USD Currency Bills Discriminate Against People who are Blind

May 8th, 2007
Categories: Technology & International & Policy
Add comment

I found this article to be really interesting as it discuss one of my favorite subject matter…MONEY! Apparently another branch of the federal government is once again violating the American with Disabilities Act by creating money that is not accessible to people who are blind. While the treasury department is clearly in the wrong, they won’t concede and comply with the law by altering the design of U.S. currency bills but instead is fighting it in federal court after a lower court judge found the government to be at fault. Hopefully the check-and-balance of the American government system will iron out and the righteous side prevail.

You can read district court judge James Robertson 26-page opinion asking the Treasury Department to examine the best means of making USD currency distinguishable by the blind. In his paper, Judge Robertson proposed raised ink, modifying the size of certain bills and producing a tactile mark to indicate a bill’s denomination. To my astonishment, the Treasury Department has objected to all recommendations it has been presented with, claiming that the $75 million cost is prohibitive. The Treasury’s solution is to have people who are blind use credit and debit cards, but this is problematic as purchasing daily common goods as coffee or transit fares do not take a swipe. The second solution the Treasury’s came up with is to equip every person who is blind with a currency bill reader. This too is not sound policy as bill readers are expensive at $200 each and also clunky to carry around; the smallest now is 6-inches by 3-inches by 2-inches. In addition, bill readers don’t always work as people can relate the experience of failing to get a crinkled bill successfully inserted into a soda machine. U.S. coins are not a problem for the totally blind. Pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters are all different sizes, and are also distinguishable because pennies and nickels do not have serrated edges, while dimes and quarters do. However, U.S. bills are a problem.

In contrast, there are 180 other countries have bills that are completely distinguishable to the blind. These include Euros, cut in unique sizes for each amount, and Canadian dollars, which are now printed with the denomination of each bill in raised numbering [actually, raised bumps unique to each denomination] that is readable by rubbing one’s fingers over the elevated type.

Pic of USD Images of Rep. Stark new bills. Another option of what new USD can look like.

Foreign Currency

Euro Euro & British Pound Yen
Candian Dollars with braille Swiss Franc

Quite frankly I find the Treasury Department position to be ludicrous. The USD design is a drab compared other international currencies, not to mention seriously being behind in providing a medium of exchange that is universal to all its citizens.

Changing Bills for the Blind
Stark seeks redesign of U.S. currency, with distinct corner notches on most notes

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
April 24, 2007
Source: SF Chronicle

Washington — Rep. Pete Stark wants to reach into your wallet, not to take your hard-earned cash, but just to cut the corners off it.

It’s all in the name of making U.S. paper currency more accessible to millions of blind and visually impaired people in the country. Stark, D-Fremont, has proposed redesigning almost all U.S. paper money to meet a federal court ruling last November that U.S. currency violated the civil rights of the blind because it is all the same size and difficult to distinguish.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson of Washington ordered the Treasury Department to come up with a remedy, but the agency is appealing his ruling. The notion of changing the currency is being resisted by trade groups representing the vending machine industry and banks and has even divided the blind community.

Stark says Congress should act now, but even if it doesn’t he might have outlined a possible solution if Robertson’s ruling stands. Like the judge, Stark says that about 180 other countries in the world have avoided this problem by making denominations of paper money different sizes, which the blind can tell apart.

But Treasury officials say other remedies such as readers that can identify the value of money or credit and debit cards are available to the blind. The federal government, which recently spent large sums redesigning paper currency to thwart counterfeiters, also says another change would cost millions more.

And some advocates for the blind say they don’t want special treatment and say the currency issue isn’t much of a problem for the blind when compared to their bigger challenges.

Stark’s proposal, which he calls the Catherine Skivers Currency for All Act, involves what he called the least intrusive solution to the problem. He wants to redesign the $1, $2, $5, $10, $20 and $50 bills to trim their corners into semi-circles so the blind don’t have to rely on the honesty of others to determine the value of their money.

Specifically, Stark wants to trim the four corners on the $1 bill, three corners on the $2 bill, two diagonal corners on the $5 bill, two corners on a long side of the $10 bill, two corners on the $20 bill’s short side and one corner on the $50 bill. The $100 bill would remain as it is.

“This is quick and dirty, and cheap,” Stark said. Other ideas include placing Braille or other raised identifiers on currency.

“Everyone should be able to recognize the denominations of paper currency,” he added. “Why would anyone object?”

Well, lots of people do.

“We think this is unnecessary. We don’t think U.S. currency discriminates against blind people,” said John Pare, spokesman of the National Federation of the Blind.

The federation called Robertson’s ruling dangerously misguided because it is a “feel-good gimmick” that makes it seem that currency recognition is a major roadblock to blind people participating in mainstream society.

Blind people generally fold different denominations of bills in different ways to tell them apart, he said.

Much more important, said the federation’s national president Dr. Marc Maurer, are issues such as creating job opportunities for the blind, who have an estimated 70 percent unemployment rate.

“The ruling will do nothing to alleviate that situation; in fact, it seriously endangers the ability of the blind to get jobs and participate fully in society,” Maurer argue. “It argues that the blind cannot handle currency or documents in the workplace and that virtually everything must be modified for the use of the blind.”

But Skivers, a former president of the California Council of the Blind who is a Stark constituent, disagreed strongly.

“It’s hard to see why anyone would oppose it,” she said.

Skivers said she has been given the wrong change by dishonest store or restaurant cashiers and doesn’t think she should have to rely on the honesty of strangers. “It’s a matter of independence,” said Skivers, who said the blind can also have a hard time using vending machines or some automatic bank tellers.

The state council’s parent group, the American Council of the Blind, brought the lawsuit that is on appeal.

Anita Aaron, executive director of the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired in San Francisco, also supports Stark’s idea. “It’s all about choice,” she said. “Allowing people to independently identify what currency they have without using other technology would serve the largest numbers of people.”

The vending machine industry, which has 7 million machines across the country, generally opposes changes to currency, in part because refitting machines to accept altered dollars could cost as much $400 per machine, or $2.8 billion.

The $30 billion-a-year industry also has a problem with old or ripped bills that already cost some $600 million a year. “We are very concerned that these clipped-off edges would lead to more tears and ruined currency,” said Tom McMahon, chief lawyer for the National Automatic Merchandising Association, the vending machine trade group.

Add comment May 8th, 2007

Wolverine Fans with Disability Sue UM Over Stadium Project

May 7th, 2007
Categories: Architecture
Add comment

My alma mata Cal is also in the process of building a new football stadium and battling a slue of law suits from environmentalist, the City of Berkeley, and NIMBY-groups. I am not aware if there are any ADA violations here too.

Disabled veterans file federal lawsuit against U. of Michigan
By DAVID AGUILAR, The Associated Press
Apr 17, 2007
Source: SF Examiner

DETROIT - A federal judge may decide if the University of Michigan is playing fairly as it proceeds with a $226 million renovation of Michigan Stadium, one of the largest football stadiums in the country.

A disabled veterans group filed a federal lawsuit against the university Tuesday, claiming wheelchair users are being denied equal access to the stadium.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Ann Arbor by the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, claims university officials are “intentionally” avoiding compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act dictating the number and location of wheelchair seating within stadiums.

An extensive renovation is under way for the 107,501-seat stadium, including adding about 83 luxury suites, 3,200 club seats and widening seats and aisles. Currently, Michigan Stadium has 90 wheelchair-accessible seats, divided equally within each end zone..

“It’s extremely disappointing that it had to come to this,” said Richard Bernstein, the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Bernstein said the university has parceled out the ongoing renovation project and purposely dubbed it a “repair,” rather than an “alteration.” Doing so, he said, allows university officials to sidestep federal requirements that would require 1 percent, or about 1,000 wheelchair-accessible seats, to be dispersed throughout the stadium.

Michigan spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham said that although university officials had not reviewed the lawsuit, the ongoing renovation meets ADA standards.

“The university is very concerned with providing accessible seats to all of our fans,” Cunningham said.

She denied claims that the project has been parceled out.

“It’s one project, just one,” Cunningham said.

She said the finished project will increase to 282 the number of wheelchair-accessible seats throughout the stadium, including 72 new seats along the west side, 24 outdoor club seats and 14 indoor club seats. One wheelchair-accessible seat will be located inside each new luxury suite, and companion tickets will be offered for some seats.

Currently, 53 season ticket holders request wheelchair-accessible seating, Cunningham said.

Built in 1927, Michigan Stadium is grandfathered under ADA regulations, passed in 1990. Generally, older buildings are not required to meet the same guidelines as newly constructed or recently remodeled structures, unless they have undergone significant alterations.

Bernstein, who is blind and has taken the case pro bono, said the lawsuit is more far-reaching than simply providing better wheelchair access during Michigan football games and commencement exercises. He said a federal court ruling in favor of the university could have a “devastating impact on the ADA” because it would open the door for other developers looking to sidestep ADA provisions.

He said the court must draw a distinct line between “repair” and “alteration” projects, since the latter compels developers and property owners to comply with ADA guidelines. Left undefined, he said, disabled individuals will find it more difficult to use public venues, such as movie theaters, shopping malls and public transportation.

“Wheelchair users will lose access across the board, and will find it more difficult to be part of the community,” Bernstein said.

He said Michigan’s ongoing construction project, dubbed a “renovation” on its Web site, is “offensive.”

“You can’t make all the changes they are making, divide them up into smaller projects, then call it a repair,” said Bernstein, a 1996 Michigan graduate.

He said Ohio State University and the University of Notre Dame have recently undergone significant renovations compliant with ADA guidelines.

“Notre Dame has 17 wheelchair-accessible seating locations throughout the stadium,” Bernstein said, who also is an adjunct political science professor at Michigan. “We have two.

“We’re not asking for really good seats. We’re asking for equal access. It’s about inclusion. It’s about civil rights.”

Cunningham said ADA regulations only apply to renovated portions of grandfathered buildings.

“We’re still looking for ways to offer more seating,” she said.

Add comment May 7th, 2007

Next Posts Previous Posts


    Calendar

    July 2010
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  

    Syndicate

    • AddThis Feed Button
    • AddThis Social Bookmark Button

    Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page
Close
E-mail It