DREDF Comments Urging TCAC to Adopt Increased Accessibility Standards

November 20, 2020
On Friday, November 20th, DREDF submitted comments strongly urging California's Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) to adopt proposed regulatory changes that would increase the number of required mobility and sensory access features in new Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments. The LIHTC program is one of the state's largest affordable housing development programs. TCAC initially proposed cutting these accessible housing requirements in half, but in response to overwhelming and compelling public testimony, TCAC has now proposed to increase accessible housing in new construction projects. If adopted, these regulatory changes provide an opportunity for California to address the accessibility gap in our state and set an example for the rest of the nation. [...]

California Supreme Court Decides Disability Rights Case

February 20, 2003
Berkeley, California — The California Supreme Court today announced its decision in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, the first case in a decade that the state high court has heard involving the issue of what constitutes a disability under California state law. The case looked at the contested question of whether California disability rights laws afford broader protections for people with disabilities than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Colmenares was represented in the high court by Joseph M. Lovretovich and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. (DREDF). DREDF attorney Linda D. Kilb argued the case on December 4, 2002.

Class-Action Lawsuit Demands Real Homes not Nursing Homes

July 13, 2000
San Francisco, California — Ten plaintiffs will be filing a class action lawsuit in United States District Court on July 12, 2000, seeking access to community-based long-term care services to avoid unnecessary institutionalization in nursing facilities. The lawsuit alleges that the City and County of San Francisco, as well as several state agencies, are discriminating against people with disabilities by failing to utilize existing Medicaid funding and other funding sources for home and community-based services, instead committing the vast majority of available funding to institutional care. A de facto policy bias toward institutional care persists at the expense of home and community based alternatives.