GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY AT ITS BEST

by
Josie Byzek
Janetta Green
Linda Riegel

MIDTOWN SWEEP

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 hardly anything 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. But, 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, PA 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 business 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. So, the CILCP agreed to hold off on any new lawsuits, until the CILCP could assess whether the meetings with the merchants district and the city would lead to more access in the Midtown area. For the lawsuits filed, each member of the ACT group who uses a wheelchair served as a plaintiff, in pairs of at least two per lawsuit. 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 business, 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 of all of the businesses that 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 alongside 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, feels 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 grass- roots 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

For further information contact Linda Riegel at the Center for Independent Living of Central PA, 415 Fallowfield Road, Suite 101, Camp Hill, PA 17011-4906, or call (717) 731-1900 (V/TTY), or e-mail Linda at cilcp@aol.com or visit the web page at http://www.cilcp.org.

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 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 to advocate for the civil rights of people with disabilities. She has been with the CILCP for nine years.