What will new ADA rule do to architects building greens?

[Jay Flemma]

I'm still looking into this, and if anyone knows more let me know, but apparently an ADA rule goes into effect on Jan 30 that requires every public course (and every private course that hosts a private event) to have carts for handicapped individuals drive on the greens. One architect said "goodbye bent grass, hello fescue."

Is he right?  What other implications will it have?  Does anyone know if my source is right about this being as far reaching as he says?

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

I tend to ignore stuff like this.  You have to be able to get a riding mower to every tee and green, so handicapped access is not really a big deal.

If the law means that people with disabilities are going to start using it as an excuse to drive a golf cart right onto a green, there could be some interesting moments.  And possibly more clubs will quickly add some of those Casey Martin one-man carts.  But golf courses aren't going to change the grass on all the greens because of this rule.

I'd love to know who the Pollyanna architect is, but hope you'll tell me in private, since I just called him out.

[corey miller]

Leave it to the Federal Government to create silly rules and regulations.  Is no part of the course sacrosanct?  How does a disabled person retrieve a ball from a wooded area that is still within play?  Does this same person need some sort of access to elevated back tees?  What if they can't bend to pick the ball out of the cup? 

I know someone within our government and most likely here also will have the perfect answers.

[Jeff Taylor]

Ramps must be installed next to each creek where a ball can end up. These ramps will be placed at specific intervals and must meet OSHA/ADA standards for safety and accessibility.
Can't wait.

[RJ_Daley]

Jay, you are an attorney and I am too lazy to look it up, so..... could you post or link to the actual verbiage of these rules and include any text referring to what Jeff Taylor just said about ramps at intervals next to water hazards.  

Just off hand assuming Jeff is correct, wouldn't it be cheaper for any course to just give the player another ball?.  For that matter, what is the rationale that a person even has a right to retrieve the ball in the hazard?  If your ball goes further in the hazard than a ball retriever will fish out, then you don't go swimming to get it.  Why would anyone have the right to get theirs under an ADA.  The ball is lost.  One assumes penalty risk of lost ball all the time on a golf course, disabled or not.  Am I missing something here?

As far as the cart on the green, I believe I saw something on TGC or some other place that described only a person who can not walk or stand can avail themselves to that rule, similar to the people that have those carts where the player has a swivel chair as part of their cart, and golfs that way.  I heard the cart must be able to go reasonably near the green for a mildly disable person, who can stand to putt and walk from green edge to the ball on the green to putt, but isn't entitled to drive on and cause damage to accomplish their intent to play.  Anotherwords, if they can stand to go hit a ball, and walk to the cart from car or clubhouse to use one, they don't just get to drive on the green.  But, I have no citation or authority to make that claim, and am all eyes and ears to see any citation or directive that says differently.  

And, it seems to me that even if their is a written rule directive strictly to the letter of these restrictions, a case challenge will be full employment act for attorneys.

[corey miller]

I was assuming Jeff was tongue in cheek...

I see much opportunity for renovation architects to make changes in order to make all bunkers more accessible for the disabled.  I can't imagine Mr. Doak does not take this into consideration in his US design work.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I see much opportunity for renovation architects to make changes in order to make all bunkers more accessible for the disabled. 

They aren't included in ADA regs, neither are water hazards.

[Jeff Taylor]

Tongue was in cheek. However, did anyone really think that the people who make these decisions would not consider such options? Just change the rules. People with disabilities don't take the penalty for relief.
There is no end to the madness.

[RJ_Daley]

While I didn't study it in detail, I just skimmed the following:

http://www.cmaa.org/uploadedfiles/member/legislative/ada.pdf

One interesting passage is:

In addition, alterations and new construction must be designed to be accessible for people with
disabilities. This applies even to those parts of the club that are not open to the public. It is generally
very inexpensive to ensure that new construction is accessible. Be wary of companies and
contractors who try to use ADA compliance requirements as a means of contracting expensive
and unnecessary architectural renovations and additions.

There are check lists of various scenarios that go to definition of exempt and compliance, etc.  One very important one is the theme throughout the document, "reasonable" and the document speaks to tests such as financial ability of the club to provide various alternatives and size and financial status and ability to pay for said costs is covered. 

This has been around since 1992.  I'm sure there are many test cases to flesh out definitions not specified in the law by now.  Until shown to be wrong, I'm going to operate under the reasonable notions that a handicapped cart on the green, the ultra few handicapped players who have them (like the swivel chair on the back of golf cart we sometimes see) are so rare and so few times used, that no species of turf is going to suffer worse than a riding lawn mower, and it is incumbant on the handicap user not to do damage if they can avoid such.  For instance before teeing off, a person with such a cart is advised by staff to "please not come to abrupt stops or operate the cart in a fashion that causes skidding to tear turf".  Now, if that can clearly be avoided and the handicap user does it anyway, at a bare minimum they could be asked to leave, and if serious damage by unwarranted and reckless willful use, I'm thinking they could be sued.  Now, that is pure spec on my part.  But, I do believe that absent some recent ruling or directive that has just come down, this is just a series of continuing hyperbole to gin up anxt and maybe work, as the passage from The Clum Managers Association above warns.

[Jeff Taylor]

Reasonable- the most dangerous word in law.

[Ronald Montesano]

"Leave it to the Federal Government to create silly rules and regulations."

If you were disabled, you'd not type this, Braveheart.

"Is no part of the course sacrosanct?"

Is this a house of worship? An altar? A confessional? What part of anything is sacrosanct?

"How does a disabled person retrieve a ball from a wooded area that is still within play?  Does this same person need some sort of access to elevated back tees?  What if they can't bend to pick the ball out of the cup?" 

This infers that a disabled person is completely bereft of logic. I could fire back with a disabled person is smarter than you and me and won't go into the woods, or a disabled person understands tee it forward the first time or a disabled person often has playing partners/can purchase one of those rubber suction cups for the end of the putter, but I won't fire back with those responses.

I have a dream. I long for the day when internet denizens think before they type. This knuckle-jerk reaction is akin to how I felt when I first heard of the peanut allergy. I couldn't believe that a school would make changes for one or two kids. How dare they presume? Then I met those kids and realized what an ass I was.

[jeffwarne]

I'm still looking into this, and if anyone knows more let me know, but apparently an ADA rule goes into effect on Jan 30 that requires every public course (and every private course that hosts a private event) to have carts for handicapped individuals drive on the greens.

Bent holds up better than fescue to cart traffic, and would be less impact than a riding mower, assuming only those very very few who needed this accomodation used it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jay,

What's the new rule - that courses have suitable carts for handicapped golfers or that they be allowed on the green?  Here's a link to a USGA article about maintenance issues related to ADA compliance.  Seems to suggest that it is already a requirement that courses have at least one access path to the green for carts, and by implication that carts can go on the green. 

http://www.usga.org/course_care/green_section_record/2007/mar_apr/Golf-Course-Maintenance-and-the-ADA/

[Greg Chambers]

I'm still looking into this, and if anyone knows more let me know, but apparently an ADA rule goes into effect on Jan 30 that requires every public course (and every private course that hosts a private event) to have carts for handicapped individuals drive on the greens. One architect said "goodbye bent grass, hello fescue."

Is he right?  What other implications will it have?  Does anyone know if my source is right about this being as far reaching as he says?

Number one, a private course that hosts private events, as your post suggests, has no need to comply.  However, a private course that hosts public events, will.  Leave it to a "journalist" to neither proofread nor check facts.

Secondly, your architect who says goodbye bent, hello fescue obviously has no experience specifying turfgrasses.

I sat through a discussion on the topic this past week.  The bottom line is, disabled golfers only want to be treated like every other golfer, and be allowed the same access as any other golfer would.  

Some of the posts on this thread are shameful.

[Jay Flemma]

Sorry Greg, I MEANT to write public events, but didn't get a chance to Proof it.

I'm still reviewing everything myself, so give me time to digest it all.  I did hear that bunkers were NOT exempt from the rules and that a reasonable number of bunkers must be accessible, but again, someone was right when they said reasonable is the mosy dangerous word in  law.

***UPDATE*** The second source I interviewed got it wrong and Jim got it right, bunkers are exempt.

PS Tom I can't (and won't) reveal my source!  You and the other archies can rely on the same silence:)

[Kevin_Reilly]

Unfortunately (perhaps...depends on your perspective) there are quite a few prolific ADA litigants in many areas.  In the SF area, mom and pop bookstores, cafes, restaurants, movie theaters, bowling alleys etc have been the target of lawsuits by individuals who are targeting technical violations of ADA requirements and nothing else.  The opportunity to sue for a stipulated damage amount for a violation (I think it is $4,000 per incident) has led to individual litigants with hundreds of lawsuits.  Golf courses will potentially be a target, and in the case of prolific litigants, logic has nothing to do with it.  Here is a story on one of many similar litigants in California..as of 2010 he had filed over 1,000 lawsuits:

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=76046

So there are two sides to this.

[Carl Rogers]

Are there abuses of our legal system?  Sure.

Wife & I have had to take a fiduciary responsibility for several older family members.  We have had some of their residences modified to help them be more independent.  Accessibility for many is a real quality of life issue.  There is a fair amount of arthritis in my family (nothing has happened to me as of now) and there is a chance I will have to give up the game before I would like.

What is witnessed on this site is the polar opposite knee jerk reaction to this alleged knee jerk ADA rule about golf. 

This thread should be way OT until clear verification can be determined.

[Jay Flemma]

Kevin raises a good point, actually, so Carl, I disagree with you.  This is exactly the place to discuss the pros and cons of the law and how it might affect designers and courses/clubs economics.  There are several professional plaintiffs in NYC targeting restaurants and other public places under the ADA rules and shaking them down.

The scariest thing is that the ADA guidelines are accompanied by a press release from a disability rights group claiming that now the second most important person to hire, after the architect, is the lawyer who can advise the club on these issues.

[RJ_Daley]

Jay, what is your actual worry about what you heard from this "un-named" archie?  Are you concerned about the health of the turf grass on the greens, and other resultant damage?  If so, has there been any demonstrable examples you can point to that a handicap golfer in a special cart has damaged greens, or caused any old classic courses to destroy their greens design?  We've heard turf pros say it is no big deal.  This ADA law has been around for two decades, sponsored by Sen. Dole (R) and signed into law by Pres. Bush (R).  Now you heard new regulations are due Jan 30, causing more fear for greens health of turf and their design.  Now you point to unspecified litigious activity and claim shakedowns of public restaurant and other public enterprises, and Mr. Reilly also has bolstered this notion.  You speak of professional litigants, and seem to indicate that this is some sort of indication of a government regulation become a tyranny.  All generalities and still no specifics. But, I'll agree that I 'heard' of instances of a so-called professional litigant activist for handicap that go around looking for regulation violations.  But, I also believe the law has that covered to the extent there is no opportunity for the activist to gain personal financial reward, only small fines to increasing fines for establishments for non-compliance after a specific process of warnings.  What have you "heard"?

I don't think this new/old rumor mill bringing up general and vague talk of new examples of government tyranny of regulations are a co-incidence in that these seem to follow patterns of Fox and right wing agenda talking points and get placed in the public discourse at high drama political times.  

There is nothing new under the sun in these ADA regulations.  Yes, there has been - and I expect will be more, litigation.  What rules and regs have ever not been a process of challenges, trial and error, modification and such?  And, this use by advocacy groups or special interest groups of regulations and rules that were "lobbied" into law, cuts both ways (if you are couching this in a traditional and trite conservative v liberal context)  There are many examples of lobbied and bought-paid for rules regs and legislation favoring corporate enterprise that have been plied as as what some would also call a tyranny.  i.e. abuse of Eminent Domain to aid a private enterprise to force long time land owners out of long held properties, because some developer can cut a fat hog in the ass by pushing old land owners out, under the guise of 'urban redevelopement' and such.   I'm sure we can talk about the bankruptcy exemptions on student loans, and various other groups that can not avail themselves of previous preditory loan marketing and such that favored credit card co.s and many other banking goodies that could be thought of as a tyranny as well.  But, that is not what this tread is about; is it?

I"m just going to wait and see what specific examples of golf course architectural travesty you come up with to demonstrate any tyranny of any newly interpretted ADA law that puts some otherwise 'minding its own business' golf club (public or private) out of business or destroyed art of golf course architecture.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

and Rielly also has bolstered this notion. 

If you are going to (rudely) refer to me by my last name, then please take the time to spell it correctly.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm sorry Kevin, I meant no offense.  I was just doing a drive-by type job off the top of my fat head, and didn't review it before hitting send. 

[Ronald Montesano]

I think that I started the imbalance of this thread with my colorful type. I hope that it continues in an informative (if combative) way, as it is a very important topic. Props to Corey Miller for using PM (such an important feature for preserving cordiality) to flesh out certain topics.

[Jay Flemma]

Dick, your post makes a great point, one that I'm looking to explore.  If turf pros say not to worry, the health of the turf is fine, then I want to know that.  That's great news.  Hopefully, this rule won't lead to opportunistic lawsuits.  I also am curious how much it's going to cost the average golf course to implement these changes.

[Greg Chambers]

Jay,

What's the difference between driving a cart across a green and mowing a green with a triplex?  There is none.  And what changes are you talking about?  Either a course will do what it can to comply, or it won't.  If it doesn't, it leaves itself vulnerable.  If it does, it benefits from a potential increase in rounds.  Word of mouth is a strong marketing tool in this business, if you haven't noticed. 

[Jay Flemma]

Well what I'm hearing is this:

1. The carts in question have wide pressure dispersing tires, so hopefully damage to greens will be minimal.  Courses still have the ability to deny cart access after a rain or frost or other conditions that would add to the likelihood of the green being damaged.  I agree that reasonable is the most dangerous word in law , but it seems that everyone agrees that we will gladly accommodate the disabled, they they cant ruin the greens.

2.  People are telling me that the fescue actually is hardier than bent when it comes to pressure...that's why, for example, you can roll your pull cart across the greens at Chambers Bay for example. (I don't do this myself,  but I'm told you can do it if you choose.  Who is right? Is Jeff Warne right or the two people who said fescue?

Calling all turfgrass experts!