitled to start half way up to first base.  So many of your arguements were the fears expressed during the Martin case and professional golf has not seen the sky falling.  So much of what you say does apply to all movement in civil rights where many said but if we open up that door what's next?   ADA is a civil rights law and one should not have to negotiate privately for basic rights.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

"What is just" and "What is Loving" are two questions that sound good but unfortunately have no applicability in this situation. We are speaking legalities and what laws and acts are involved and how they apply to this individual case.

R.J., you wrote, "While I am the disadvantage of never having seen BB, I still think Cliff Hamm has all the right thoughts and arguments here." That is why your conclusions are incorrect here.  

You went on to say that, "These little one man disability carts or scooters are pretty versitile and smalish.  I can't believe they can't negotiate whatever paths the walkers take." It is BECAUSE you have never been to Bethpage Black that you can't appreciate that the terrain does not allow for disabled carts or scooters to follow the paths the walkers take. Examples are the treks down from 3 green to 4 tee (I defy anyone to do that in a cart without specific paths put in), 6 tee to 6 fairway down & up the valley, 8th tee to green, & I can keep going on.

What is forgotten in this is the way the players get from 14 green to 15 tee. After a sharp downhill trek they must begotiate Round Swamp Road which is very actively used during the day.

The reason that no cart paths were put on the Black when they were installed elsewhere years ago was because of the issue of Insurance & liability in the crossing over from 14 to 15. That remains as the true insurmountable issue.

And to answer the questions, carts have NEVER been used on the Black.

Also, as one who played it last Monday during the MET Golf Writers Outing, we were FERRIED out to the tees with a park employee escorting us to make certain that we stayed only on paths where we could get to the tees safely. This meant, in more than a few cases, that we had to travel the companion pathways on the Green Course as there were no viable options to do otherwise. It was not a case of the usual shotgun start where everyone drives out from the clubhouse together and gets to the tees on their own. The park even had its employees ferry out pull carts which they left at the tees and then had to go back out for later. There was a tremendous amount of work involved and it was done so that everyone could be back at relatively the same time.

It actually proves the inadvisability of carts on the Black because of the restrictive nature of the course for them.

 

[Cliff Hamm]

For those truely interested in this issue one helpful website is that of the National Golf Course Owners Association - www.ngcoa.org and there is a link to ADA.  Below i have pasted in their words a model policy for golf carts:


Your patronage at [name of course] is truly appreciated.

It is course policy to restrict motorized cart traffic to the cart paths when weather or turf conditions warrant. This policy ensures that we can continue to provide the best possible playing conditions in the long term.

However, we also recognize the needs of the truly disabled golfer who suffers from permanent walking impairments or other conditions that would make it impossible for him or her to enjoy the golf course with restrictions on golf car use.

Golfers with disabilities will be asked to identify themselves to management. It is legally permissible for management, if there is a reasonable belief that a golfer may not be disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)*, to request proof of a disability, such as a government-issued permanent disabled car placard or other identifying information which may reasonably be accepted as valid.

Management will provide golfers covered by the ADA with a separate car with an identifying flag. This will allow the disabled golfer only to leave and return to the cart path at designated points on each hole. Please address any questions or concerns to the golf course management.

Please understand that this golf car traffic is likely to adversely affect turf and soil, as well as playability. We appreciate your cooperation in using care and exercising good judgement.

Any use of cars off the cart path is at your own risk, and any problems or injuries resulting from such use are the golfer’s responsibility. For safety reasons we strongly discourage the use of the golf car on severe slopes or through tall grass areas. Natural, unmowed areas may be designated as environmentally sensitive and also present a fire hazard; please avoid these areas with the car.

Consistent with government rulings on the ADA, course management reserves the right to restrict all golf car traffic in rare instances when excessive heat, moisture stress, new turf, other weather-related or maintenance-related conditions create extreme safety issues or would result in any cart traffic causing excessive turf damage. If at any time it is apparent these conditions might exist, we suggest calling ahead.

Violation of this policy may result in suspension of golf privileges.

We encourage your suggestions and ask for your cooperation in providing accessibility and making [course name] a quality golf experience. If you have any questions, please contact the golf course superintendent at [phone number].

* Under the ADA, an individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working. An individual with epilepsy, paralysis, a substantial hearing or visual impairment is covered, but an individual with a minor, nonchronic condition of short duration, such as a sprain, broken limb, or the flu, generally would not be covered. Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division “Americans with Disabilities Act Questions and Answers”

CKS 10/00

* Please note: For more information and or request for originals please contact Cynthia Smith at (785)865-1431 or by e-mail at Smithpract@aol.com

[Jeff_Brauer]

A few more thoughts, although there can be no conclusions, because the idea of reasonable accomodation will be decided on a case by case and gradual basis.  In general, I think there will be some great creativity applied to aid access to the disabled, and many of the objections voiced will be solved through good ole Yankee ingenuity. But, I am an optimist!

Pat,

Athletic endeavors are specifically covered under ADA! I had the privelge years ago of visiting a rehab center.  It was inspiring to see how trauma (often spinal cord injuries from accidents) victims like this NY police officer worked hard to get back into their favorite activities with the help of assistive devices, which this facility helped develop.  Bowlers would bowl (in modified form) w/o the ability to walk, or with no arms, or whatever.  Golfers want to golf!

Now, back to the situation at BB.

The law does provide that multi course facilities like Bethpage must provide access to all faciliies, though. Shunting them over to the Red, etc. is not acceptable.  Practice facilities should be accessible, since many disabled golfers have reduced their game to only hitting balls......And, while a facility doesn't have to remodel specifically to provide ADA access, when it remodels, it must comply. Actually, I wonder how BB avoided scrutiny when they remodeled for the Open a few years back.  Here in Texas, when remodeling, the gca must apply for a $600 permit fee, submit plans showing how the greens, tees and fw will be accessed, and then arrange a follow up inspection after construction by a state approved inspector......BB should have probably had that type of consideration put in the design, unless they were granted an exception as a US Open venue......or decided to allow access in ways other than design - ie letting disable carts go places others can't, which is perfectly acceptable.


Generally, a facility that doesn't have cart paths does not have to add them.   They can provide access through special carts.  Access only has to be to one tee, with two preferred.  Thus, building paths, to say get a wheel chair golfer to the back tee way up the hill is not required.  For that matter, in a tight spot where carts couldn't get back to a very close tee, they might add a special tee in an area where a cart could reasonably go.

Nor do they need to restrict their other policies. If a course had a specific policy (rather than a strongly worded suggestion about the difficulty of the course at BB) that the course was restricted only to golfers of handicaps 10 (or whatever) I think that is acceptable by law, providing its not specifically aimed at keeping out any group.  There may still be a few golfers in wheel chairs, on canes, etc. with low handicaps, but the problem would be almost nil.

For that matter, the problem is virtually nil anyway.  I only rarely see the orange flag carts anyway, because, as Pat says, many disabled people do tend to give up on golf and other athletic pursuits.  But they are out there!

[Rob_Waldron]

Does anyone really believe that the purpose of ADA was make sure disabled golfers could drive carts on a golf course??? If friviolous requests of this nature are taken seriously and acted upon with any aggression golf courses as we know them will be ADA'd out of existence.

Either give anyone who wants a cart a cart or deny carts to everyone! Of course lhe latter will continue to maintain the integrity of the course.

[Eric Pevoto]

Phil Young made a passing reference to this.  I don't see how this situation is any different than say, someone who loves hiking in a state park.  Take Harriman State Park, in the Palisades, as an example.  Some of the best hiking and orienteering in the U.S.  

Because someone once loved hiking, but is now unable to negotiate the trails, should motorized vehicles then be allowed on the hiking trails?  

I'm appreciative of what the man has done for the community, but there are other golf courses at Bethpage that will accomodate his needs.