Disability meets Bethpage Black

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

What impact would the regulations you deal with have had on Bandon and Pacific Dunes, architecturally speaking  ?

[RJ_Daley]

I wish the aerial could show severity of terrain better.  
But, other than the road crossing, I don't see one area that is more than a pitching wedge
from one green to the next tee as the crow flies.  Some are less than the greens dimensions apart.  
I do know that my cousin who has MS deer hunts by taking out a little one man scooter
in more rugged terrain than BB appears.

Sometimes I think that authority and frequent users protect their dominians a little more stridently
than common sense dictates.  
I think a smart GCA like Jeff B., would figure out these obstacles in short order and make access reasonably possible,
perhaps not totally.  But then again, I don't think anyone is going to make our policeman friend a scratch golfer either.  
I can't prove it, but I'd bet that if someone first went to the policeman and asked him what could they do to help him out,
 he'd have yielded plenty of common sense compromise.  

If they get some of these lawyers who use these arguements as full employment acts
into the minutia and nitpicking, well it may not turn out so good or reasonable in the common sense sort of approach.  
I can't prove any of that, and I could be wrong...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does anyone really believe that the purpose of ADA was make sure disabled golfers could drive carts on a golf course???

Yes, as a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons it was created......


Eric,

As I noted in my probably crossing post, under ADA, providing access to one course at a multi course facility is not acceptable.

Pat,

According to some of the links provided by Cliff, the ADA was passed in 1990, and written as law by 1992, so Pac Dunes and all courses after '92 would have technically been required to be ADA complaiant.  

I haven't been to PD or BD, but I suspect that had the respective designers seriously considered that, some greens and tees may have been altered, possibly to the detriment of ideal design to accomodate.  The big one is figuring a maximum 5% access route for wheelchairs.  On rugged topography like that, it can be a challenge, especially when trying to maintain contours in a minimal disturbance fashion.

However, the timeline on the NGCOA site recalls a meeting in Dallas in 1999, which I attended to represent ASGCA, and the golf guidelines had not been fully developed.  It usually does take several years to realize the full impact of legislation.  The wetland laws were similar.  I heard about them in the 80's, but it wasn't until the early 90's that someone had a wetlands delineation as part of the planning process.  

My experience was that there was only a creeping awareness of the requirements in general among gca, and club owners, and apparently, from this thread, golf design buffs, that exists to this day. Even now, Texas is one of only four states that requires this pre-design ADA compliance permit and monitors designs.

[Chris Perry]

I have no beef with giving guys carts if they need them, but on what grounds does he have to sue?

If anything he's SAVING money by not paying a green fee to play, and I have a feeling if it were any public course besides the Black he wouldn't even bother making a fuss, he just wouldn't bother playing it and go somewhere else.

Clout has it's drawbacks I guess.  

[Cliff Hamm]

1. 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.

I do...One of the purpose of ADA was as an anti-discrimination law to give equal access to the disabled when reasonable.  Discrimination is not frivilous.  You may not agree but it is the law.  Was the purpose of the 1963 Civil Rights Act to allow minorities the right to drink out of any water fountain or sit in the front of the bus?  Yes, among many other purposes


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

Obviously not - that would not be considered a reasonable accomodation

3. I have no beef with giving guys carts if they need them, but on what grounds does he have to sue?

On the basis of BB having violated ADA.  It believe it falls under the Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights.  These are not frivilous law suits in most cases.

BB would be wise to change their policy quickly.  RJ is absolutely correct that when the courts get involved they often hand down decisions that lack common sense and go well beyond what would have been satisfactory before the case was filed.  I continue to fail to understand what the big deal is about allowing those with legitimate disabilities to utilize a cart, which may be a one person handicapped cart. I fail to comprehend why one would be so vehemently opposed.  What is it about allowing those with disabilities a cart that is so reprhensible? In the end though it hardly matters what any of us might think as it is the law.

[Gene Greco]

It's easy to say give him a cart, one automatically comes to that sympathetic and legal conclusion. We all should.

However, if one HASN"T played at BB than one can't possibly see the other side of the argument.

I've played at BB since 1969 and one would literally have to move mountains to play EVERY hole from tee to green if using a cart.

The reason no carts are allowed is because in many instances you simply can't get from one place on the course to another unless you're on foot.

If the policeman should prevail in court (Federal) as one expects, who is accountable when the cart drivers lose control coming off hilltop greens and crash into the group in front waiting to tee off at the bottom of the hill? (It's a six hour round there and one waits on every shot so the group in front of any cart driver will always be in danger).

I say the federal court makes the logical decision by not making special provisions for the policeman due to the great dangers posed to those not only in the cart but to those around him/her on such severe terrain found at The Black.

He should have asked for a favor from another state worker to help him get around as best he could and forego the circus which will be starting soon.

[Brent Hutto]

By some lights I'm not allowed to ask this question never having played Bethpage Black (heck, I've never visited the great state of New York) but I'll ask anyway...

If guys riding on huge, motorized tractors can cut the grass on the golf course every day, how is it it an insane risk for a disabled guy to ride on some sort of small, motorized conveyance on the same course once in a while?

Ultimately, doesn't somebody with at least a weedwhacker have to access pretty much all the playable surface of the golf course on a regular basis? I'd think a disabled golfer could ride to within 30-40 yards of just about any place his ball would end up and if he hits it somewhere he can't reach by cart of by his limited foot mobility he'd just have to take an unplayable.

Or am I failing to miss the point? I'm not really in favor of golf carts becoming common at one of the few places they haven't already taken over but the arguments against this guy seem hard to substantiate.

[RJ_Daley]

Gene, again as Brent and I admit, we never saw the joint in person.

But, my goodness, there must have been one heck of a large field hospital set up to manage all the poor folk that must have been breaking every bone in their bodies whilst spectating at the U.S. Open held there.

I had for years commented that in the run-up to the Whistling Straits PGA, I suspected there would be many injuries due to severe terrain where spectators would be roaming.  It happened.  Many folk sprained and broke appendages.

Once again, if some cooperative accomodation would have been made for the policeman (and other diabled persons to reasonable degrees, who have the realistic potential to play golf at BB) and he were required to sign a waiver like the one presented above, acknowleging the inherent risk and waiving right to sue for injury, after being warned there still was risk to be hurt due to the extraordinary request to push the safety envelope, then what is the big deal?  There are amputees who climb mountains with ropes!  There are guys that ski on legged.  There are guys that play guitars with only their feet.  If the cop has the stones and stamina, the reasonable effort having been made by the staff at BB to give him reasonable assistence to fulfill his dream, and he tumbles down a path anyway, it may just be a price the copper was prepared to pay for the thrill of the attempt.

I feel this challenged about trying to break 80...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

I can assure you that many areas where a ball would come to rest and in play, are not mowed by riding vehicles.

RJ,

Spectators were not permited to walk at random, nor were they permited to walk within the corridors of play, which can be quite steep.

Rather than take shots in the dark, see BPB in person, then you'll have a better understanding of the dilema.

As I said earlier, something seems amiss with this situation, and  I have a feeling that Phil Young may know more about the details.  I can't believe that this fellow's desire to play the golf course has resulted in a law suit that is solely his doing.  Something tells me that other parties are involved, and perhaps the issues or agendas transcend a round of golf.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat --

Nothing on the news story that appeared on WCBS-TV indicated some sort of "hidden agenda." The man's story seems from all indications to be a simple one -- a real love of golf and the desire to test himself in playing the Black Course.

The threat of a lawsuit would likely only come about if the facilty failed to abide by the terms of the ADA.

[cary lichtenstein]

How can there be 50+ posts on this topic?

Let the guy play, ditto the Casey Martin.

My dad had a friend who was a real good golfer, lost his right arm during one of the wars. As a matter of fact, he was so good that he won the British One Arm Championship the year it was held at St. Andrews, shooting 77-77-77 in the driving rain. When I asked him what problems he experienced during the Open, he said "Not easy son to keep you grips dry with one arm"

A few years later he entered a lefty tournament in Des Moines, Iowa. Someone protested that he was too good, and swung from the right side. He countered that he only had a left arm...they barred him from the tournament.

[Cliff Hamm]

Is there any possibility that the USGA would insist that BB accomodate the disabled for the course to hold the Open?  Just seems that if the Open and PGA events cannot be held at clubs that are felt to discriminate (ie no black members) would this not be a similar issue and wouldn't the USGA be expected to put pressure on BB to grant access or lose the Open?  Seems like a realistic possibility.

[Phil_the_Author]

For those that keep mentioning that they get mowers and workmen & there machines on every part of the Black, they are correct but do not understand how it is done.

There are many places where these mowers, tractors & other equipment can't get to from the fairway or hole-to-hole. They are brought in to these locations in round-about fashions. For example, to reach the 8th tee they end up following a path that winds partway through the Green course as there is no other way to get the equipment there. There are many areas where this occur.

Sorry guys, on this issue you really HAVE to have been to the Black to fully understand the terrain and the abrupt elevation changes where even a pull cart can be danger to use. The "aerial" above gives absolutelu no indication of the true scope of the terrain.

When the course and clubhouse were renovated prior to the Open, all access requirements under ADA WERE ADDRESSED! Proper fire alarm systems were installed, handicapped bathrooms and access to the second floor as well. proper curbing in all areas including to allow for wheelchair access to the driving range, as well as expanding the walkways in front of the tee boxes to allow for wheelchair access there as well. A complete and thourough job was done.

The reason why this has become an issue is because the State can NOT allow even one person to PLAY the course with a cart. They recognize that if they do it for one they MUST do it for all.

Let me stress this again, at NO time is ANYONE allowed to PLAY the course with a cart. This is important as it goes to the heart of the matter. Cart usage on the Black has always been recognized as a true potential danger and insurance will not cover them if they allow it.

In addition, allowing carts to "ferry" players out for a purpose of starting play, is NOT the same as using carts to carry player & bag FOR play.

He actually could take a tour of the Black by cart any time he wants if he misses it that much. That can always be arranged for and an employee will do the driving. I made those arrangements for Tillinghast's Granddaughter last year when she visited to see his handiwork.  

Playing with a cart is a different matter altogether.

[Phil_the_Author]

Cliff,

You wrote, "Is there any possibility that the USGA would insist that BB accomodate the disabled for the course to hold the Open?  Just seems that if the Open and PGA events cannot be held at clubs that are felt to discriminate (ie no black members) would this not be a similar issue and wouldn't the USGA be expected to put pressure on BB to grant access or lose the Open?  Seems like a realistic possibility."

Actually there is no discrimination involved whatsoever as NO ONE is EVER allowed to play WITH a cart. If someone or groups routinely were then it would be. As such, it isn't.

 

[Cliff Hamm]

Phillip...hate to keep this going but....discrimination under ADA is the lack of access afforded to the disabled.  If the able bodied can play then it is discrimination in essence as the diabled may not play if they require a cart. By not allowing carts BB is not allowing the disabled access to the course and that would be considered discriminatory.  The issue is not that no one can take a cart.  The issue is that the disabled do not have access if they are not allowed to have a cart.  This is considered discrimination under ADA.  An analogy I might give is that a restaurant could refuse to read the menu to any patrons.  This would violate ADA for the blind. Altho the restaurants policy is to read the menu to no one by not reading it to the blind would be considered discriminatory as it limits access... Sorry..It has been many years since I played BB and I can't recall the specifics.  But I suspect that there are forward tees or forward tees could be built, a resonable accomodation, to allow the disabled to play if access to tees is not resonable...I will add that I would bet that by time the Open returns to BB in 2009 carts will be available for the disabled...

[Phil_the_Author]

Cliff,

I too hate hitting this dead horse, but I disagree with you - there is no discrimination. ADA requires that only "Reasonable accomodations" be made. If none can the practice is judged as non-discriminatory and nothing is doen.

The question here involves the word "reasonable" not "must". Think about it. Building 18 new tees, adding cart paths, intercom systems for when carts break down, even lights that flash so that a deaf golfer can be warned of dangerous weather that is closing the course. How far nust a golf course go to be "reasonable?" That is the real question.

Not because I have a passion for the Black, that is well-known, but because I believe that Bethpage has done everything they reasonably can to make as much of the park accessible to those of the handicapped as possible is why I have defended them park & its personnel.

Actually the greatest irony of all is that the place where this case will be argued, if it goes to trial, a federal courthouse, is EXEMPT from the provisions of ADA as a federal building. Fortunately it has probably been brought into compliance, but many federal buildings have not because of this provision within the ADA itself.

[Cliff Hamm]

Phil..You are correct that federal buildings do not fall under ADA.  They fall under a section of the 1973 rehabilitation act.  The definition of a disability under this act is identical.  I'm glad we live in a country that doesn't try to complicate matters  

You are incorrect when you say discrimination is not involved.  Why does ADA fall under the Department of Justice - Office of Civil Rights?  Because the essence of it is civil rights and discrimination.  Perhaps not how discrimination is typically viewed but discrimination none the less.

As to your examples I can only tell you how I believe courts would rule.  If BB does not have forward tees that are accessable, they would be expected to build them (are there not tees at BB that would be accessible without building new ones?).  They may be quite small as not much play would be expected.  Cart paths would not be required.  Intercom systems, flashing lights - not required.  Let us not take this to the ludicrious extreme.  The sky will not fall if the disabled get a cart to play BB.