| Obama Holds Off on Pool-Destroying Regulations til After Election | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2012, 02:21 AM (201 Views) | |
| LTC8K6 | May 30 2012, 02:21 AM Post #1 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/26/Election-Pool |
![]() |
|
| cks | May 30 2012, 06:13 AM Post #2 |
|
My local Y has long had such a lift in one of its pools. I have seen it used just once - by a handicapped woman who was too large to comfortably sit in the seat and the safety strap could barely fit around her. Most of the time, the lifeguard has to watch the seat to make sure that ill behaved urchins are trying to sit in it or use it. THis instead of guarding those who are swimming in the pool. For a number of years I served on the board of our private club - retired from my position this past fall. WHen I went this past weekend for the traditional opening (and to mark my place at the lap pool) I talked to a current board member about the regulation. He said that the club would have to close if that was enforced since we have two pools (outdoors) and we have neither the money to purchase, install, remove for the winter, store, and reinstall each summer. There is some question as to whether private clubs such as ours would have to comply (we have no handicapped members at present) but that at present no one seemed sure (our board consists almost exclusively of teachers, lawyers, and insurance people - which is why we still have a high diving board, I am convinced). |
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 30 2012, 08:00 AM Post #3 |
|
A couple decades ago I had to review loads of records to determine the meanings for various public access regulations encountered in building streets and highways. Naturally the regulations themselves were lacking some information necessary to determine which criteria had precedence over other criteria. For instance, imagine trying to build sidewalks for wheelchairs on the hills in San Francisco; was the percentage of rise more important than the cross slope or what…. Once I had it all figured out, it allowed us to build. The priorities were established in the Federal Register notes …pages and pages of them. The committees that put them together actually had handicapped participants to help, so they had let it be known what was most important to them. Then they revised the regulations! The masterminds came in with about a hundred ‘what if’ situations that seemed to have a blind paralyzed person crossing streets every place imaginable ….and they allowed for rest areas that made it possible for a blind and paralyzed person to pass another. Anyway, the ‘what ifs’ seem to be moving towards forcing us to accommodate every person in every possible situation, which is impossible, but we’ll spend a fortune trying. It’s sad because it seemed like the handicapped just wanted it a little less restrictive when we were building new, not reconstructing and retrofitting the entire nation. It's not something I condemn, as many need a little more help than others, but I'm not able to figure out how to justify all the costs involved ...where to mark the line of going too far. As for pools, it might be cheaper to transport those who need the lifts to pools which have them. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






2:34 PM Jul 11