Superstar
Posted 27 June 2013 - 05:03 AM
Although I don't see the Lake Forest case, if this is the same Robert Kalani, he has been very busy.
Wow. If I am believing what I am seeing... THIS IS SICK! This guy needs a visit from the heart fairy because he seems to have lost his somewhere along the way.
Superstar
Posted 27 June 2013 - 07:49 AM
This is ridiculous that ONE guy is taking down so many businesses! He's on a mission to rape, pillage and steal money from our locals with his frivolous lawsuit scams to make money and support his scams. I genuinely hate this guy for what he's done to so many local businesses over the past 8+ years.
Currently he has 27 lawsuits open - he doesn't give a sh*t about these businesses complying and making ADA access - he doesn't care because he never goes to any of the businesses that he is extorting money from by abusing the system with these fake lawsuits.
Robert Kalani is PURE EVIL!
The sickening part is that this jerk has never once patronized any of the businesses that he is closing. What he is doing should be illegal, it's freaking insane that ONE jackhole can close down so many businesses with his bullsh*t lawsuits
I hate to say it but I hope he rots in hell for all the businesses and families he's bankrupted.
Video from Lake Forrest Cafe:
http://www.kcra.com/...jz/-/index.html
Disco Infiltrator
Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:14 AM
I'm sure he sees himself as a crusader for his rights. I'm sort of with Supermom on this one. If you are a business owner, and there's a law you know you need to meet and a checklist to meet it, what's your excuse? You don't get to keep driving your gross polluter because it would be too expensive to fix.
That said, I like this place and I'll be sorry to see it go. I haven't been there much lately because my fiancee found it twee, but the food was great. I don't know why the potato stir fry was the signature dish, though... so much of it was better than that.
So why is there no inspection authority like there is for food safety? Why is this the only avenue to get things updated or fixed? That makes little sense to me. If fear of lawsuits or actual lawsuits is the only enforcement mechanism, of course there are lawsuits, people are going to take the risk of getting sued because it's cheaper in the short term.
Superstar
Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:39 AM
I'm sure he sees himself as a crusader for his rights. I'm sort of with Supermom on this one. If you are a business owner, and there's a law you know you need to meet and a checklist to meet it, what's your excuse? You don't get to keep driving your gross polluter because it would be too expensive to fix.
That said, I like this place and I'll be sorry to see it go. I haven't been there much lately because my fiancee found it twee, but the food was great. I don't know why the potato stir fry was the signature dish, though... so much of it was better than that.
So why is there no inspection authority like there is for food safety? Why is this the only avenue to get things updated or fixed? That makes little sense to me. If fear of lawsuits or actual lawsuits is the only enforcement mechanism, of course there are lawsuits, people are going to take the risk of getting sued because it's cheaper in the short term.
I personally think some businesses should be allowed a pass if they are historical or have been around 25+ years - which was long before asshat lawsuit happy monkeys came along suing every business they can to make a bottom feeder living.
Regarding smog belching cars, if it's a classic car I say let it go.... you can't destroy a classic car to make it California smog worthy. But just wait, there will be some lawyer along soon to do just that - start suing classic car owners to make them destroy their cars. ONLY IN CALIFORNIA!
I agree about having state inspectors checking businesses instead of scum sucking lawyers dictating whether businesses live or die by their lawsuits.
Disco Infiltrator
Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:22 AM
If it's a classic car they do let it go. Cars up to iirc 1976 get away scot-free. Cars after that had smog systems, and pretty much all sucked, too. There are also 500 "replica" permits granted each year - they go on sale Jan 2 and sell out on Jan 2. I'm sorry to remind you of this but 25 years ago is 1988. Is that classic and historical?
Superstar
Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:41 AM
If it's a classic car they do let it go. Cars up to iirc 1976 get away scot-free. Cars after that had smog systems, and pretty much all sucked, too. There are also 500 "replica" permits granted each year - they go on sale Jan 2 and sell out on Jan 2. I'm sorry to remind you of this but 25 years ago is 1988. Is that classic and historical?
That's good to know about the cars and I agree, 76 and after sucked.
What's that about replica permits? Is that a new car made to look like an old car smog pass?
Thanks for the reminder, crap I was thinking 40 years ago I guess. Still, a place that is 25 years old and has withstood the tests of time, should get a pass. Were there ADA lawyer asshats in the 80's suing every place? Maybe that was a time before lawyers became bottom feeders suing anyone for any reason?
Owner
Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:02 PM
I'm sure he sees himself as a crusader for his rights. I'm sort of with Supermom on this one. If you are a business owner, and there's a law you know you need to meet and a checklist to meet it, what's your excuse? You don't get to keep driving your gross polluter because it would be too expensive to fix.
If fear of lawsuits or actual lawsuits is the only enforcement mechanism, of course there are lawsuits, people are going to take the risk of getting sued because it's cheaper in the short term.
I would agree with the statement that he may see himself a crusader if he went through with the law suits rather than dropping them for a fee.
People like him are shakedown artists.
I don't know or understand the laws on it, but I remember 2 cases where restaurant owners were exempt unless they tried to make any permitted improvements.
One was in San Francisco, where the city requires a permit for new flooring. The restaurants floors were ugly and out-dated. They wanted to put in new tile. The city said he could, if he brought it up to ADA compliance. The place wasn't big enough, so he had to keep the floors.
Another wanted to expand his business. Again, he was told only if he did the ADA compliance, which included ramps, lowering counters, widening doors and bathrooms, etc.
He said that between the expansion and the ADA issues, it was going to cost him well over $100,000. He said it would take him years to recoup those costs, so again, he stayed with what he had.
Those buildings are steel out of compliance, so what's the benefit?
Steve Heard
Folsom Real Estate Specialist
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
Living Legend
Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:38 PM
Fully complying with ADA requires accessible restrooms and making the place accessible so that it is possible to hire handicapped employees. Some older buildings cannot be made fully accessible. For Lake Forest, just making the restroom fully accessible would wipe out a big portion of the restaurant.
untitled
Posted 03 July 2013 - 06:55 AM
I just read the story in The Folsom Telegraph and there was a piece missing to the story before. Apparently, Mr. Kalani has an oversized wheelchair because he's a big fella and could make it through one doorway, but not a second despite the best efforts of the staff. How does a business prepare for that? They've been serving people in wheelchairs for years.
I also didn't realize that building is 100 years old and was used as dormitories for the Natoma Company during the dredging for gold. The redwood studs have square nails. That's kind of interesting.
Superstar
Posted 03 July 2013 - 07:35 AM
Veteran
Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:22 AM
With this new information, I'm less likely to think of Kalani as an evil-ADA-lawsuit-abuser. He actually did intend to patronize this establishment not just hire someone to scout area business for violations on his behalf to make a quick buck. He's filed a few cases each month, but if they are legitimate violations that he encountered during his normal daily routine then that is his right. Looking back at the number of cases he's filed (1-5 per month since Feb), does that seem excessive? Perhaps to some, but I don't use a wheel chair so I'm not sure how many true obstacles one encounters on a monthly basis.
The other part of the story I don't understand is, Lake Forest Cafe just leases the property from the Baker Family Trust. As the property owner, why aren't they stepping up to make the tenant improvements to keep this beloved, longtime, local establishment in business? If they intend to find a new tenant, won't the modifications have to be made anyway?
untitled
Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:33 AM
I look at it a different way. If you have a business that has been able to accommodate wheelchairs and suddenly you are confronted with a device of a different size or regulations that are constantly changing it's like operating with sand shifting below you.
Hopeless Addict
Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:16 PM
I also didn't realize that building is 100 years old and was used as dormitories for the Natoma Company during the dredging for gold. The redwood studs have square nails. That's kind of interesting.
I love your history tidbits. Did you know there are some old telegraph poles amongst the trees in the same area? If you look behind Mel's Diner along the river you can see a few. They are probably from the old Natoma Water Company days, but the historical society has expressed no interest.
Supermom
Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:31 PM
I look at it a different way. If you have a business that has been able to accommodate wheelchairs and suddenly you are confronted with a device of a different size or regulations that are constantly changing it's like operating with sand shifting below you.
I agree with this. Ordinarily I would say buildings of certain age should be grandfathered from having to have to comply to certain regulations as long as it does not affect persons safety. However, those buildings should be required to post visibly on the outside of their building that they are not in compliance with ADA laws. It would make it easier for an ADA dependent patron to decide before getting out of the car that the place is unable to meet their traffic needs.
Hall Of Famer
Posted 03 July 2013 - 07:22 PM
The dude was too fat to walk in on his own! I'm sorry but I don't think being fat is a disability because one could lose weight and likely be just fine. I've lost about 40 pounds over the last several years and would never characterize my weight problem as a disability!I know there are people with low metabolism or other medical challenges that might increase their weight/body fat so I would characterize their struggle as a disability.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
