Super Bowl Scuffle

Ah, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bush the Elder's gift that keeps on giving. Now its infamous "reasonable accommodation" test may halt the Super Bowl. Yes, the Super Bowl.

Back in 1997 an activist for the disabled in San Diego sued the city under the ADA claiming that the city-owned stadium did not accommodate the handicapped. The city finally settled in 2001 and promised to make $5 million in upgrades to Qualcomm Stadium.

Now it is up to a judge to decide if those upgrades have, in fact, been made.

Curiously, the city and the NFL now advance the argument that the upgrades thing is moot as the settlement only applies to public events. And as Super Bowl tix are doled out to insiders or lottery-winning season ticket holders in the host city and not available to just any schmoe San Diegan, the Super Bowl is a private event.

That's kinda odd as about a zillion people will see and hear it.

Comments

[James Poli]

Ludicrous; the special olympics don't even require handicapped accessible stadiums.

[John M]

Cancelling the Super Bowl is not a 100% bad thing.

San Diego's stadium got millions in taxpayer subsidies and I am pretty sure that the Super Bowl also gets lots of taxpayer funding.

If we have to give most of what we earn to the government so they can pass it out as Welfare, at least this Welfare should be given to poor people; not billionaire owners and millionaire players.

[Chris Adams]

The best part is that the city tried to bribe the woman who complained with some free Super Bowl tickets:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20021222-9999_1m22disabled.html

[Brian]

Here's a little insight for cities and politicians willing to give up the farm to score events like the Super Bowl: I'm a news junkie who likes sports. I gorge myself on information daily. But even I had no idea the Super Bowl was in San Diego this year.

Yeah, it's just one piece of anecdotal evidence, but I suspect I'm not alone. And if so, that would indicate that the return doesn't exactly merit the investment. (If the return is intended to be a boosting of the "we're world class"/civic-image factor, which is what these cities think they're getting.)

[John]

I dunno.

When we hand out corporate welfare, the recepients tend to use it to buy up politicians who will give out even more corporate welfare. It's kind of like Amway, only they are spending your money and you don't get any detergent in return.

When we give our welfare to poor people, they spend it on Night Train and crack cocaine; which poses a much smaller threat to our society and our economy.

[Robert Speirs]

No, it's NOT better to give money taken from people at the point of a gun to poor people rather than rich. It's equally immoral. If someone burgles your house, do you ask his income level before you blow him away? If anything, individual welfare payments are more evil and insidious than corporate welfare because more idiots believe they're justified. At least the rich produce something watched by all, rich and poor, for the money. What do the poor produce?