A resident of the 3Mass condo development who uses an electric wheelchair is suing the developers for failing to provide handicap accessibility to a rooftop terrace overlooking downtown Indianapolis.
Katrina Gossett had already put down her deposit when she learned that the terrace, offering impressive skyline views, could not be accessed without climbing at least two flights of stairs, the lawsuit says. Gossett agreed to buy the condo in 2008 and moved into her fourth-floor unit in January.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on Sept. 29, asks for Halakar Properties Inc., Keystone Construction Corp. and Schmidt Associates Inc. to bring the building into compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act. All three companies are based in Indianapolis. Gossett also is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
An attorney for the developers, J. Thomas Vetne of Jones Obenchain LLP of South Bend, said they are investigating the complaint and preparing a response. An official with Halakar said company policy prohibits comment on pending litigation.
The developers have marketed the terrace as an amenity for the building at 333 Massachusetts Ave. It is maintained by homeowners' association fees that Gossett is required to pay, the suit says.
"Defendants have collectively failed to design and construct public-use areas that are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, which is discriminatory conduct in violation of the Fair Housing Act," says the suit, brought by locally based DeLaney & DeLaney LLC.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
20 Comments
Add Comment
First, as "good for her" has pointed out, the public doesn't know all of the facts. As a matter of fact, Ms. Gossett did not know about the terrace until after she had made a downpayment on the condo. I stated this before. Her decision was well thought out. The area is largely accessible by wheelchair, permitting community access. Moving into a unit not yet constructed would enable her to design a living area in accordance with her needs instead of incurring costly retrofitting.
Second, this suit is progress because (1) it brings public attention to the issue, (2) it will hopefully result in enforcement of relevant laws, and (3) if successful, Ms. Gossett will get to enjoy her condo just like her able-bodied peers.
Third, while I'm all for you enjoying life, why do it in your world when you could do it in the shared world? That is, you seem quite unhappy. You consider yourself "bound to a wheelchair." I see mine as a great liberation device. There's a lot of loathing in your post... I would rather be out in the world helping bring further liberty and equality to my disabled brothers and sisters than minimizing their needs in my little hermit world. Think about it...
My thoughts without knowing the facts, as you evidently also do not: In general in a NEW condo building, you buy and put your money down based on the plans. Sometimes the developer changes the plans, for whatever reason. (My developer promised things that were not delivered, some condo owners are suing or have sued over these.) In this case these changes could have been adding the roof terrace or changing accessibility to the roof terrace, things very crucial to her decision to buy the condo. If either of these are true and she paid the same as everyone else, she is entitled to recompense. There would be other possible scenarios as well. Commenters are making this about an individual situation rather than about the principle and compliance with the law. This "conversation" reveals the very reason why the law is necessary.
Even more basic than those questions, you presume to know a lot about Ms. Gossett's condition. What if her disability is such that getting carried is agonizing? What if she is too heavy to be carried?
Issues like these (i.e., independence, safety, ease) are why the ADA and other accessibility laws exist. At a fundamental civil rights level, Ms. Gossett is entitled to the same level of access as her condo neighbors. This includes reasonable access to the rooftop.
I also must say that I'm stunned by all of the anti-ADA vitroil expressed on this website. More accurately, I'm disappointed. It's truly societal barriers that impose the greatest disability, whether they be attitudinal barriers erected by those the pseudonymed "bad law" and "cry me a river," or artificial aesthetic constructions like stairs. Fortunately, the ADA can contend with the latter impediments. And whether you like it or not, the ADA is the law and needs to be complied with as such.
A successful attorney, Ms. Gossett doesn't need the money. She needs equal treatment. And as a fellow member of the disability community, I thank her for pursuing that end. I see this suit as progress for all of us.
The developer of my condo lied to buyers about amenities, so this one might have as well.
Msmith: If a condo owner stops paying HOA fees, a lien is placed on their unit. Not paying is not an option.
Wow could this same thing happen to the infamous North and South City Financed Development? Just who will indemnify the city against errors such as this???
What happened? Check this link out these guys are tops in their class. Hopefully, they can get the building in compliance for all.
Click this link. http://www.rtmconsultants.com/default.php