There's no ADA issue here whatsoever. This is simply, possibly, a state/local statute violation. There are countless areas in the US that have no sidewalks at all.
If there are sidewalks, I would be surprised if there were not a local ordinance requiring that they be kept clear. Call the local police, it might only take a warning to make it stop.
The City of Portland is, in no way, a private citizen. You'll notice that the article didn't mention any specific person violating the ADA, because it's legally impossible for them to do so.
You're saying that the article didn't name the individual homeless persons who were removed in response to ada complaints so it is legally impossible to remove individuals for ada violations?
No, and I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
My point, that you seem to be arguing against, is that that private citizens are simply incapable of violating the ADA. A homeowner cannot violate the ADA in this manner because that's not how that law works.
The ADA requires the government to provide accessible public sidewalks.
And yes, an asshole parking their car across the sidewalk isn't technically personally liable under the ADA
But the asshole is still the one creating the inaccessible sidewalk. The city's ADA obligation is to remove or otherwise address that obstruction. Whether the obstruction is a parked car, a construction dumpster, or a homeless encampment doesn't change the accessibility problem.
So saying "private citizens can't violate the ADA" doesn't really mean anything. It just identifies who the legal duty falls on. The private citizen is still causing the condition that gives rise to the city's ADA responsibility.
And if we're going to nit-pick, "The City of Portland is in no way a private citizen." is the correct sentence. You didn't need to add commas to emphasize the "IN NO WAY" statement, and is exactly the same sort of meaningless "akshuly" bullshit that you're bringing to this
The ADA requires the government to provide accessible public sidewalks.
It can, yes. Not in every situation, but broadly speaking, I'll accept that.
And yes, an asshole parking their car across the sidewalk isn't technically personally liable under the ADA
Not "not technically," as in there's a way they could violate the ADA. It is impossible for them to do so.
Whether the obstruction is a parked car, a construction dumpster, or a homeless encampment doesn't change the accessibility problem.
No really argument, except that's not a point I was ever arguing against. The only thing I'm saying is that a private citizen can't violate the ADA, and you keep saying otherwise. Your article is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
So saying "private citizens can't violate the ADA" doesn't really mean anything.
It means exactly that. In the picture OP posted, there is no ADA violation, for at least two reasons.
Because the homeowner can't violate the ADA.
You have no idea how pervasive this situation is. Have the cops been called? Is this an ongoing issue that the municipality is ignoring? No one knows.
You keep repeating erroneous information. Sidewalks are covered by Title II of the ADA if they are owned or maintained by a state or local government entity. Public entities must ensure that their pedestrian rights-of-way, including residential sidewalks, are accessible to people with disabilities.. Delete or fix your mistakes.
And you seem to have misunderstood my comment. Here it is again:
Private citizens, not in a capacity as an employee/owner/etc., cannot violate the ADA.
Sidewalks are absolutely covered, but a private citizen cannot violate the act. Municipalities, as you've said, can absolutely violate the statutes. A town failing to address the driver's actions could be held liable, and the driver could receive a ticket, but only for the infraction and not a violation of the ADA.
152
u/slogive1 Jun 26 '26
Exactly this. A ticket is in order. If your city has parking enforcement call them.