Originally Posted by
geo8rge
I do not understand why a tenant cannot simply, when a lease is being negotiated make whatever requests they want. In general I think "administrative law" is over used, and is unnecessary in this case.
• The official tenant (e.g. the employer) may not care about a bike commuter's request. An employee has zero leverage in that situation.
• Many building owners are pleasant, many are not. Moving your business is expensive and disruptive, and there's no guarantee that a request for bike access will be honored.
Originally Posted by geo8rge
2) The bill itself is completely ignorant of the fact that there is a bicycle designed to be easily stored indoors. folding bikes.
Meaning what, that everyone who wants to commute by bike should purchase a folding bike?
Talk about an onerous requirement....
Originally Posted by geo8rge
3) Responding within the given time period of the bill is a scam. It is designed to force the owner to hire lawyers and architects or just agree to the demand for bicycle access. If anything the tenant should be required to pay for any studies to solve their problem.
This is a straw man argument. The owner has to fill out a form, that's about it. They are not required to build a bike room or a separate entrance, let alone hire lawyers. Even contesting it does not require an appearance in court -- just an indication how there is either acceptable parking in a certain radius, or that adding bike access presents a fire hazard.
Originally Posted by geo8rge
4) The bike theft aspect is BS. Allowing unrestricted use of freight elevators will make theft of everything much worse.....
Again, another straw man.
• The bill does not automatically grant anyone extra access to freight elevators; it just lets tenants bring a bike indoors.
• Sending out a few emails hardly qualifies as a scientific survey that proves how and where theft happens.
• Separately, it is
pathetically easy to steal a bicycle on the street in broad daylight.
Originally Posted by geo8rge
The assumption behind the bill is that people who tell bicyclists they cannot do whatever they want are being malicious.
Yet another straw man argument. There's no presumption of "maliciousness," only a recognition that not all buildings are providing access. Nor is this
carte blanche for a cyclist, far from it. For example, there is absolutely no stipulation that the freight hours need to change to accommodate cyclists.
Originally Posted by geo8rge
Why not assume the property owner knows what they are doing. I do not think giving tenants a right to use freight elevators for bicycles is reasonable. Freight elevators are not there to lift tenant's employees' personal property on a daily basis. That is an abuse in my opinion. It is also an expense that should be paid by the tenant.
Property owners do not necessarily act in the best interests of either their clients, or the city as a whole. Freight elevators
are there precisely for the purpose of transporting items that should not be taken in a normal passenger elevator, regardless of who owns it. And the "expense" of operating a freight is part of what you pay with your lease.
I'm going to guess that you haven't spent a lot of time dealing with building owners or managers. Again, some (including most I've dealt with) are very pleasant and willing to work with a tenant; others are nowhere near as solicitous. I even know some who are highly professional, but will not necessarily put their tenant's needs over their own.
Originally Posted by ge08rge
6) Is there actually a case where a property owner has told a tenant they cannot bring bikes? What exactly is the need for the law.
Obviously there is a need, or the bill wouldn't exist.
Mind you, I agree this law must be carefully written. Since I don't have a problem with regulations -- with the caveat that they not be onerous -- I don't find your arguments terribly compelling.