Forum Highlights Accessibility Problems and Possibilities
A decade ago, when Samina Iqbal went to look at P.S. 40 in New York City — the elementary school her family was zoned for — she couldn’t find an accessible entrance. “I had no idea how that could be the case,” Iqbal, an architect who lives in Swarthmore, told a group of community members and business owners at an online forum about the Americans with Disabilities Act on April 13.
Passed in 1990, the ADA requires that people with disabilities have the same opportunities to participate in public life as anyone else. Organized by Swarthmore Town Center, the forum was conceived of as an opportunity for community members to learn about the experiences of disabled community members, the ADA’s requirements, and options for complying with the law.
Iqbal told the group that when her husband, Tony Denninger, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2000, city life grew harder. “As the commute through New York’s antiquated subway became untenable,” she said, he became “an early adopter of the now much more mainstream work-from-home movement.”
The couple decided to leave New York City, where they had lived all their adult lives. Iqbal’s sister lived in Wallingford, and the area seemed welcoming.
“I ran by Swarthmore Presbyterian Nursery Day School and noted its multiple ramps,” Iqbal told the forum. “I peered at Swarthmore-Rutledge School’s front doors and saw there was an elevator.”
In 2013, with their preschooler and newborn in tow, they moved to Swarthmore. They joined the Swarthmore Swim Club and enjoyed the cherry trees on the Swarthmore College campus. They met so many friendly people, she recalled, that they had to “try madly to keep notes on our phones.” They loved living in the borough, Iqbal said.
But for all the welcome they felt, there were also barriers.
When Iqbal popped into the yarn store on Park Avenue or took her daughter to the craft store, “Tony would patiently roll outside with the baby or read his phone,” she said. With significant advance planning, bringing their daughter to ballet practice or attending back-to-school night could be navigated with varying degrees of success.
“There were large numbers of places we just had to accept wouldn’t be part of our lives,” she told the group. “We couldn’t get in.”
A Step in a Process
The April 13 forum was a step in a process that began in 2015, when Iqbal chaired the transportation and mobility subcommittee of Swarthmore’s Aging-in-Place Task Force. That year, while what is now Central Park was being planned and reviewed by the public, Iqbal and Denninger advocated for the current ramp from the town center parking lot to Borough Hall. The original proposal had featured a staircase.
Last summer, after Iqbal published an opinion piece in The Swarthmorean marking the 30th anniversary of the ADA, Swarthmore Town Center President Sharon Mester approached her about bringing an expert to the borough to speak about the law’s requirements and how businesses might comply.
“In this spring of renewal and hope,” Iqbal told the forum, “I am hoping we can have an open dialogue here tonight about how to incorporate accessibility into our plans for the future.”
Readily Achievable Barrier Removal
At Iqbal’s invitation, attorney Rocco Iacullo of Disability Rights PA, an advocacy organization, explained Title III of the ADA to the forum. Title III is the section of the law pertaining to “public accommodations”: hotels, restaurants, stores, schools, movie theaters, or any other place the public is welcomed.
Iacullo’s presentation focused on physical barriers inherent in a building’s architecture that prevent people with disabilities from accessing public accomodations. “Most of the examples we come across are businesses in existing facilities,” he said. He explained that even old buildings are required to be accessible if removing barriers is — in the words of the law — “readily achievable.”
What counts as “readily achievable,” however, was defined somewhat broadly by Congress, Iacullo said. “The main definition,” he explained, “is that it is easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”
In many cases, removing barriers is readily achievable, according to Iacullo. A ramp can be installed, doorways can be widened, and tables, chairs, or display racks can be rearranged. But not all cases are clear cut.
“Actions that would be prohibitively expensive would likely not be required,” Iacullo said. But, he added, “You need to look to the overall finances” of the business owner, parent corporation, or landlord to see what resources might be available to pay for barrier removal. Both the business owner and the landlord could be liable if a disabled person filed a civil rights lawsuit, Iacullo explained.
He also pointed out that removing barriers is an ongoing obligation, regardless of a building’s age. “There is no grandfathering,” he said.
Iacullo told the group that there is federal support for businesses that want to pursue barrier removal. A tax credit of up to $5,000, covering 50% of eligible expenditures, is available for most businesses with total revenues of less than $1 million. All businesses can claim a tax deduction of up to $15,000 per year for such expenditures.
Iqbal offered information about approximate costs for different kinds of ramps and elevators. An entrance ramp replacing a step of about 5 inches in height might cost between $1,500 and $3,000, while an installed access lift might cost between $12,000 and $15,000.
“I felt it was important to put numbers to the actual conditions because for too long we’ve danced around these generalities,” she said, adding, “These things, I think, are feasible.” Iqbal offered to talk with local business owners about available options.
Iacullo, who uses a wheelchair, emphasized that while barrier removal is a civil rights issue, enabling more people to access shops and restaurants is also good for business. “There is a large untapped customer base of people with disabilities out there,” he said.
Inclusivity as a Value
Rutledge Borough Council Vice President Jody Roberts, who attended the forum, noted how easy it is for businesses and municipalities to overlook the needs of individuals with disabilities. He pointed out that the new parklets in Swarthmore — quickly approved and assembled in response to Covid-19 restrictions last year — are largely as inaccessible as the indoor restaurants of which they are extensions. He suggested that local municipalities could be creative in finding and helping to fund solutions to accessibility barriers. Matching grants, for example, could help, he said.
Roberts called on the borough to plan for what he called “a once-in-a-generation infrastructure investment.” Noting that accessibility is “a civil rights issue, not just an architectural issue,” he advocated that the community not merely think about how to comply with the law, but rather about “using the law as a foundation for designing with inclusion in mind.”
Iqbal echoed Roberts’ call for substantive action and compared the fight for disabled people’s civil rights to the battle for racial justice. In an email after the forum, she said she hopes to partner with a local nonprofit organization on a fundraiser to assist local business owners with barrier-removal projects, like ramps.
“We want to be part of the community that we love,” Iqbal said. “But, in too many instances, we don’t get to enjoy it.”
Mester, the Swarthmore Town Center president, said that information about accessibility and the ADA, along with a video of the April 13 forum, will soon be available on the organization’s website, swarthmoretowncenter.com.
Mester also reported that accessibility is part of an assessment of Swarthmore’s downtown being conducted by Interface Studio, an urban planning and design firm. “Town Center is committed to working with other organizations to make the business district accessible to all of its citizens,” she said. Study recommendations are expected by June.