HomeMy WebLinkAboutInez Petersen email 8/6/2019Alex,
Confirming my phone call of a few minutes ago . . .
A lis pendens has the potential to impact Jeff's ability to get a loan against his property in the future. That is not a viable answer to the carport issue. I did not realize this
when I mentioned it yesterday. The financial impacts to Jeff I believe are already in violation of the ADA/FHAA, so a lis pendens would only make that situation worse.
I suggest your office consider the ADA/FHAA requirement to modify the city code itself so that the wording provides the "reasonable accommodation" federal law requires instead of burdening
Jeff's property or his bank account in any way.
"Reasonable accommodation" does not mean making Jeff pay for engineering studies and surveys. "Reasonable accommodation" is a change made to a policy, program or service that allows
a person with a disability to use and enjoy a dwelling, in this case Jeff's home and garden.
I believe that facially neutral policies, city code in this case, violates the ADA/FHAA when such city code unduly burdens disabled persons like Jeff, even when such policies are consistently
enforced as the City is now trying to do.
There is no better justification for reasonable accommodation than his inability to get in and out of his car with his wheel chair when it is in the garage. Non-disabled people can
get in and out of their cars in their garages because they do not have to deal with a wheel chair. He needs the extra room and the cover from the weather provided by the carport (which
is what he had at his other residence too).
If the City knows it must accommodate Jeff's special needs, why not document that in City records and get on with the other business of the City, leaving him alone to enjoy his life
without the fear of more financial impacts placed on him by the City?
Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
Sincerely,
Inez