[Noisebridge-discuss] ADA Access for the future Noisebridge

Wed Feb 28 18:10:03 UTC 2018


On 2/28/18 1:18 AM, Matt Arcidy wrote:
> 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.
I don't completely follow what you're saying. Is your statement that a 
self-appointed advocate with insufficient experience may error in 
thinking that a ramp that works well for hand-carts also works well for 
wheelchairs (or not consider the latter case at all)? The approaches 
that I heard at the meeting last night and in Zach's original email to 
mitigate this risk include; 1. Include people with disabilities in the 
conversation early on. 2. Research what it means to be accessible (ADA 
and otherwise) 3. Define a specific set of accessibility requirements 
that we will absolutely not compromise on.

> 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
My thinking is that we have an LOI in our pocket in-case a seller asks 
for one. To get the LOI right, it does need many eyes on it, including 
legal eyes if there's any concern. I would volunteer to run our 'final 
draft template' past the SF Tenants Union for instance. It will be 
drafted with all the requisite language to be non-binding. I don't think 
about this in terms of 'does the search warrant a lawyer?', but rather 
'what can we do to have access to the greatest number of spaces 
possible?'. It would be sad to miss out on a sweet spot only because we 
were not prepared with an LOI.
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://lists.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss