The Longmont Leader accepts contributions, photos, letters to the editor, or LTEs, and op-eds for publication from community members, business leaders and public officials on local topics. Publication will be at the discretion of the editor and published opinions do not represent the views of the Longmont Leader or its staff. To submit a contribution, email [email protected].
When I was in college, I was on the men’s lightweight crew, or rowing team. This, along with the men’s heavyweight and women’s crew, enjoyed varsity status, which meant they had funding through the university for coaches, boats, and travel to regattas to compete with other college crews. Then title 9 was enacted, mandating equal funding for women’s sports–although we somehow couldn't pass the equal rights amendment, this (at least) would give women athletes more equal footing. How the University responded was not what was perhaps intended by the law. Rather than expand women’s sports programs to be on par with the mens’, they chose a cheaper solution, and canceled the varsity men’s lightweight and heavyweight crew programs. Forty years later, the women’s crew still gets funding as a varsity sport, the men’s heavyweight program limps along as a club, and the men’s lightweight crew program remains extinct.
The city of Longmont has built up an architectural survey of some of the historic homes downtown. This public resource was slowly amassed over years, with sporadic funding to research a few blocks at a time, but nevertheless the end result is an impressive historical registry for the city. There is a recognized need and a desire to expand this documentation, and the city plans to continue researching homes, as funding allows. The fruits of this labor, which the taxpayers paid for, was available on the city’s website for anyone to review and research–until recently. Due to a new state law (HB21-1110), all web information has to be ADA accessible, available to those with disabilities including visual impairment. The city’s response? –Remove the architectural survey, and all web pages the city provided that got less web traffic, to make them equally (un-)available to the visually impaired. With fewer available webpages, the city can afford to upgrade the remaining sites to somehow help the blind see. Note that the city is only removing lesser used web pages, and HB21-1110 only says we have to provide equal access–we could probably take time out of our busy days and read this information to that rare, visually impaired inquisitive individual–but I admit this is conjecture.
Perhaps the city should tear down all publicly owned buildings with basements or second stories, if they don’t have ADA accessible elevators, if we don’t have the budget right now to install them. Limited finances (to upgrade all city webpages) shouldn’t mean removing resources that taxpayers paid for and city staff worked for, to make it look like we are being fair to disadvantaged minorities. Removing resources that cost minimal amounts to maintain once acquired, and that were once made easily available, only makes sense in the legal world–where lawnmower manufacturers are compelled to put warning signs on their machines, like ‘don’t put your hand under the blades when the mower is running’; but I digress. What is considered adequate availability for the visually impaired? With old fashioned paper, should all city documents be available in braille, or not printed at all? When some of us have trouble accessing information, is the sensible solution to have it withdrawn from all of us?
The city website should at least direct interested residents to where they can find the gleaned historical information, assuming it is still somehow publicly available. And if this means we have to drive to a city facility to dig through a paper file, I hope the building has an elevator.
