It has long been a characteristic of human societies that oppressed classes end up pitted against each other, as though one is the cause of the other’s oppression. In America, certainly, we’ve seen it in ethnic and racial tension, and more recently in issues of gender identity and expression. When it comes to the matter of improved access to the Forest Preserve for those with disabilities, let’s not let it happen here in the Adirondacks.
We must recognize that people with disabilities constitute a protected class and deserve accommodations to affirm and secure their civil rights. But we must recognize that land classified as Wilderness also constitutes a protected class and likewise deserves accommodations to protect it. In New York State, we have long acknowledged both of these imperatives for protection, though our record of following through with policies to assure them has been mixed. Those who want to improve access in the Adirondack Park for people with disabilities are right to do so. Those who want to protect Wilderness from motorized access are right to do so. It’s easy to portray these interests as opposed – just look at recent media coverage. But it’s a mistake and it’s a tremendous waste of goodwill.
I have a better idea: let’s do both.
The impetus for the current debate is the Adirondack Park Agency’s proposal to amend the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (SLMP). This is the document that secures the rights of Wilderness to exist on its own terms: untrammeled, where humans are visitors who do not remain. As such, it is central, even sacred, to those who would spend the better part of their lives defending wild places and to the vast number of Americans, with and without disabilities, who cherish Wilderness. The majority of land on the globe has been modified to serve human interests. In New York State, Wilderness is the only land which reverses that relationship: human beings are expected to modify their behaviors to serve its interests. This hardly qualifies as an onerous imbalance: less than 4% of the land in New York is protected as Wilderness and it’s much less if one considers the Northeast as a whole. By any reasonable standard, Wilderness is a scarce and precious resource.
One of the sacred tenets of Wilderness is that it must remain free of motorized access. Considering that motor vehicles have reshaped the planet, the fundamental characteristic of Wilderness as untrammeled makes that condition a no-brainer. Indeed, the SLMP explicitly forbids public use of motorized vehicles in Wilderness. Herein lies the potential issue with some of the APA’s proposed new language. In order to address accommodation for people with disabilities, the APA is proposing changes to the SLMP that would allow motors in Wilderness.
There are three parts to the potential changes in question. First, a proposed new paragraph states:
In keeping with ADA Title II regulations on mobility devices (CFR § 35.137), wheelchairs are allowed on state lands anywhere that pedestrian access is permitted. The DEC is responsible for interpreting federal regulations and guidance to determine where the use of Other Power Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMDs) may be appropriate.
There is no argument about the first sentence. It is Federal law, State law and a fundamental civil right that an individual in a wheelchair be allowed to go anywhere a pedestrian on foot is allowed to go. Furthermore, wheelchairs are formally defined in law in a way that mitigates any concern that a device able to significantly impact Wilderness would be defined as a “wheelchair.” Wheelchairs may be powered, but they must be designed for individual use and be appropriate for indoor use. That means gasoline-driven devices or those as wide as 3 feet are out.
The problem is with the second sentence and with the formal definition of an OPDMD, which is given in another proposed paragraph:
Other Power Driven Mobility Device – consistent with applicable law and regulation, an OPDMD is currently defined as any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines––whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities––that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair.
That definition obviously includes a wide range of devices, including golf carts, ATVs, powered wagons and motorized bicycles, all of which are prohibited in Wilderness. Yet, the first paragraph above grants the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) discretion to interpret the guidelines to allow use of OPDMD’s.
Furthermore, and most concerning, the APA also proposes to amend the definition of “Motor Vehicle” in the SLMP to exclude not just powered wheelchairs, but OPDMD’s as well. That means anything definable as an OPDMD could, at the DEC’s discretion, be used in Wilderness. This is a direct violation of the letter and spirit of the SLMP and of Wilderness in particular. Hence, we arrive at the supposed conflict in rights: access versus Wilderness.
The State so far has insisted that it must follow the law. It also contends that just because the law allows discretion does not mean they will exercise it. Yet, such potential use, whatever the law says, directly contradicts the meaning of Wilderness. So how do we
resolve this supposed contradiction in rights and accommodations? Where can we find wise guidance?
How about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) itself?
It is a distinctly American democratic tradition to balance competing rights and interests, and the ADA is no exception. Those who crafted and amended the ADA recognized the value of Wilderness as something different from all other lands. The Act explicitly exempts Federal Wilderness (which has the same definition as Adirondack Wilderness, almost word-for-word): powered wheelchairs are allowed (although trails are not required to be modified to accommodate them), but the same allowance is not granted to OPDMD’s. In their wisdom, the designers of the ADA understood what many disability advocates have also voiced: Wilderness is for everyone, just the way it is, and as a precious and scarce resource, its right to exist in a natural state must be accommodated.
This gives us the opportunity for a simple bottom line: if the Federal Government can exempt Federal Wilderness from the ADA requirements for OPDMD’s, then the State of New York can do the same for Adirondack Wilderness.
This need not be hard to accomplish: the APA can start by removing the proposed language excluding OPDMD’s from the definition of “Motor Vehicle.”
As a lifelong advocate for equity and inclusion, and as someone who has designed and built ADA-compliant structures for uses that typically ignored people with disabilities, I can say with confidence that the Adirondack Park is not even close to meeting the needs of people with disabilities. We need Universal Design to be pervasively applied in our communities; we need ADA-compliant front-country infrastructure at all major recreation destinations and trailheads; we need a robust ADA-compliant transportation system to allow people with mobility limitations to visit places to which they would not otherwise have access. We need many more miles of accessible trails, both on private land and on Forest Preserve lands. We need to support New York State’s CP-3 policy. We need to support those who use wheelchairs and wish to have a wilderness experience.
We can do all of that and keep Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices out of Wilderness.
