Gyah; or, elaboration of previous entry
Jun. 20th, 2010 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysobelThere is a bit of backstory to this; let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up:
The church I go to is not very accessible. I can get in, through a side ramp and side door, and I can go down the middle aisle between sets of pews, but I can't go down the side aisles, and, relevantly to this, I can't get in the front door. The front entrance is kind of not very good anyway: the handrail, which was not there originally, is this removable and somewhat wobbly aluminum monstrosity, and there is not enough room on the top landing for someone to open the doors (which swing outward) while remaining on that step level.
When I first started going to the church, it was standard to go in and out the front door, with the pastor standing there to greet people as they left. I had a lot more mobility then. Now, I'm stuck with the side entrance, and so is an increasing percentage of the congregation. And this is not very welcoming.
We are trying to get permission to make the entrance more accessible: extend the landing so there's room, add in a ramp along the front of the church, and let people come in the front door. It makes a hell of a lot of sense. It also is a long slow drawn-out fight.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the church is a "historical" building. I mock that term with love, because it's /less than a hundred years old/ and so is not really what most areas would consider historic (yes, you can laugh at it if you want), but it's also true in context of the /city/. The front facade of our church is one of the few remaining originalish buildings from the early years.
So the Historical Resource PreservationGroup of Smallminded Petty Ableist Assholes ... er, excuse me, HRP Commission ... looked at our proposal, and decided that it would change the historic facade way too much. (Because, yanno, the /original concrete steps/ are more important than human needs, and also outweighs preserving the historic /function/ of the church as a welcoming building.)
Yes, I have done a lot of eyerolling on this. But anyway. The next step is to take it to the city council and appeal the HRPC's decision. As part of this, we are asking people to write to the council members in advance of the meeting that has this on the agenda, urging them to, er, have some common sense and compassion, more or less. Today's church service included a short presentationy thing to that effect: here's what we're doing, here's how you can help.
So I show up for the between-services socialization time (which has COFFEE. okay, church coffee, so it's not real coffee, but whatever, it's still caffeinated, I think), and the first person to talk to me is this little old lady who, having been to the first service and therefore heard the presentation, launched into the following arguments:
1) It is fiscally irresponsible for us to be doing new construction projects when we're also having to cut staff because of budget issues. (which is a fair point, if you aren't aware, as the church leadership is, that there are stored funds /earmarked for projects like this/, so building the ramp would not be a detriment to the budget, nor would not building it help the budget; plus which, we aren't necessarily going to build it immediately, we're just trying to get the fucking /permission/.)
If this had been her only argument, I could have pointed that out. However, she slid promptly into:
2) Wanting to get in the front door is "elitist", especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ramp on the side; and,
3) She is perfectly able-bodied and she uses the side entrance, either implying or stating outright (I can't remember) that going in the front is some sort of luxury; and,
4) It's not like going in the front door is more sacred anyway.
...
Now, I don't do confrontations well, partly because of my personality and partly because I've been trained that the socially acceptable thing to do is to smile and make nice. Also, I was /completely in shock/ that anyone would use those arguments /directly to someone in a wheelchair/. So I didn't deal well with it. I kind of mumbled some sort of "well, it's not quite like that" and then escaped as quickly as I could.
(And, once I got over the shock, did the phone post of omgwtfness.)
I of course had the five-minutes-too-late comeback of wanting to point out that she /had a choice/ as to which entrance to use, and the fact that she chose the one over the other does not mean that people who are /forced to use that/ should not have the same choice she does. And the only-in-my-head (-and-on-my-journal) retort of how the fuck do you dare even THINK something like that, let alone SAY IT, without any idea of HOW FUCKING HATEFUL AND ABLEIST IT IS.
*stabs things*
The church I go to is not very accessible. I can get in, through a side ramp and side door, and I can go down the middle aisle between sets of pews, but I can't go down the side aisles, and, relevantly to this, I can't get in the front door. The front entrance is kind of not very good anyway: the handrail, which was not there originally, is this removable and somewhat wobbly aluminum monstrosity, and there is not enough room on the top landing for someone to open the doors (which swing outward) while remaining on that step level.
When I first started going to the church, it was standard to go in and out the front door, with the pastor standing there to greet people as they left. I had a lot more mobility then. Now, I'm stuck with the side entrance, and so is an increasing percentage of the congregation. And this is not very welcoming.
We are trying to get permission to make the entrance more accessible: extend the landing so there's room, add in a ramp along the front of the church, and let people come in the front door. It makes a hell of a lot of sense. It also is a long slow drawn-out fight.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the church is a "historical" building. I mock that term with love, because it's /less than a hundred years old/ and so is not really what most areas would consider historic (yes, you can laugh at it if you want), but it's also true in context of the /city/. The front facade of our church is one of the few remaining originalish buildings from the early years.
So the Historical Resource Preservation
Yes, I have done a lot of eyerolling on this. But anyway. The next step is to take it to the city council and appeal the HRPC's decision. As part of this, we are asking people to write to the council members in advance of the meeting that has this on the agenda, urging them to, er, have some common sense and compassion, more or less. Today's church service included a short presentationy thing to that effect: here's what we're doing, here's how you can help.
So I show up for the between-services socialization time (which has COFFEE. okay, church coffee, so it's not real coffee, but whatever, it's still caffeinated, I think), and the first person to talk to me is this little old lady who, having been to the first service and therefore heard the presentation, launched into the following arguments:
1) It is fiscally irresponsible for us to be doing new construction projects when we're also having to cut staff because of budget issues. (which is a fair point, if you aren't aware, as the church leadership is, that there are stored funds /earmarked for projects like this/, so building the ramp would not be a detriment to the budget, nor would not building it help the budget; plus which, we aren't necessarily going to build it immediately, we're just trying to get the fucking /permission/.)
If this had been her only argument, I could have pointed that out. However, she slid promptly into:
2) Wanting to get in the front door is "elitist", especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ramp on the side; and,
3) She is perfectly able-bodied and she uses the side entrance, either implying or stating outright (I can't remember) that going in the front is some sort of luxury; and,
4) It's not like going in the front door is more sacred anyway.
...
Now, I don't do confrontations well, partly because of my personality and partly because I've been trained that the socially acceptable thing to do is to smile and make nice. Also, I was /completely in shock/ that anyone would use those arguments /directly to someone in a wheelchair/. So I didn't deal well with it. I kind of mumbled some sort of "well, it's not quite like that" and then escaped as quickly as I could.
(And, once I got over the shock, did the phone post of omgwtfness.)
I of course had the five-minutes-too-late comeback of wanting to point out that she /had a choice/ as to which entrance to use, and the fact that she chose the one over the other does not mean that people who are /forced to use that/ should not have the same choice she does. And the only-in-my-head (-and-on-my-journal) retort of how the fuck do you dare even THINK something like that, let alone SAY IT, without any idea of HOW FUCKING HATEFUL AND ABLEIST IT IS.
*stabs things*
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 08:49 pm (UTC)*hugs*.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 10:30 pm (UTC)I have a print copy of the standards; there is an online version, but at least for me it doesn't seem to be working right at the moment. Essentially, what the standards say re. accessibility is that the first step is to identify the features that define the building's historic character, and the next step is to work with "local disability groups, access specialists, and historic preservation specialists to determine the most appropriate solution to access problems," preferably in a way which minimizes impacts on those character-defining features. Which does not sound like what your historic board has done AT ALL.
So, um, fail on their part, both as decent human beings and as preservationists. There is nothing in preservation law, at either the state or federal level, that requires them to behave the way they're behaving, and if that's what they're saying, they're totally full of it.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-21 01:48 am (UTC)Our argument (and I say "our" but the one that was doing the talking was someone who actually had credentials, as well as experience with accessibility modifications) was that the character-defining features (of which there are a fair number on the front facade) would not be affected, and while the steps were original, they were also kind of cracked and worn down and not really anything special and anyway we would be trying to emulate the same look. Their argument was that ... uh ... original concrete steps are important? I don't even know.
There was one person on the commission that was arguing vociferously in favor of our plan; possibly relevantly, she had personal experience with mobility issues. Any time she spoke up, the commission's chairman had an eyerolly "oh, HER again ... I have to let her speak but I will tune it out" kind of expression. The chairman, I might add, is a white able-bodied male obnoxious self-important likes-to-hear-himself-talk asshole.
And yes, it is total fail. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2010-06-21 02:06 am (UTC)Good luck with the council -- has anyone in your group got an in with a councillor? That can help, if you get a chance to brief someone before the meeting.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-20 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-21 02:30 am (UTC)