Long live the Eastern Gateway or how I learned to love the Anaheim City Council after the election.

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Here is the issue with that argument, especially considering there is a current lawsuit regarding persons with autism. The lawsuit claims that Disney (specifically in WDW not related to DLR) with the updated DAS program makes guests "wait too long" because they are issued a return time. Well how long is "too long". It appears that anything short of immediate is too long. Well if you have everyone who use the DAS program get immediate access the rest of the guests suffer. And then you have the problem of how to distribute DAS if everyone claims to be "on the spectrum". Disney can't prevent someone from having a meltdown because they have wait. What about all those other guests who might not be on the spectrum who have a meltdown because they have to wait? Should they have been given a DAS card too to prevent the meltdown? Its a slippery slope and the reason Disney changed the DAS program, too much potential for abuse as no one wants to wait in line.
The point of the argument still relies on compliance with the law. Disney believe it isn’t violating any law; however, this will be harder to prove if they are actually violating law by not complying with ADA with regard to disabled guests.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
The point of the argument still relies on compliance with the law. Disney believe it isn’t violating any law; however, this will be harder to prove if they are actually violating law by not complying with ADA with regard to disabled guests.
Except where is it stated they are violating that law? That hasn't been proven yet, that is what the lawsuit is all about. To find out if Disney is in compliance with the law or not. My take on it is they are in compliance with not only the spirit of the law but also the letter of the law. So we'll see how the court case goes and see if Disney is right or if they are violating.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Except where is it stated they are violating that law? That hasn't been proven yet, that is what the lawsuit is all about. To find out if Disney is in compliance with the law or not. My take on it is they are in compliance with not only the spirit of the law but also the letter of the law. So we'll see how the court case goes and see if Disney is right or if they are violating.
I’m not merely talking about that case because it is still in play. It’s with the claim that the Eastern Gateway intends to violate ADA intentionally. So if Disney is secretly trying to usurp ADA, the lawsuit will be strengthened in the letter of the law.

Are you so thick to not follow?
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
I’m not merely talking about that case because it is still in play. It’s with the claim that the Eastern Gateway intends to violate ADA intentionally. So if Disney is secretly trying to usurp ADA, the lawsuit will be strengthened in the letter of the law.

Are you so thick to not follow?
No need to insult. Your post didn't make it clear you were trying to correlate it back to the EGW and the other poster's claim of internal usurping of ADW with regards to said project. Which by the way there is no actual facts on at this point, just a poster's unfounded claims.

Either way until there is proof of said secret usurping with regards to EGW, then no I don't think that lawsuit will have any bearing on the EGW. As one as nothing to do with the other.

However if you want to put back on your tinfoil hat, go right ahead.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
No need to insult. Your post didn't make it clear you were trying to correlate it back to the EGW and the other poster's claim of internal usurping of ADW with regards to said project. Which by the way there is no actual facts on at this point, just a poster's unfounded claims.

Either way until there is proof of said secret usurping with regards to EGW, then no I don't think that lawsuit will have any bearing on the EGW. As one as nothing to do with the other.

However if you want to put back on your tinfoil hat, go right ahead.
Absolutely untrue. “Think of all the lawsuits that will happen and already happened due to non-compliance of the laws. The parents of autistic children would love to have this rumor proved to be true.

I said this would be useful to them. What more should I say? There will more unlimited lawsuits if this is true.

As for these are unrelated, sure, but Disney will have even more scrutiny of its practices.
 
Last edited:

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
Absolutely untrue. “Think of all the lawsuits that will happen and already happened due to non-compliance of the laws. The parents of autistic children would love to have this rumor proved to be true.
The only way that correlates to what the poster stated is if 1. you believe there is some conspiracy that Disney is knowing flouting the law with regards to ADA with EGW, and 2. that the current lawsuits with regards to the DAS program somehow proves that.

I'm sorry but that is a long jump to take in reality. As there would have to be some master conspiracy at Disney to completely screw over all disabled guests at every turn. And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you....

In reality one really has nothing to do with the other. Because with EGW there is more than just Disney involved. There are contractors, sub-contractors, the City of Anaheim, and probably other state and local agencies involved. All of which would be liable for not following ADA. That would have to be a massive conspiracy to screw over some disabled guests.

Also by the way I wouldn't call that what the poster put as a rumor at this point.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
The only way that correlates to what the poster stated is if 1. you believe there is some conspiracy that Disney is knowing flouting the law with regards to ADA with EGW, and 2. that the current lawsuits with regards to the DAS program somehow proves that.

I'm sorry but that is a long jump to take in reality. As there would have to be some master conspiracy at Disney to completely screw over all disabled guests at every turn. And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you....

In reality one really has nothing to do with the other. Because with EGW there is more than just Disney involved. There are contractors, sub-contractors, the City of Anaheim, and probably other state and local agencies involved. All of which would be liable for not following ADA. That would have to be a massive conspiracy to screw over some disabled guests.
3. The law as it is restrains Disney from doing any of the above, and Disney usually wins lawsuits against it due to its compliance with the law.

I don’t know why you want to attribute conspiracy theories to a mere rumor. Odd conversation.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
3. The law as it is restrains Disney from doing any of the above, and Disney usually wins lawsuits against it due to its compliance with the law.

I don’t know why you want to attribute conspiracy theories to a mere rumor. Odd conversation.
Because it is a conspiracy theory at this point, its not even a rumor. The poster already admitted they didn't get any information from Disney or any insiders. Its their own opinions of how they see the project, which makes any thought that a larger plot to usurp ADA with regards to the EGW project a conspiracy theory. Which in itself is a odd conversation.

At this point I'm out of this conversation. Good luck to you.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Because it is a conspiracy theory at this point, its not even a rumor. The poster already admitted they didn't get any information from Disney or any insiders. Its their own opinions of how they see the project, which makes any thought that a larger plot to usurp ADA with regards to the EGW project a conspiracy theory. Which in itself is a odd conversation.

At this point I'm out of this conversation. Good luck to you.
Conspiracy theory needs 2 or more people to believe it. This means you’re the second one who is had.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
Conspiracy theory needs 2 or more people to believe it. This means you’re the second one who is had.
I’m not sure where it states it requires 2 or more people, but whatever you say.

I guess then you don’t believe that Disney is trying to screw over the disabled then as the other poster claims with the EGW project. If so I’m glad to hear it.
 

mandelbrot

Well-Known Member
The point of the argument still relies on compliance with the law. Disney believe it isn’t violating any law; however, this will be harder to prove if they are actually violating law by not complying with ADA with regard to disabled guests.
Sue them if you feel they aren't complying with the law.

I have experienced the parks with a friend in a wheelchair suffering with terminal cystic fibrosis. On some rides where the line wasn't wheelchair accessible we went through a special entrance and on others we waited in the regular line. We didn't seek special treatment even though sometimes the special assistance line went faster than the regular one.

There is precisely zero chance Disney is trying to alienate the disabled. If you are expecting VIP treatment with a disability you might be disappointed but most disabled people I know just want equal opportunities. Disney seems to provide that.
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
I’m not merely talking about that case because it is still in play. It’s with the claim that the Eastern Gateway intends to violate ADA intentionally. So if Disney is secretly trying to usurp ADA, the lawsuit will be strengthened in the letter of the law.

Are you so thick to not follow?
I must have missed something but how in the world would the Eastern gateway violate ADS laws?

is it because of distance from the gate of the parks? If that is the claim then no that would not be a violation of ADA law because disabled people would have the same access as everyone else.
Or is there some other rumor that I missed?
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
No, it is painfully obvious to anyone who is paying close enough attention to what Disney has been doing and what other theme parks have done.

The Eastern Gateway is very dangerous and not just because it will kill the businesses on Harbor, there is far more at stake here than anyone realizes and it important that it dies and dies fast.
What an absurd idea. Yes they want to remove some of the shuttle and bus systems but not eliminate any group of guests.
The city also wants to remove cars from the gridlock streets of the resort.

There is also a reason they just spent millions on updating the security and tram loading area in the western gate and its not to remove them. People can not just be dumped into city streets. Knotts hasn’t had shuttles for a long time and that’s because shuttles in city streets come with a huge cost but they have also been preparing to eventually have a parking structure to help ease pedestrians traffic.

As for ADA conspiracies what a ridiculous story. First of all they have plans integrated in the eastern gateway, that include to have shuttle service if needed for Disabled guests and even if they didn’t they in no way would be going against any ADA requirements.
 
Last edited:

shambolicdefending

Well-Known Member
the distance from parking to the front entrance will be similar to what the Mickey and Friends parking is.
Have you done the measurements? I don't think this is true. Especially when you factor in that walking from M&F requires a trek through DtD.

I'd be surprised if the Eastern Gateway ended up being much more than half as long, based on my memory of the original concept.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Disney doesn’t even like to use the terms “ADA” or “accessible,” instead preferring to describe such elements as part of their “inclusion program.” They also maintain internal standards that are generally greater than those required by the 2010 ADA Accessible Design Guidelines and Chapter 11B of the California Building Standards Code.
 

NobodyElse

Well-Known Member
Not talking about compliance, talking about that Disney used to actually try to make attractions accessible to everyone wherever possible, but not any more, now they literally do the bare minimum the law requires.
This seems backwards from my memory.

Someday we can sit in rocking chairs on a porch and I can tell you about the pack mules, submarines, Swiss Family Treehouse, most of the interesting elements of Tom Sawyer Island, etc...
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Think of all the lawsuits that will happen and already happened due to non-compliance of the laws. The parents of autistic children would love to have this rumor proved to be true.
Except the parents of the autistic children have yet to win a single court case against Disney.

They also maintain internal standards that are generally greater than those required by the 2010 ADA Accessible Design Guidelines and Chapter 11B of the California Building Standards Code.
Exactly. To build a parking facility in California you have to get approval from the government and meet all federal, state and local codes during building and eventual operation of that facility. It doesn't matter if you are Disney building a 10,000 space parking structure or the local donut shop building an 8 space surface lot.

When Disney builds anything in California, it meets or exceeds all codes and abides by the laws on the books. End of story.
 

freebird72

Active Member
How many spaces are required by Chapter 5? Demonstrating compliance with the California Building Standards Code, including Chapter 11B, is required to receive a building permit.
There is a table in 11B-208.2 that has the minimum number of required accessible parking spaces. I don't know exactly how many spaces are in the current parking structures--but if it is over 1000 spaces, then they are required to provide 20 plus 1 for each 100 (or fraction thereof) over 1000. Then for every six (or fraction of six) out of the total number required accessible parking spaces, at least one should be van accessible (which has slightly different size requirements). Those spaces are also required to be located on the shortest accessible route to an accessible pedestrian entrance of the parking facility (or accessible entrance of the building/facility).
 
Top Bottom