Midtown Sweep:
Grassroots Advocacy at its Best
September 2000
by Josie Bysek; Janetta Green; Linda Riegel
Introduction
It is taken for granted by most Americans who do not have disabilities
that when they move into a new neighborhood, they will be able to take
advantage of all that neighborhood has to offer: barber shops, community
centers, video stores, restaurants and all other amenities. It is taken
for granted by most Americans with physical disabilities that they will
not be able to take advantage of much that their neighborhood has to offer.
Galleries, coffee shops and other businesses that give communities their
distinctive character more often than not have steps that prohibit people
with physical disabilities from even getting in the front door. In Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, the Center for Independent Living of Central PA's (CILCP)
advocacy group, Accessible Communities Today (ACT), decided that they
wanted the same right as all other Americans: the right to freely enter
all public accommodations and truly become full members of their community.
This issue first came to the CILCP's attention in 1997 as a result of
the CIL's participation in a statewide systems change project called the
Grassroots Advocacy Project (GAP). GAP advocates from around Pennsylvania
expressed dismay at the lack of Title III enforcement for the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). So, they decided to try different methods
around the state to push ADA enforcement in what was called the "Feeding
Frenzy '97." Some advocates tried demonstrations, some tried pro
se lawsuits, some tried DOJ complaints or mediation, and some tried letters
to the managers, followed by a lawsuit, if the management was not cooperative.
At the end of this "Feeding Frenzy," it was clear that lawsuits,
either pro se or with a lawyer, were by far the most effective. However,
scattered lawsuits did not lead to systemic enforcement of Title III of
the ADA, which was the intended goal of the "Feeding Frenzy."
CILCP decided to take the Feeding Frenzy one step further and devise a
way to create systemic access in the Harrisburg area.
The CIL's local advocacy group, Accessible Communities Today (ACT), when
presented with the problem of systemic ADA enforcement, hit on a possible
solution-pick one community and attempt to make all the businesses in
that one community comply with the ADA. The group thought that if they
hit one community hard enough, and received good press coverage, that
the word would get out that the ADA is taken very seriously in the Harrisburg
metropolitan area.
Action Plan
First, the ACT group had to pick a neighborhood. Since most of the members
live in the Midtown region of Harrisburg, which is up-and-coming and largely
inaccessible, the group picked the Midtown. Once the neighborhood was
selected, a group member had to walk through the neighborhood and document
which buildings needed to become accessible. This was done by writing
down the name of the business, the type of business (barber shop, restaurant),
the address, and a photograph of the main entrance. Once this was done,
the CILCP sent each business a standard ADA violation letter informing
them that they had to become accessible. The letter also made it clear
that, if the business did not want to work with the ACT group, the group
would enforce the law any way they could. The letter also contained information
about available tax credits and deductions, which would allow the business
to get a tax break. Only two businesses contacted the group to work with
them toward becoming accessible. The remaining inaccessible businesses
were put on a "hit list."
Once the hit list was comprised, the CILCP's advocate contacted a lawyer
at the Disabilities Law Project in Philadelphia to inform him of the project
and to ask him if he wanted to be involved. He said it sounded exciting,
and committed to filing three lawsuits a month until all of the businesses
on the hit list committed to becoming accessible. The group decided to
have him file the first three lawsuits on July 26, 1999, the ninth anniversary
of the ADA.
Media Component
The CILCP planned the media piece of the Midtown Sweep as carefully as
the enforcement piece. The ACT group was filing lawsuits against their
neighbors and against very popular local small businessmen. The potential
for anti-ADA backlash was great and could easily have fallen back onto
the CILCP and members of ACT. Therefore, the ACT group took great pains
to make sure that the media was informed at every step of the campaign
what the group was doing and why. Press packets were developed, group
members wrote op-eds and letters to the editor, and group members role
played what questions they thought reporters would ask and how to answer
the questions.
Implementation
The campaign officially began with a press conference on July 26, 1999,
at which the lawyer came running up to the group waving the freshly-filed
lawsuits in the air. The media reported the event from the viewpoint of
the ACT group. Because of the careful preparation, and because of the
letters that the CILCP sent out over a month before the actual lawsuits,
the small businesses never stood a chance. Organized and well-thought
out advocacy ensured success.
The small businessmen in the Midtown district had thought that they were
grandfathered in, or were historical landmarks. They became angry at the
Pennsylvania Labor and Industry, the City of Harrisburg and their local
Midtown Merchants District for not telling them that they were out of
compliance with a federal civil rights law. After four months of steady
lawsuits, and steady settlements, the Midtown Merchants District contacted
the CILCP to set up meetings between the CILCP, Labor and Industry, the
City of Harrisburg and the Midtown Merchants District. At that point,
all of the businesses on the original hit list were either being sued
or had agreed to work with the CILCP toward access.
The CILCP agreed to hold off on any new lawsuits until they could assess
whether the meetings with the merchants district and the city would lead
to more access in the Midtown area. For each lawsuit filed, at least two
members of the ACT group who use a wheelchair served as plaintiffs. This
kept all of the members of the group involved in the project. Also, the
CILCP advocate carefully documented each contact with the small businessmen,
including conversations and visits. It is important to stay informed about
progress, or lack of progress, the businessmen are making toward access.
Meanwhile, the Harrisburg media were having a field day. For over six
months, the Midtown Sweep was featured on all three major television stations,
a local public access station, the major daily newspaper, the alternative
weekly (which had as a headline, 'Wheelchair Avengers or Civil Rights
Activists'), and even the Central Penn Business Journal. Overwhelmingly,
the coverage was positive. Even the Central Penn Business Journal, while
also showing the viewpoint of the local small businesses, clearly stated
their belief that the time had come for the ADA to be enforced.
Outcome of Campaign
Over half of the small businesses on the original hit list have gone
out of business, many replaced by new small businesses. This is the nature
of the neighborhood--it is still searching for its character and trying
to secure good 'anchor' businesses. Out of the eleven left on the list,
all have settled their lawsuits and are either already accessible or in
the final stages of having permits approved. In addition to these Midtown
businesses, other small businesses outside the target area have voluntarily
built ramps. Every curb in the Midtown area is now cut, even though that
was not a goal. Also, a lot more people with disabilities are out on the
streets in Midtown, many that the group members had never seen before.
The CILCP has stronger media connections than ever, even though these
connections were strong to begin with. Other Pennsylvania cities have
begun their own 'sweeps,' most notably the Southside Sweep in Pittsburgh,
where the local advocacy group is targetting bars on Pittsburgh's Southside.
Lessons Learned
There are a few things that the CILCP now does differently as a result
of the Midtown experience. First, the CILCP now sends all standard ADA
violation letters certified because many of the businesses claimed they
did not receive the letter the first time. Second, the CILCP initially
only listed the business owner on the lawsuit. Some of the business owners
bounced the lawsuits up to the property owner, and other businesses closed,
leaving no chance to make the building accessible before the next business
moved in. On later lawsuits, the CILCP makes note of who the property
owner is, and lists the property owner on the lawsuit with the business
owner. Some CILCP staff reported feeling like detectives as they drove
around town searching out properties owned by one defendant who tried
to cry poverty. They found three properties and a large, beautiful corner
lot home in an upscale neighborhood. This greatly improved the settlement
process. This little anecdote underscores the importance of knowing specifically
who the business owner is, who the property owner is and what are their
collective resources. It can be the difference between a ramp or a finding
of "undue hardship."
Conclusion
The goal of the Midtown Sweep was systemic enforcement of Title III of
the ADA. While the Sweep accomplished that in one community and will continue
to accomplish that in any one community that is targeted at a time, it
is not the answer to full systemic enforcement of Title III of the ADA.
However, it is the most effective strategy that the CILCP or the ACT group
has been involved with so far. The success can be measured by how many
businesses have become accessible, how many more people with disabilities
feel they are now an integral part of their community and the empowerment
that has occurred on an individual level. Members realized that they do
have the power to change their community for the better, for themselves,
and for all others with disabilities.
The staff and board at the CILCP, too, feel empowered by the Midtown
Sweep. It has built staff confidence. This is a positive campaign that
made the CILCP's service area a much better place to live in, and each
staff member feels that he or she played a part in that change. The board
initially had to struggle with discomfort with this type of hard hitting
advocacy. The older board members worked closely with the newer board
members, especially board members who own small businesses, to help them
see the importance of supporting such a strong grassroots effort. The
board realized that consumer control means following the local advocacy
group and letting that group lead the CILCP. At the Center for Independent
Living of Central PA, the staff is proudly led by the consumer advocates
who give so much of their time and energy to their communities to make
them a better place to live.
Contact Information
Linda Riegel
CIL of Central PA
415 Fallowfield Road, Suite 101
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4906
(717) 731-1900 (V/TTY),
EMAIL: cilcp@aol.com
www.cilcp.org.
About the Authors
Josie Byzek is a freelance writer with a disability
who lives in Midtown Harrisburg and a member of Accessible Communities
Today (ACT).
Janetta Green is the assistant director of
the CILCP where she has been employed for the past 11 years. She has a
master's of business administration and has worked for the independent
living movement for 15 years.
Linda Riegel is the civil rights advocate for
the CILCP and coordinates regional grassroots advocacy groups like ACT.
She has been with the CILCP for nine years.
|