Between the City of San Diego and Air California Adventure Inc. they don't seem to be able to do anything right.
| US Hawks Hang Gliding Association https://ushawks.org:443/forum/ |
|
| Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 https://ushawks.org:443/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1818 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Bob Kuczewski [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 2015 Tomorrow (April 12th, 2015) is the Second Sunday in April and we'll be holding our regular Torrey Hawks Fly-In and Club Meeting at Torrey Pines. This will also be the 8th anniversary of the Torrey Hawks founding!! The forecast is showing a fairly strong southwest wind all day tomorrow. It should be good flying, but remember that southwest launches can be tricky because of the cliff shape, so be careful. I plan to be there at noon, and it's likely that Robin Marien will again attempt to have me arrested for being on the property. It would be good to have as many witnesses to this as possible. Please stop by around noon if you can. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | JoeF [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
Are the "property" borders well marked? Do we know exactly what "property" is in the concessionaire contract? I could see a future where open-park launching is distinct from concessionaire professional launching. Take turns. Pro, openRec, Pro, openRec, Pro, openRec. If Pro is not present for their turn, then openRec, openRec, openRec, openRec, ... When ProConcession is closed, then : openRec, openRec, openRec. I surely suspect I am far far behind understanding the property and legal matters regarding Torrey Pines property matters with respect to aviation. I have yet to study all the text BobK has probably put up about the matter. But here is a 2008 article that caught by interest: http://www.lajollalight.com/news/2008/j ... struction/ |
|
| Author: | Bob Kuczewski [ Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
I attended some (if not all) of the public meetings to stop those buildings. In fact, at one of the meetings, I spoke about being the first person to fly all 4 glider types (hang glider, paraglider, sailplane, and RC) on the same day at Torrey Pines. I used that as a way of showing how unique the facility was and that it should be preserved. In other words, I was speaking in complete alignment with what Jebb wanted. But as I was relaying my ability to fly all 4 types in one day, Brad Hall and David Jebb were snickering to each other that I couldn't do that anymore because Jebb had banned me earlier that year. This was reported by "GlideJunkie" who was a new female pilot sitting behind Jebb and Hall, so they didn't know who she was. When she reported what she heard on hanggliding.org, Brad Hall accused me of being "GlideJunkie". He was wrong ... again. I point out this testimony because I have stood up for what was right even when it was in favor of Jebb who had already banned me and other friends of mine from Torrey. This makes it particularly disgusting for USHPA to expel me because I spoke up for the truth about an injured pilot. |
|
| Author: | wingspan33 [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
BTW - What ever happened to Brad (D Jebb's Lower Posterior Sphincter Kisser) Hall? |
|
| Author: | wingspan33 [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
Gave Bob's cell a ring about 1 1/2 hours ago (6:30 pm east coast time) and he picked up. So no jail time - this time. Sounds like the local press was on scene to document Air California Adventure's harassment - which did occur again today. Might even be something on the local SD evening news. (???) Hopefully, Bob will be posting this evening with greater detail. |
|
| Author: | Bob Kuczewski [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
Just a quick note to confirm Wingspan's post above. They again called the police and again claimed I was trespassing on our City Park. The same two police officers came and told me I had to leave. I again asserted that I had a right to be on the property. I showed them the Judge's decision and I showed them the lease. They disregarded both documents and told me that I had to leave. I had considered this possibility in the context of what I want to accomplish. I want to establish that citizens have a right to use our public parks, and I believe that will only be done in a court of law. Since I already have a pending trespassing case (from March 8th) which will give me a "day in court", I didn't see any purpose in going to jail to get another "day in court" again. So I did comply and left the property under protest. |
|
| Author: | JoeF [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
I am still confused at what lines is one just "off" the "property". Do we know the precise lines? I don't. |
|
| Author: | Rick Masters [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
Here's some allies. Lawsuit over wheelchair access at Torrey Pines Gliderport http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013 ... rey-pine/# "The unlawful and discriminatory barriers at the Gliderport have caused Plaintiffs difficulty, anger, frustration and embarrassment and made them feel unwelcome and like second-class citizens," reads the lawsuit. "The Gliderport is a place of exhibition or entertainment, and therefore a place of “public accommodation” for purposes of Title III of the [Americans with Disabilities Act]. Considered the "Kitty Hawk of the West" by glider enthusiasts (says Wikipedia), the gliderport is located on city-owned property and is privately operated by Air California Adventure. The site has been the hang glider hangout since 1930, when it was first "established as a soaring site." But improvements on the land aren't easy to accomplish, says owner and flight director Robin Marien. He says the permitting process is arduous and he isn't sure what can be done on city park land, contiguous to Torrey Pines State Preserve. "We've been doing a lot of improvements since [March] and as far as doing more, well, there isn't much we can do about it." According to the complaint, Schutza and Karczewski filed a claim with the City of San Diego's Risk Management Department in May of this year. Those claims, however, were denied. "Plaintiffs intend to return to the Gliderport in the future, to watch the sailplanes, hang gliders and paragliders. Until the unlawful and discriminatory barriers at the Gliderport are remedied by Defendants, Plaintiffs will continue to be denied full and equal access to the goods, facilities, programs, services and activities offered by Defendants to the general public, and will suffer ongoing discrimination by being prevented and deterred from returning there." The complaint says that until those improvements are made the Gliderport should be shut down. In addition, the two men are asking they be awarded general, compensatory, and statutory damages." Marien declined to comment further about the complaint. The lawsuit PDF http://www.sandiegoreader.com/documents ... t-lawsuit/ [headers removed] Case 3:13-cv-02992-CAB-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/12/13 CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS Mark Potter, Esq., SBN 166317 Phyl Grace, Esq., SBN 171771 Mail: PO Box 262490 San Diego, CA 92196-2490 Delivery: 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 375-7385; (888) 422-5191 fax phylg@potterhandy.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Scott Schutza and John Karczewski, Plaintiffs, v. City of San Diego; Air California Adventure, Inc., a California Corporation Doing Business as Torrey Pines Gliderport; and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief For Violations Of: 1. Title II of the American’s With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.; 2. Title III of the American’s With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12182 et seq.; 3. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq. and 4. California’s Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1 et seq. '13CV2992 CAB KSC Plaintiffs Scott Schutza and John Karczewski (collectively “Plaintiffs”) complain of Defendants City of San Diego; Air California Adventure, Inc., a California Corporation Doing Business as Torrey Pines Gliderport; and Does 1-10, Inclusive, (collectively “Defendants”) and allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was passed over 2 decades ago with a principal goal of integrating people with disabilities into the country’s economic and social life. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). Despite this long-standing mandate, Defendants have failed to ensure that individuals with disabilities have full and equal access to the goods, facilities, programs, services and activities offered to members of the public at the Torrey Pines Gliderport (“Gliderport”). Specifically, Defendants have constructed and/or failed to remove architectural barriers that prevent individuals who use wheelchairs from having full and equal access to the public facilities at the Gliderport, thus subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities in violation of Title II and III of the ADA and related California civil rights laws. 2. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, and have been, and will continue to be, prevented and deterred from accessing the goods, facilities, programs, services and activities offered at the Gliderport independently and in a manner equal to their able-bodied peers. 3. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to provide them, and similarly situated persons, “full and equal” access to Defendants’ public facilities as required by law. Plaintiffs also seek damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses for enforcing their civil rights. PARTIES 4. Plaintiffs Scott Schutza (“Schutza”) and John Karczewski (“Karczewski”) are, and at all times relevant herein were, California residents with physical disabilities. Schutza and Karczewski are both unable to walk or stand independently as the result of paraplegia, and use wheelchairs for mobility. Schutza and Karczewski are, and at all times relevant herein were, individuals with disabilities as those terms are defined under the ADA and its implementing regulations (42 U.S.C. § 12102; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104) and California law (Cal. Gov. Code § 12926). 5. Defendant City of San Diego (“City”) is, and at all times relevant to herein was, a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. At all times relevant herein, the Regents owned, controlled, maintained and/or exercised dominion over the Gliderport, located at 2800 Torrey Pines Scenic Drive, in the City of La Jolla, California. 6. Defendant Air California Adventure, Inc. (“ACA”), a California corporation doing business as Torrey Pines Gliderport, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of California, with its principal place of business located at 2800 Torrey Pines Scenic Drive, in the City of La Jolla, California. ACA is, and at all times relevant herein was an owner, operator, lessor and/or lessee of the Gliderport, located at 2800 Torrey Pines Scenic Drive, in the City of La Jolla, California. 7. Plaintiffs are currently unaware of the true identities of Does 1- 10, inclusive, and will seek leave to amend when their true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities are ascertained. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the Defendants is the agent, ostensible agent, alter ego, master, servant, trustor, trustee, employer, employee, representative, franchiser, franchisee, lessor, lessee, joint venturer, parent, subsidiary, affiliate, related entity, partner, and/or associate, or such similar capacity, of each of the other Defendants, and was at all times acting and performing, or failing to act or perform, within the course and scope of such similar aforementioned capacities, and with the authorization, consent, permission or ratification of each of the other Defendants, and is personally responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions of the other Defendants in proximately causing the violations and damages complained of herein, and have participated, directed, and have ostensibly and/or directly approved or ratified each of the acts or omissions of each of the other Defendants, as herein described. 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a)(3) & (a)(4) for violations of the ADA. 10. Pursuant to pendant jurisdiction, attendant and related causes of action arising from the same facts are also brought under California law, including, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. and the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1 et seq., both of which expressly incorporate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51(f), 54.1(d). 11. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and is founded on the fact that the real property which is the subject of this action is located in this district and that Plaintiffs’ causes of action arose in this district. JURISDICTION & VENUE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. The Gliderport is a city-owned private-use glider airport located approximately 12.5 miles northwest of the central business district of San Diego. 13. The Gliderport was first established as a soaring site in 1930 and is the home to hang gliding, paragliding, radio-controlled model sailplanes, and full-scale man-carrying sailplanes. It is listed as a National Landmark of Soaring of the National Soaring Museum and a Model Aviation Landmark of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. It is considered by glider enthusiasts of all types to be the "Kitty Hawk of the West." 14. Full-scale sailplanes are operated by the Associated Glider Clubs of Southern California (AGCSC), only during special permit windows between February and April, while models, hang gliders, and paragliders fly any time the wind permits. 15. On March 11, 2013 and March 13, 2013, Plaintiffs visited the Gliderport, seeking to join other spectators in watching the sailplanes, hang gliders and paragliders. On both days, Plaintiffs encountered barriers including: a. Parking: There is no designated accessible parking; b. Restrooms: There are no accessible restroom facilities; c. Pedestrian Paths of Travel: The pedestrian paths of travel are not safe and accessible to wheelchair users; and d. Consessions/Snack Bar: The snack/concessions area is inaccessible to wheelchair users as the counters are too high; there is no accessible path of travel to and from the area; and the seating is all picnic table style. 16. The barriers encountered by Plaintiffs at the Gliderport violate the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADA Standards), 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. D, and the Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Building Code. 17. The unlawful and discriminatory barriers at the Gliderport have caused Plaintiffs difficulty, anger, frustration and embarrassment and made them feel unwelcome and like second-class citizens. 18. On information and belief, there are additional access barriers and discriminatory policies that exclude and deter Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who use wheelchairs from enjoying full and equal access to and use of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered by Defendants to the general public at the Gliderport. Additional access barriers will be confirmed by Plaintiffs through a noticed site inspection, at which time they will amend his Complaint. 19. Plaintiffs intend to return to the Gliderport in the future, to watch the sailplanes, hang gliders and paragliders. Until the unlawful and discriminatory barriers at the Gliderport are remedied by Defendants, Plaintiffs will continue to be denied full and equal access to the goods, facilities, programs, services and activities offered by Defendants to the general public, and will suffer ongoing discrimination by being prevented and deterred from returning there. 20. The nature of Defendants’ discrimination constitutes an ongoing violation, and unless enjoined by this Court, will result in ongoing and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and other similarly disabled persons. GOVERNMENT CLAIM FILED (With regard to claims for damages under California Law) 21. Plaintiffs timely filed claims pursuant to § 910 et seq. of the California Government Code with the City of San Diego on May 10, 2013. Their claims were rejected on June 18, 2013. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiffs and against Defendant City) 22. Plaintiffs re-plead and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporate them herein as if separately re-pled. 23. Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 24. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, offering programs, services and/or activities to the general public at the Gliderport. 25. Plaintiffs are, and at all times relevant herein were, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, and meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of the services, programs, or activities offered by Defendant to the public at the Gliderport. 26. Defendant’s acts and omissions as herein alleged have prevented and/or denied Plaintiffs from having full and equal use and benefit of the programs, services and activities it offers to the public at the Gliderport, in violation of Title II and its implementing regulations. The Defendant’s discriminatory conduct includes, inter alia: a. Denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aids, benefits, or services offered by Defendant to members of the public, on the basis of their disabilities (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)); b. Affording Plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aids, benefits, or services offered by Defendants to members of the public that is not equal to that afforded their non-disabled peers (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii)); c. Providing Plaintiffs with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iii)); d. Otherwise limiting Plaintiffs in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aids, benefits, or services offered by Defendant to members of the public (28 C.F.R. § e. Utilizing methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)); and f. Failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against Plaintiffs on the basis of their disabilities (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)). 35.130(b)(1)(vii)); 27. Defendant’s duties under Title II are mandatory, well- established and long-standing. Defendant is deemed to have had knowledge of its duties at all times relevant herein; its failure to carry out said duties was willful and knowing and/or the product of deliberate indifference. 28. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12133 and 12205, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT CAUSE OF ACTION TITLE III - 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiffs and against Defendant ACA) 29. Plaintiffs re-plead and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporate them herein as if separately re-pled. 30. Title III of the ADA provides that “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 31. Among the “private entities” which are considered “public accommodations” for purposes of this title is “a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment”. 42 U.S.C. 12181(7)(C). 32. The Gliderport is a place of exhibition or entertainment, and therefore a place of “public accommodation” for purposes of Title III of the ADA. 33. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their disabilities in violation of Title III of the ADA. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct includes, but is not limited to: a. Directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, excluding or denying Plaintiffs goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities, on the basis of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i); b. Providing Plaintiffs goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations that are not equal to those afforded non-disabled individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); c. Failing to design and/or construct facilities built for first occupancy after January 26, 1993 so that they are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities in accordance with the ADA Standards. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1); d. Since January 26, 1992, failing to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facilities are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities in accordance with the ADA Standards. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2); e. Since July 26, 1991, failing to comply with the ongoing obligation to remove barriers, and/or provide path of travel upgrades to remove barriers at facilities where such removal is “readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)(2)(A)(iv); and f. Failing “to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 34. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiffs and against all Defendants) 35. Plaintiffs re-plead and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if separately re-pled. 36. Defendants are business establishments and, as such, must comply with the provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. 37. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). 38. The Unruh Act also provides that a violation of the ADA, or of California state accessibility regulations, is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). 39. Defendants have violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding or inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs’ rights to full and equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at the Gliderport. 40. Defendants have also violated the Unruh Act by denying, or aiding or inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs’ rights to equal access arising from the provisions of the California state accessibility regulations and the ADA. 41. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Cal. Civ. Code § 52, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT California Civil Code §§ 54.1 et seq. (Statutory damages and attorneys’ fees only) (On behalf of Plaintiffs and against all Defendants) 42. Plaintiffs re-plead and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporate them herein as if separately re-pled. 43. The Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”) provides that “[i]ndividuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, ... and privileges of all ... places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited....” Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a). 44. Defendants’ acts and omissions, described herein, violate the rights of Plaintiffs under the DPA. 45. A violation of the ADA is also a violation of the DPA. See Cal. Civ. Code, § 54.1(d). 46. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3(a), Plaintiffs pray for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3(a). PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 1. Issue an injunction: a. Ordering Defendants to alter their facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and b. Prohibiting operation of the Gliderport until Defendants provide full and equal access to individuals with physical disabilities, and requiring that such access be immediately provided. c. Note: the Plaintiffs are is not invoking section 55 of the California Civil Code and is not seeking injunctive relief under the Disabled Persons Act. 2. Award Plaintiffs general, compensatory, and statutory damages 3. Award Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs of 4. Award such other and further relief as the Court may deem just in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court; suit, as provided by law; and and proper. Dated: December 10, 2013 Center For Disability Access By: Mark Potter, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff |
|
| Author: | wingspan33 [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Torrey Hawks Second Sunday - April 12th, 2015 |
Between the City of San Diego and Air California Adventure Inc. they don't seem to be able to do anything right.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|