[Noisebridge-discuss] ADA Access for the future Noisebridge

Matt Arcidy marcidy at gmail.com
Wed Feb 28 09:18:23 UTC 2018 

Three topics, apologies for length.

Discussion:
How about a public list for more general _active_ discussion, while
people with details can keep them close on the private list?  details
on the deck today, except identifying details, are sufficient.
Private discussion can be had ad-hoc if necessary as well for specific
concerns. I don't see how anything other than specific names/places
(anything typically doxish) would be trollable.

Representation:
The following statement is relevant to the ADA discussion, but not
aimed at anyone or anything said tonight.  It is something I feel
strongly about in general:

- Self-appointed advocates can cause harm.

Not to harp on ADA since this is a universal statement, but an example
relevant to the discussion:
It's one thing to say "Wait, we need to consider ADA, those stairs are
bad" as opposed to "that ramp is probably fine" when it was for
hand-trucks, not wheelchairs.  This is only to highlight that no-one
can really advocate unless appointed in some way.  I'm merely pointing
this out, not calling anyone out on their good faith efforts on all
sides of tonight's discussion.  I don't think it was explicitly said,
and i think it's important, so I am saying it.

Real-Estate
I'm a little confused by some of the real estate stuff.  I lived in NY
for 10 years which is also a very fast market, though SF is worse now.
  LOIs seem pretty specific and potentially harmful if not drafted
specifically to state something like "it is not the intent of this
document to be a legally binding agreement."  Is there a lawyer on
call that can draft one and make revisions in the time-frames
mentioned?  If the LOI is worded correctly, it's not a big deal at all
to sign them, and then make sure there is a good, honorable way out
(or a good poison-pill of a big, unstated requirement that can kill it
during due-dilligence).

If the search doesn't warrant a lawyer, I would be skeptical of
requiring an LOI at all, given how dangerous they could be, and how
the stake for noise-bridge is much higher than what's at stake for the
landlord.  But I'm no expert here, I just read the following for CA
laws which seem pretty similar to NY.
https://www.pircher.com/insights-publications-76.html

Likewise, in terms of deal speed, if something's been vacant for 2m
and a landlord magically finds another potential renter/buyer the next
day, it's a scam.  Walk, you can even name-drop another property,
they'll know it and their market.  They'll call back.  If this hunt is
in a range at the bottom of the scale, then a property without a
tenant for 2m is at the bottom of that range, and probably for a
reason.  Nothing wrong, NB can fix it, but I felt the point about a 2m
vacant property only having a few hours to sign a binding LOI to be a
little dissonant.  Again, I'm no expert, but for such a big issue I
think clarity on the exact legal situation situation is best,
especially what LOIs will and won't be signed.  Hasty decision on long
term expensive contracts is can lead to a massive bummer.  My
experience in NY was that the market always felt like a sprint but
people who dug found gold.

In terms of increasing purchasing power:
I would expect housing noise-bridge to be beneficial for various
reason.   For example, is a sub-market rent a tax deduction for them?
Are there intangibles NB could offer, like marketing, sponsorship, or
otherwise official association?  I'm not pretending any of these are
good ideas or even possible, but there are benefits to being
associated with a space that, for example, does Women in STEM and
LGBTQPIA/PoC empowerment type things (as we discussed today!)  Is
there a good accountant that can highlight these benefits as a pitch
to landlords to sweeten the deal?  It's not the same as housing a
button manufacturer, for example.  Apologies if these come off smarmy,
im just trying to be creative. I don't know all the details of the
search.

Thank you for reading this far, I appreciate it.  Sorry for the book
length email.




On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:34 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Competing real estate brokers, landlords (including our current), and trolls
> that want to harm Noisebridge's efforts to find a new home.
>
> Evidence for the latter exists. The first two are well established facts of
> the real estate industry.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> what evidence is there for parties not allied...?
>>
>>
>> On 02/28/2018 02:11 AM, kprichard wrote:
>>
>> We've begun posting notes, photos and documents up on a sharing service.
>> We'll start distributing those internally in the next 24 hours.
>>
>> In the interest of protecting our search from parties not allied to our
>> mission, we should find a non-public means for having an accessible,
>> threaded conversation -like an internal mailing list.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:38 PM, jarrod hicks <hicksu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think people outside of our Slack are effectively excluded from full
>>> participation in our location searching, since that is where the
>>> collaboration is being done. We aren't having new-space meetings and updates
>>> regarding the search aren't really going out to the discussion list or wiki.
>>> (I've certainly failed in this regard) I think the last new space meeting
>>> was in December and it was Kevin who put the notes on discuss.
>>>
>>> It may help us move forward better as a whole if we get more of the new
>>> space discussion here instead of on, or in addition to, Slack.
>>>
>>> We could start individual threads for the promising locations or other
>>> discussion threads using a somewhat standard subject line like: "  -
>>> address or subject" for easy searching and filtering
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:05 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Zach,
>>>>
>>>> "Is equal access for all a fundamental part of Noisebridge's mission?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is!  Nobody should be prevented from coming to Noisebridge because of
>>>> disability.  Accessibilty is one of the top criteria when we talk about when
>>>> a space is being presented.
>>>>
>>>> In the nearly eight years since Noisebridge moved into 2169#3, market
>>>> rents have literally quadrupled.  Imagine a Noisebridge where we're paying
>>>> four times our current rent, Zach.
>>>>
>>>> Philanthropist & membership dues would be $320, not $80!  That would
>>>> leave Noisebridge inaccessible to most, if not all. (That's more than double
>>>> TechShop's old rates, without all their equipment.)
>>>>
>>>> To deal with that, we expanded our search to include spaces that are not
>>>> *currently* ADA accessible, because-
>>>> a) they fit our extremely limited size/location/price nexus (being only
>>>> 2-2.5 times more money), AND
>>>> b) we feel there's a good chance those spaces can be upgraded to
>>>> accomodate everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I said "not currently ADA accessible."  Of the two spaces on
>>>> the table today, one is at least 90% compatible (and easily brought up to
>>>> 100%), and the other has a big hurdle (stairs) which the landlord might be
>>>> willing to help us overcome (I am waiting on an answer). And remember that
>>>> we have talented people with architecture and construction skills in our
>>>> membership.
>>>>
>>>> "I know finding an accessible space is going to be really, really hard.
>>>> I do ask that people really try though.  That includes educating ourselves
>>>> around access and including disabled people in the search and in the
>>>> conversation."
>>>>
>>>> A perfect space meeting Noisebridge's accessibility, size, price,
>>>> location needs will not just fall into our laps. You can help Noisebridge by
>>>> joining the hunt and finding some spaces which fits our needs.
>>>>
>>>> Try loopnet.com and sfbay.craigslist.org, those seem to be the two main
>>>> services where industrial and flex properties get listed. Our current
>>>> criteria-
>>>>
>>>> 1. Accessibility: ground floor with wide doors, accessible bathrooms,
>>>> and/or an elevator if not ground or if multi-floor (or potential to be made
>>>> accessible)
>>>> 2. Price: the current rent is around $9.50/sqft/year, and we'd like to
>>>> keep it under $24/yr
>>>> 3. Location: consensus is to be within 10-15 minutes of BART and major
>>>> bus lines (that excludes Dogpatch, Bayview, Hunters Point etc)
>>>> 4. Size: 4,000 square feet, or more
>>>>
>>>> When you prioritize all four criteria equally, the number of vacant
>>>> spaces falls to zero. If we expand the search to spaces that we or the
>>>> landlord can modify for accessibility, we get a handful. Or, at least we
>>>> *did* get a handful, but now the market appears to have dried up. Prices are
>>>> rising, and vacancies are vanishing as tech firms continue to flood San
>>>> Francisco. That's why the two spaces on the table are not perfect.
>>>>
>>>> Call brokers and ask if they know about spaces meeting our criteria! The
>>>> more people who are involved in the hunt, the more chances we have at
>>>> surviving this fall.
>>>>
>>>> We're on your side, man!  Join us in the search!  Don't fight your
>>>> fellow Noisebridgers -- fight NB's impending doom at the hands of the most
>>>> nefarious villain of all, The Market. :)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Zach R <organicunity at hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>      It was recently brought to my attention that the search for a new
>>>>> Noisebridge home has included many (perhaps solely) inaccessible places.
>>>>> Meaning, the future Noisebridge would not allow me, or anyone else in a
>>>>> wheelchair, walker, etc. to enter.  This would eliminate me from being part
>>>>> of the community entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I know the search for a new place is very rough, rents are
>>>>> exorbitant, and I would not want to stand in the way of Noisebridge
>>>>> continuing to exist.  But I think there needs to be a huge shift in the
>>>>> effort being put towards finding accessible spaces.  I have some ideas
>>>>> listed below.  But first, I want to pose a question to the community because
>>>>> I get different answers / opinions from different people:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is equal access for all a fundamental part of Noisebridge's mission?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it is a good one
>>>>> to talk about among the community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, as far as an actual sincere effort to searching for an accessible
>>>>> space.  Here are some suggestions:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Include disabled people in this conversation and ask them about their
>>>>> needs* -this is very important.  Please don't assume what people's needs
>>>>> are.  Please include some disabled people in the closed-circle Noisebridge
>>>>> building search.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Call and ask the landlord exactly what accessibility looks like.  How
>>>>> many steps are there?  What is the size of the door, gate, etc?  How narrow
>>>>> / wide are hallways and entry areas?  Is there a large single-occupancy
>>>>> bathroom?  What is the slope of the entry way?  Is there a working elevator?
>>>>> Relay this information to disabled members for feedback and input /before/
>>>>> going to a space, taking pictures, and getting really attached to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reach out to organizations and do an internet search for accessibility
>>>>> options, and laws around construction and such.  You, yes, /you/ can
>>>>> actually step up to do some of this research.  Call:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Senior Disability Action (https://sdaction.org/  (415)
>>>>> 546-1333)
>>>>>
>>>>>             ILRC (https://www.ilrcsf.org/ (415) 543-6222)
>>>>>
>>>>>             or similar places to ask for advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to be clear that I don't expect to be a part of Noisebridge come
>>>>> August.  I know finding an accessible space is going to be really, really
>>>>> hard.  I do ask that people really try though.  That includes educating
>>>>> ourselves around access and including disabled people in the search and in
>>>>> the conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I plan on attending the meeting tonight (which hopefully happens) in
>>>>> case anyone wants to discuss this stuff with me.  I do ask however, that you
>>>>> do not vent your frustrations on me.  I do not want to be the scapegoat for
>>>>> San Francisco's problems with ADA access and high rents.  As the most active
>>>>> wheelchair-using member of Noisebridge I have had to work overtime educating
>>>>> people about access, ableism, and advocating for myself.  It's exhausting.
>>>>> I am just trying to be a part of the community and I hope everyone can
>>>>> understand and respect that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for reading this and taking the time to care about these issues.
>>>>> I look forward to our conversation and growth as a community together.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Zach
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>> https://lists.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://lists.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://lists.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://lists.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://lists.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list