Readers support changes to laws regarding Cannabis sativa

The results of last week’s poll are interesting.

Q: What are you thoughts on Cannabis sativa? (Pick up to three)

1. Industrial hemp is not a drug and farmers should be allowed to grow the crop 97 [24.49%]
2. Possession should be decriminalized 96 [24.24%]
3. Medical marijuana should be legalized in Missouri 74 [18.69%]
4. Possession of small quantities should be decriminalized 48 [12.12%]
5. The “medical” need is abused where allowed 38 [9.6%]
6. The drug is bad and possession should remain illegal 18 [4.55%]
7. Other answer… 16 [4.04%]
8. If industrial hemp is allowed it would be used to hide the growing of the drug 9 [2.27%]

Note that people could select up to three answers. Thankfully the ‘industrial hemp is not a drug’ answer got the most votes.  But it is also clear many of the readers that voted in the poll favor some form of decriminalization.

The “other” answers were:

1. It should be legalized and taxed.
2. it doesnt do as much damage as liquor so i dont see why its not legal already.
3. don’t care
4. This seems off topic
5. Legalize It!
6. Marijuana should be 100% completely legal!
7. Full legalization
8. Full legalization for all purposes
9. It’s a slippery slope but some new options should be investigated.
10. Legalize it!
11. It should be treated like alcohol
12. Full Legalization – How whiskey is legal but weed isn’t speaks of our hypoc
13. Marijuana should be legalized and taxed.
14. Legalize all uses
15. legalize it! and i don’t even smoke!
16. use taxes from its’ sale to finance states that are bankrupt.

As attitudes about Cannabis and the drug marijuana relax, cities will need polices to deal with the change.  The next ten years will be interesting as the laws change.

– Steve Patterson

The good and bad of St. Louis’ first Open Streets event

This past Saturday I participated in the first of four planned “Open Streets” events in St. Louis.  I went from my loft at 16th & Locust to Forest Park.  Most doing the route were on bikes.  Some were jogging while others were walking, some pushing strollers.  I did the 10-mile round trip in my power wheelchair.

I had a good time, took 140 pictures and saw many people I know but I have mixed feelings about the event.

The Good:

• Hundreds, if not more, participated in the event.
• People got out and biked in the city, exploring areas they might not have seen otherwise.
• People were active and physical.
• I met and talked to strangers.

The Bad:

• Reinforces the false notion that you can’t bike safely on urban streets with cars.
• The city is off the hook for the poor condition of the sidewalks and a lack of accessibility.
• Much of the route has very little traffic most weekends anyway.
• Cars got through in too many places so it wasn’t truly car-free.
• At Sarah & Lindell the traffic signal remained on it despite the fact cars had only one option. The signal should have been placed on a all red flash.
• In the past such events led to the creation of pedestrian malls where cars are banned 24/7 and people usually stayed away as well.

The remaining three will be:

• June 13, 2010
• September 19, 2010
• October 9, 2010

For more information see http://stlouis.missouri.org/open-streets/

– Steve Patterson

Accessibility often about making tough decisions

Stellina Pasta Cafe is a great, little, locally-owned restaurant on Watson Road in southwest city. After 5 years of growing their business, the owners recently grew their building, replacing the old concrete patio with a new, brick-faced, urban addition that pushes the face of the structure out to the front property line. Visually, the addition works very well. The scale and the detailing are both well done. The only real quibble I’d have is keeping the old, free-standing sign, but I’m sure they had their reasons for doing so.

The one big “fail” is their apparent lack of appropriate access under the ADA. Their previous storefront did not provide good access, either, but access was possible through a side door, down a narrow pedestrian alley, between this building and its neighbor.  This was an acceptable and appropriate, “readily-achievable” solution to the reality that the building was built well-before the ADA took effect in 1992.

Fast forward to 2010 and the choice was obviously made with the addition to maintain the existing conditions, instead of making the new entrance accessible.  Whether or not this is a technical violation is unclear.  The ADA states that “Where feasible, accessible public entrances shall be the entrances used by the majority of people visiting or working in the building.”  Could that have been done here?  Within the program and the budget?  Yes, absolutely.  Either a split-level floor plan (with an internal ramp) could have been used, or an exterior ramp could have been added.

A secondary issue is that the new front door does not comply with ADA requirements for clear access.  With steps, it’ll never work for people in wheelchairs.  But with appropriate handrails, a correctly-sized landing and enough clearance to operate the door, people with some physical limitations could still use the new main entrance, even with steps.  Unfortunately, there are multiple “misses” here, creating hazards for even able-bodied patrons.

Whose fault is this?  There are multiple possibilities.  The owner may have directed his/her designer and contractor to maximize the floor area inside the addition.  The designer may not fully understand the requirements of the ADA (even though it’s been in effect for nearly two decades).  Our building officials may have missed the issues during plan review and final inspection.  And one or more may have been willing to bet that they “wouldn’t get caught”, that this is a small project and no one will complain (after all, the ADA is civil rights legislation, enforced at the federal level).

Unfortunately, at this point, there are no easy fixes.  To comply, the entrance needs to be rebuilt.  It’ll be expensive and it will disrupt their business, again.  Bigger picture, given the other positives (successful local business, reinvestment in the community, appropriate urban design decisions), should anyone push the issue at this point?  Or, is it simply time for no more excuses?

– Jim Zavist

Editor’s Note:

After Jim submitted this post to me for approval I decided I, as a disabled person, needed to visit to see how well it worked (or didn’t work). I am able to do steps but the noted lack of handrails and landing made entering via the front door an impossibility for me.  I walked down the narrow side walkway to enter the dining room.  After a great meal I was ab;e to exit via the new doorway — using the door push bar for support to descend the steps.

Good ADA accessibility doesn’t just happen.  It takes hard work and people concerned about the subject.  It is unfortunate Stelina Pasta’s new addition is such a challenge to enter. Their decision to use casement windows means an exterior ramp cannot be added in the future.

– Steve Patterson, publisher & editor

Poll: Immigration law and cities

Arizona’s new immigration  law is the new hot topic being debated nationwide and cities are getting drawn into the debate:

At least three Arizona cities are considering a lawsuit to block the new immigration enforcement law.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is indicating he’s ready to go it alone and file suit to keep the law from taking effect.

Gordon criticized the measure as “economically devastating.” Councilman Claude Mattox said council approval is needed to challenge the law.

In Tucson, council members want more time to discuss whether they should take legal action.

City Councilwoman Regina Romero said it’s her belief the law is unconstitutional and urged her colleagues to challenge what she described as a misguided law.

Flagstaff council members are expected to review their legal options against the measure. (Source)

Here is a short video report from the Associated Press:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-mEMLp9DQ

Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that “promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” (source)

In some St. Louis circles, Arizona’s new law is a growing concern.  As shown above, it was the most recent cover story on the Spanish language paper Red Latina.

The poll this week asks your views on the new law. I didn’t include specifics about St. Louis or cities in general but keep that in mind as you vote in the poll (Top right) and comment below.

– Steve Patterson

Please do not park within 8 feet of vehicle door

Since I started driving again in July 2008 I have had a disabled parking permit. Initially it was about being near the door and to the ramp to avoid a step up/down.  I can walk further now but the disabled parking is still important to me because I need to open my driver’s door fully to get in and out of my car.  The level surface required at disabled parking helps as well.

For others, such as the owner of this van, plenty of space is necessary to get in and out with a wheelchair.  Please respect not only the parking space, but also the extra room beside the space.

– Steve Patterson