California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
July 8, 2008
AB 2747: Oppose
To Members of the California State Senate:
The California Disability Alliance (CDA) urges you to oppose Assembly Bill 2747 (Berg-Levine). Despite recent amendments that removed some of the most disturbing provisions in the bill, it remains a solution without a problem-and an invitation to more problems for many patients.
Although reference to a one-year prognosis was removed from the bill on July 2, 2008, this means very little since current law already defines "terminal illness" as a medical condition resulting in a prognosis of one year or less to live if the disease follows its natural course. " (See Senate Judiciary Committee analysis.)
Removing the definition from the bill doesn't change the fact that many people with disabilities have been given terminal diagnoses that proved wrong. Unfortunately, patients with life-threatening illnesses and/or severe new disabilities may be prone to accept a "terminal" diagnosis/prognosis at face value and to act on options that are likely to hasten their deaths. This is especially true given the fears and stereotypes about disability that abound in the medical profession and throughout society.
We also are concerned about a new section amended into the bill on July 2, 2008. This provision specifically raises cost as a topic for consideration "if the patient requests information on the costs of treatment options." While costs clearly are a legitimate factor in evaluating end-of-life options, who discusses the subject, what information is offered and how it is presented can have a significant impact. In a society where many people have no health insurance or have inadequate coverage, financial pressures rather than medical considerations could easily skew the discussion away from what is best for the patient and toward what may be best for payors.
The bill states that "if the patient requests information on the costs of treatment options, the patient shall be referred to the appropriate entity for that information." However, AB 2747 says nothing about who will make the referral or what constitutes an "appropriate entity" for the information. If the medical director of a nursing home referred a patient (or the patient's medical decision-maker) to the institution's financial officer, would that be an "appropriate entity"? Given the horror stories that already have been revealed about nursing homes, wouldn't this constitute a dangerous potential conflict of interest?
CDA is a statewide, grassroots organization consisting of persons with disabilities and their supporters. Our membership has a broad agenda for promoting the health, independence and full community inclusion of persons with disabilities. We are convinced that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in the present environment of increasingly cost-driven health-care and budgeting decisions will adversely affect our efforts to achieve these goals and will result in unnecessary deaths among people in poverty, people with disabilities, and elderly people.
Despite recent amendments, AB 2747 remains the wrong answer to the need for better end-of-life care.
We urge you to oppose this bill.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
CDA_AB 2747-Senate-opp_ltr2_08.doc
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
To Members of the California State Senate:
The California Disability Alliance (CDA) urges you to oppose Assembly Bill 2747 (Berg-Levine). This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing that sets the stage for uncritical acceptance of legalized assisted suicide while disregarding the potential danger it poses.
For example, although the bill defines "voluntary stopping of eating and drinking" (VSED) as including withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment "at the request of the patient," there are no provisions in the bill to assure that the request is truly from the patient. Furthermore, it isn't clear whether "withholding" or "withdrawal" of treatment and/or food and hydration might be at the behest of a patient representative (family member or guardian, for example) who might not be acting in the patient's best interests, or whether a health-care provider, including medical directors and hospital "futile care" committees, could order withholding or withdrawal of treatment under provisions of this bill. This is of great concern to people with disabilities.
People with disabilities know all too well how unreliable a prognosis of one year to live can be. Many of us were given such a prognosis years ago-and lived to tell about it! Unfortunately, patients with life-threatening illnesses and/or severe new disabilities may be prone to accept such a diagnosis and to act on options like VSED even though there is a strong possibility that such a prognosis could be wrong. This is especially true given the fears and stereotypes about disability that abound in the medical profession and throughout society.
This bill may appear to be just about imparting information, but in fact, it would encourage many patients to see themselves as terminal long before that truly is the case. The supposed benefits of this bill are far outweighed by the risks it poses, especially to our most vulnerable citizens. It should be defeated.
CDA is a statewide, grassroots organization consisting of persons with disabilities and their supporters. Our membership has a broad agenda for promoting the health, independence and full community inclusion of persons with disabilities. We are convinced that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in the present environment of increasingly cost-driven health-care and budgeting decisions will adversely affect our efforts to achieve these goals and will result in unnecessary deaths among people in poverty, people with disabilities, and elderly people.
We urge you to reject any attempt to legalize or advance the cause of assisted suicide or euthanasia-even one that masquerades as a measure to improve end-of-life palliative care. We urge you to oppose AB 2747.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
CDA_AB 2747-opp_ltr_08_Sen.doc
California State Senate Judiciary Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
To Members of the California State Senate Judiciary Committee:
The California Disability Alliance (CDA) urges you to oppose Assembly Bill 2747 (Berg-Levine). This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing that sets the stage for uncritical acceptance of legalized assisted suicide while disregarding the potential danger it poses.
For example, although the bill defines "voluntary stopping of eating and drinking" (VSED) as including withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment "at the request of the patient," there are no provisions in the bill to assure that the request is truly from the patient. Furthermore, it isn't clear whether "withholding" or "withdrawal" of treatment and/or food and hydration might be at the behest of a patient representative (family member or guardian, for example) who might not be acting in the patient's best interests, or whether a health-care provider, including medical directors and hospital "futile care" committees, could order withholding or withdrawal of treatment under provisions of this bill. This is of great concern to people with disabilities.
People with disabilities know all too well how unreliable a prognosis of one year to live can be. Many of us were given such a prognosis years ago-and lived to tell about it! Unfortunately, patients with life-threatening illnesses and/or severe new disabilities may be prone to accept such a diagnosis and to act on options like VSED even though there is a strong possibility that such a prognosis could be wrong. This is especially true given the fears and stereotypes about disability that abound in the medical profession and throughout society.
This bill may appear to be just about imparting information, but in fact, it would encourage many patients to see themselves as terminal long before that truly is the case. The supposed benefits of this bill are far outweighed by the risks it poses, especially to our most vulnerable citizens. It should be defeated.
CDA is a statewide, grassroots organization consisting of persons with disabilities and their supporters. Our membership has a broad agenda for promoting the health, independence and full community inclusion of persons with disabilities. We are convinced that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in the present environment of increasingly cost-driven health-care and budgeting decisions will adversely affect our efforts to achieve these goals and will result in unnecessary deaths among people in poverty, people with disabilities, and elderly people.
We urge you to reject any attempt to legalize or advance the cause of assisted suicide or euthanasia-even one that masquerades as a measure to improve end-of-life palliative care. We urge you to oppose AB 2747.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
CDA_AB 2747-opp_ltr_08_SenJud.doc
California State Senate Health Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
To Members of the California State Senate Health Committee:
The California Disability Alliance (CDA) urges you to oppose Assembly Bill 2747 (Berg-Levine). This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing that sets the stage for uncritical acceptance of legalized assisted suicide while disregarding the potential danger it poses.
For example, although the bill defines "voluntary stopping of eating and drinking" (VSED) as including withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment "at the request of the patient," there are no provisions in the bill to assure that the request is truly from the patient. Furthermore, it isn't clear whether "withholding" or "withdrawal" of treatment and/or food and hydration might be at the behest of a patient representative (family member or guardian, for example) who might not be acting in the patient's best interests, or whether a health-care provider, including medical directors and hospital "futile care" committees, could order withholding or withdrawal of treatment under provisions of this bill. This is of great concern to people with disabilities.
People with disabilities know all too well how unreliable a prognosis of one year to live can be. Many of us were given such a prognosis years ago-and lived to tell about it! Unfortunately, patients with life-threatening illnesses and/or severe new disabilities may be prone to accept such a diagnosis and to act on options like VSED even though there is a strong possibility that such a prognosis could be wrong. This is especially true given the fears and stereotypes about disability that abound in the medical profession and throughout society.
This bill may appear to be just about imparting information, but in fact, it would encourage many patients to see themselves as terminal long before that truly is the case. The supposed benefits of this bill are far outweighed by the risks it poses, especially to our most vulnerable citizens. It should be defeated.
CDA is a statewide, grassroots organization consisting of persons with disabilities and their supporters. Our membership has a broad agenda for promoting the health, independence and full community inclusion of persons with disabilities. We are convinced that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in the present environment of increasingly cost-driven health-care and budgeting decisions will adversely affect our efforts to achieve these goals and will result in unnecessary deaths among people in poverty, people with disabilities, and elderly people.
We urge you to reject any attempt to legalize or advance the cause of assisted suicide or euthanasia-even one that masquerades as a measure to improve end-of-life palliative care. We urge you to oppose AB 2747.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
CDA_AB 2747-opp_ltr_08_SenHlth.doc
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
The California Disability Alliance (CDA) is alarmed at the latest effort by Assembly Members Berg and Levine to indirectly facilitate de facto legalization of physician-assisted suicide in California. Assembly Bill 2747 (Berg-Levine) is a wolf in sheep's clothing that sets the stage for uncritical acceptance of legalized assisted suicide while undermining the very nature of appropriate end-of-life care, especially palliative care.
For example, it defines "palliative sedation" as "the use of sedative medications to relieve extreme suffering by making the patient unaware and unconscious, while artificial food and hydration are withheld, during the progression of the disease leading to the death of the patient." The bill's definition subverts the term "palliative," sugar-coating what is more accurately described as "terminal sedation." Medical dictionaries define "palliative" as "affording relief, but not cure." By including withholding of food and hydration as part of this definition, it simply promotes death.
Clearly, the goal of this bill is a back-door route to legalization of physician-assisted suicide, a proposal that has been rejected numerous times in California, including three times in the past two legislative sessions. (AB 651 and AB 654 in the 2005-06 session, and AB 374, which died on the Inactive File in the current session.) Don't waste more of the Legislature's valuable time re-hashing an issue that has been decided time and again. Don't add insult to injury by allowing this bill to undermine the important and legitimate roles that hospice and palliative care play in end-of-life care by converting them into proxies for legalizing assisted suicide. This bill should be defeated quickly and decisively.
CDA is a statewide, grassroots organization consisting of persons with disabilities and their supporters. Our membership has a broad agenda for promoting the health, independence and full community inclusion of persons with disabilities. We are convinced that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in the present environment of increasingly cost-driven health-care and budgeting decisions will adversely affect our efforts to achieve these goals and will result in unnecessary deaths among people in poverty, people with disabilities, and elderly people.
As people who often confront difficult health problems ourselves, we certainly have compassion for terminally ill patients and their families. However, we would like to remind Assembly members and staff that current law already allows an informed patient to refuse unwanted medical treatment and to receive appropriate medication for intractable pain, even if death is a possible outcome. This bill would move a very significant step closer to legalizing assisted suicide by, among other things, converting the meaning of "palliative" from one of easing pain and suffering to one that facilitates death.
We urge you to reject any attempt to legalize or advance the cause of assisted suicide or euthanasia-even one that masquerades as a measure to improve end-of-life palliative care. We urge you to oppose AB 2747.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
Support State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
[By fax to: 916-445-4633]
Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger:
I am writing on behalf of the California Disability Alliance to urge you to sign Senate Bill 1760 (Perata) into law.
SB 1760 is a response to recent court decisions that have eroded the civil rights of people with disabilities. It would waive California's immunity from being sued if the state violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Enactment of SB 1760 would make it clear that the state of California is willing to give more than lip service to equal rights and inclusion for people with disabilities.
As Governor, you are charged with serving all of the people of California. That includes Californians with disabilities. By signing SB 1760, you will be saying you take that responsibility seriously.
It is unconscionable for this state—or any state—to discriminate on the basis of disability. By waiving any immunity claim if the state is sued for violating the ADA, California would be making a strong statement of principle and a meaningful commitment to providing equal treatment for Californians with disabilities.
We ask you to stand firm with those who have made California a leader in promoting and protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities. We ask you to support the ongoing struggle of people with disabilities to live full and productive lives in the mainstream of American society—to enjoy the kind of opportunities you enjoyed when you came to the United States.
We ask you to sign SB 1760 into law.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
The Honorable Martha Escutia
Chair, Judiciary Committee California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Sen. Escutia:
I am writing on behalf of the California Disability Alliance to urge your support for SB 1760, the California sovereign immunity waiver bill.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have progressively weakened the protections that we Americans with disabilities thought we had won in 1990, with the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has become very clear that this Supreme Court favors states rights over civil rights.
All too often, it is only through a lawsuit that a person with a disability can get his or her rights enforced. Yet some of the Court's decisions indicate that private individuals cannot sue a state in federal court without the consent of that state. This undermines a key ADA remedy for victims of discrimination by states. That is why we need to enact SB 1760.
As a long-time leader in civil rights and independent living for people with disabilities, it's appropriate that California should renew its commitment to the goal of full inclusion of people with disabilities. It is completely unacceptable for this state {or any state) to discriminate on the basis of disability. By waiving any sovereign immunity claim if it is sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, California will be making a statement of principle and a commitment to equal treatment for all Californians, including those with disabilities.
For these reasons, we strongly endorse SB 1760, and we urge you to support it when it comes before you.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
The Honorable Don Perata RE: SUPPORT SB 1760 Sovereign Immunity Waiver Bill
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Sen. Perata:
I am writing on behalf of the California Disability Alliance to thank you for introducing SB 1760, the California state immunity waiver bill and to express our strong support.
As you know, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have progressively weakened the protections that we Americans with disabilities thought we had won in 1990, with the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has become very clear that this Supreme Court favors states= rights over civil rights.
As a long-time leader in civil rights and independent living for people with disabilities, it's appropriate that California should renew its commitment to the goal of full inclusion of people with disabilities. It is completely unacceptable for this state (or any state) to discriminate on the basis of disability. California=s waiver of any immunity claim if it is sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act is a statement of principle and a commitment to provide equal treatment for all Californians with disabilities.
We thank you for introducing this bill, and we are pleased to support it.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
The Honorable Dion Aroner
California State Assembly
State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Aroner:
The California Disability Alliance (CDA) is pleased to offer our support for your Assembly Bill 487, which would require better training for doctors in pain management and end-of-life care.
Like many others, CDA members are concerned about the terrible suffering that many people experience as a result of under-treated or untreated pain. As people with chronic disabilities, many of our members have had first-hand experience with that kind of pain. We know all too well what it's like to go without health-care and support services that we need to have a decent quality of life. We know the despair and hopelessness this can cause, and we know of many cases where that despair and hopelessness has led to suicide.
We believe AB 487 can help alleviate much of that desperation. By having the Medical Board of California report on failure to treat pain adequately, this bill shines a light on an important area of health care that has been largely overlooked in the past. And by requiring doctors to take at least a one-time course in pain management and care of terminally ill and dying patients, the bill takes a step toward improving health care for all of us. (Though the bill requires only a one-time course, periodic refresher classes or seminars also might be appropriate to help doctors keep up with new developments in the field.)
In effect, AB 487 puts the health-care system on notice that ignoring or under-treating a patient's pain is just as unprofessional as prescribing unnecessary drugs. CDA is happy to join you in posting that notice.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Director and Member of the Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance (CDA)
IMPORTANT UPDATE
Status: This bill remains in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, but has never had a hearing. I have confirmed that AB 1040 has become a "two-year" bill.
According to Francie Moeller of Access Compliance Services, who chairs the Disability Caucus of the Democratic Party, Assembly Member Dutra is working with her and others on a complete rewrite to turn AB 1040 into something that will enhance ADA enforcement and training around the state. The bill as introduced has been "gutted," as Francie put it. I will provide more information here as I receive it.
CDA's letter of opposition to AB 1040 was based on the *original* version of the bill, which required 90 days advance notice to a defendant in order to collect damages for violation of your ADA rights. Once AB 1040 has been rewritten, CDA will look at it again and may adopt a very different position on what will, essentially, be a brand new measure. This letter is included here at our web site for your background on the advance notification issue, which also has been introduced as federal legislation. - LRM
The Honorable John Dutra
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 05814
Dear Assembly Member Dutra:
I am writing on behalf of the California Disability Alliance to inform you that we have taken an "oppose" position on your Assembly Bill 1040, which we understand is now a two-year bill. This bill would require plaintiffs in lawsuits alleging violations of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide 90 days notice to defendants before filing an action.
At first glance, that may seem reasonable and fair, but the fact is that the ADA has been law since 1990. The requirements of the ADA are hardly a surprise. The problem is that ADA enforcement has been inadequate. The federal government doesn't have the necessary resources to do the job, and those responsible for enforcing state and local codes are very inconsistent in their willingness to act. With some attorneys advising their clients to play the odds and do nothing to comply with the ADA until they are forced to do so, lawsuits by individuals with disabilities are often the only effective means we have of protecting our hard-won civil rights.
Furthermore, since no other group covered by state civil rights laws is required to give advance notice of an action against someone who allegedly violated those rights, requiring that of people with disabilities is discriminatory on its face.
We understand that some building owners and managers may have made honest mistakes and/or followed erroneous advice on ADA compliance from sources they thought were reliable. But AB 1040 is not the way to resolve that problem.
We are very disappointed that you chose to carry this bill, and we sincerely hope you will consider dropping it.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Director and Member of the Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance (CDA)
The Honorable John Vasconcellos
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 05814
Dear Sen. Vasconcellos:
The California Disability Alliance thanks you for introducing SB 442, the California Affordable Housing Connection, and wishes to express our support. Finding affordable housing is difficult for many Californians, but for those of us with certain types of disabilities, the problem is compounded by the fact that many of us can't even get through the door of most affordable units. As a result of the shortage of affordable, accessible housing, some people with disabilities are forced to live on the streets and others are forced into nursing homes (often at a very high cost to the state).
Your bill would help address the problem by calling attention to the special housing needs of vulnerable populations, including people with disabilities. However, to fulfill the promise of your bill, we ask you to consider making the following amendments:
Thank you again for recognizing that there are certain populations in California whose special housing needs currently aren't being addressed. Please feel free to call on me if you have any questions or if we can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Director and Member of the Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance (CDA)
The Honorable Gloria Romero
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
On behalf of the California Disability Alliance (CDA), I am writing to thank you for introducing Senate Bill 1196. By waiving state immunity from lawsuits involving state violation of federal civil rights laws, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SB 1196 will protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and others who experience discrimination at the hands of the state of California.
Your bill is necessary because recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have taken civil rights protections *away* from workers, people with disabilities, and older Americans. The rationale for these decisions has been the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the Court has cited in denying protection to people seeking redress from states under the ADA, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and other vital civil rights laws. In reaching these conclusions, the Supreme Court stripped away protections that have long existed for state employees, including older and disabled workers.
We don't know what other protections may be taken away next. We do know that too often, litigation or the prospect of it has been one of our most effective tools in enforcing our rights. By declaring California's consent to be sued in state or federal court by persons trying to enforce their rights or obtain remedies under specified federal laws, your bill makes it clear that California takes its civil rights obligations under federal law very seriously.
CDA believes that persons with disabilities--indeed, ALL people--need to live...
Federal and state civil rights laws are important tools in helping us to achieve these objectives. Our state government should not be subject to lower civil rights standards than private entities. If anything, the state should be held to even higher standards. By enacting SB 1196, California would send a clear message that it is very serious about civil rights violations, especially when they are committed by state officials.
Again, we thank you for carrying this important bill and offer our support for your efforts on its behalf.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Director and Member of the Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance (CDA)
The Honorable Wilma Chan
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Chan:
On behalf of the California Disability Alliance, I am writing to express our support for your Assembly Bill 969, which will make several valuable changes in Medi-Cal and the In-Home Supportive Services/Personal Care Option program that is essential to the independence of many Californians with disabilities.
Among other things, your bill will have the effect of reducing the share of cost that certain individuals must pay for Medi-Cal services and IHSS. This is critically important for people with disabilities, many of whom would be forced into institutions if they could no longer afford to pay the share of cost for personal assistance services. It also will protect Medi-Cal and IHSS beneficiaries from being bumped off these critically important programs because of cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits, and it makes adjustments to counteract the "marriage penalty" problem.
Finally, we are pleased to see that your bill takes preliminary steps toward establishing a program to make quality home care available to all Californians on a sliding-scale basis. As a group, people with disabilities have disproportionately low incomes, and many already qualify for programs like Medi-Cal and IHSS. However, there are many individuals with disabilities who need home care/personal assistance services whose income exceeds current categorical eligibility standards but who cannot afford to pay the full cost of those services out of pocket.
The late Ed Roberts, former director of the California Department of Rehabilitation and founder of the World Institute on Disability, used to say that 80% of us will experience disability at some time during our lives. That doesn't apply only to low-income people. In fact, it often is the cost of necessary services, like health care and personal assistance, that drives people with disabilities and serious chronic conditions into poverty. A statewide, sliding-scale program for home care would, if designed properly, help to prevent this kind of impoverishment and would allow many people with disabilities and chronic illnesses to remain in their homes and off SSI/SSP benefits.
Again, we thank you for introducing AB 969, and we offer our full support for this bill.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Director and Member of the Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance (CDA)
The Honorable Dion Aroner
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Aroner:
On behalf of the California Disability Alliance (CDA), I am pleased to offer our support for your Assembly Bill 925, the "Workforce Inclusion Act," which would take a major step forward in helping people with disabilities who want to work.
CDA is a statewide, grassroots organization consisting of persons with disabilities and their supporters. Our membership has a broad agenda for promoting the health, independence and full community inclusion of persons with disabilities.
For many years, people receiving state and federal disability benefits have been trapped in a system from which there seemed to be no escape. Most significantly, they needed the health-care and support services they received by virtue of their eligibility for these public programs--eligibility they would lose if they tried returning to work. Yet, without those health and support services, work wouldn't even be a viable option. This almost certainly is a major factor in the 70% unemployment statistic for people with disabilities.
In the past two years, both state and federal legislators have recognized that these work disincentives must go. Your AB 925 would implement the federal Ticket to Work/Work Incentives Improvement Act (and improve the state's Medi-Cal buy-in program for workers with disabilities) in ways that empower people with disabilities and incorporate principles supported by the disability community, as delineated by the California Work Group on Work Incentives and Health Care (CWG).
The California Disability Alliance believes that persons with disabilities--indeed, ALL people--need to live with fair and equitable treatment in commerce (both as workers and customers). AB 925 represents a major step forward in providing such treatment for workers with disabilities and, more to the point in this case, for Californians with disabilities who *want* to work.
We thank you for introducing this bill and re-iterate our support.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member, Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance
The Hon. Alan Lowenthal
Chairman
Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Lowenthal:
On behalf of the California Disability Alliance (CDA), I want to extend our support for your Assembly Bill 1008, which would establish a pilot program offering grants to local jurisdictions for projects aimed at helping tenants with disabilities and their families to pay for needed accessibility modifications in rental housing.
As the Legislative findings in the bill point out, there is a great need for more affordable and accessible housing. We have heard from several of our members about problems they have encountered seeking such housing. One member has lived in a motel for more than a year because he couldn't find suitable housing and recently learned that a new increase in the rent would boost the cost to more than his entire SSI/SSP check.
Although AB 1008 focuses on rental housing and on tenants with lower incomes--which we agree is where the need is most urgent--we also want to point out that the need for accessibility and affordability extends far beyond this group. Homeowners (and/or a family member) may develop a disability that makes accessibility features necessary, but financial considerations may make a move difficult if not impossible--assuming an accessible alternative is even available. Some of these homeowners also may need help paying for accessibility modifications.
(It is interesting to note that until California's tax code was modified in 1986 to conform with the federal tax code, it included a deduction for homeowners who made accessibility modifications to their own homes. This deduction was deleted in one line that was added to a very thick bill in conference committee. In the 1989-90 Legislative session, a bipartisan bill to provide a limited, refundable tax credit for such modifications made it through the State Senate but died in committee in the Assembly, caught in a political crossfire that had no relation to the merits of the bill. Consequently, at this time, there remains no tax break to help offset the cost of accessibility modifications to one's own home.)
We notice that the March 27, 2001, version of AB 1008 specifies that accessibility grants from local jurisdictions to individuals would be available only for exterior modifications. While this may be an appropriate place to start, we must point out that in many cases, the need for accessibility is just as critical *inside* the building. For example, narrow doorways inside an apartment, inaccessible bathrooms, and inaccessible kitchens could make an apartment unusable for a wheelchair user despite exterior access to the building. As a first step toward addressing this problem, it might be worthwhile to add a provision to the bill directing the state to compile and make available to individuals with disabilities information about existing programs and resources that can help with the cost of making interior access modifications.
CDA believes that persons with disabilities are entitled to have adequate and accessible housing, which is necessary for us to participate fully in the mainstream of American life. We support AB 1008 because it takes a very important step toward achieving that goal by expanding the availability and affordability of accessible housing for people with disabilities.
We thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Laura Remson Mitchell
Legislative Coordinator and Member of the Executive Committee
California Disability Alliance (CDA)