NJ Claims Too Broke to Move People out of Institutions

From the NJ Real - Time News (9.22.10):

N.J. seeks to dismiss lawsuit alleging discrimination against people with disabilities
by Susan K. Livio

TRENTON — New Jersey is too broke to move 1,850 people with developmental disabilities out of institutions in the next five years, so a lawsuit demanding it do so should be dismissed, an attorney representing the state said today.

The case stems from a federal Supreme Court ruling that says federal law protects the right of disabled people to live in "the most integrated setting’’ safely possible...

..."Every state says ‘we don’t have the money now,’" said Samuel Bagenstos, a deputy attorney general from the U.S. Justice’s Department’s civil rights division...

...Bagenstos was dispatched from Washington, D.C., to testify for a legal advocacy group, Disability Rights New Jersey, which brought the suit. The group wanted U.S. District Court Judge Anne Thompson to rule the state was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and order it to move people into the community.

The state offered its empty pockets defense after Thompson refused to allow a more controversial approach: that the state cannot be sued and the 20-year-old disabilities act violates states’ rights and should be declared invalid.

Thompson barred that "sovereign immunity" defense last year when the state offered it to fend off a similar lawsuit.

>>> For the Full Article

Thank you Judge Thompson for barring that argument from your courtroom.  Way to add insult to injury, New Jersey, denying the constitutionality of the ADA in general in attempting to get out of compliance with the Olmstead decision.  How many times will we have to fight this battle before states accept their moral and legal responsibilities?  Add your comments below.

Comments

[Polio-Survivor]

Amazing - violating a federal Act! Every state fighting against equity and equality for the dis-ABLED (™) offers this excuse - no money; yet there is no indication that such state legislatures are cutting back on their for-profit contactors whose primary goal must be satisfying their investors, not humane care; nor do the lawmakers poll consumers adequately about such contactors (including home health companies) reliability, competence, purposefulness, and overall care. State employees could avoid layoffs and be kept on the job performing such services saving the state enormous amounts of money.

Naw! This is simply another excuse, and Judge Thompson deserves a BRAVO. Perhaps if he also ordered state lawmakers to ride accessible transits for a week with their legs bound, blindfolded, wearing a non-vented breathing mask, and weights on their chests they might be able to empathize -- before they become disabled themselves (Polio is still going around!).

[Csaba S. Hutoczki]

It seems too easy to jump to and hide behind the lack of money reasoning as a justification not to execute what the law dictates.

There is a single more important asset besides the always argued financial status, essential to result in effectively moving the 1,850 persons with disabilities back to the community. That vital ingredient is the basic, common mindset and ethical understanding that after so many years of having those citizens in institutions, it is time to facilitate them to once again live in and contribute to the community.

I do believe, what is even more difficult to overcome than the lack of money issue is simply this lack of willingness (of many temporary able-bodied people with proper authority) to first embrace this necessary change.

[J. Ito-Carver]

If the state of New Jersey should win a lawsuit such as this, one can only imagine what will come about in the near future. It’s frightening to even think about what could happen. States may simply decide that carrying out any "plan" may be too costly and file a lawsuit. This is outrageous! The state of New Jersey is merely concerned with the financial devastation that would result by fulfilling their promise to the many people with disabilities. It seems that they haven’t taken into consideration the devastating impact that this has had on the people that are affected by the lawsuit. This should be disturbing to us all.
The current economic situation has affected us all in one way or another, but this does not justify violating the rights of any individual. New Jersey needs to be in compliance with the Olmstead decision and there needs to be an effective system of accountability in place to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. Under the ADA, individuals with disabilities are guaranteed fair and equitable treatment. Being forced to live in institutions and continue to fight for the right to live in the most equitable way possible is far from fair and equitable.

[shannessy mitchell]

Interestingly, this article highlights the financial crisis of the 21st century and the plight of individuals with disabilities. NJ is claiming that there is no money to move over 1,000 individuals out of institutions. However, I’m sure that there are at least 1,000 inmates in a year that require state assistance to be move out of institutions. The fact that NJ is claiming that there is no money, is the oldest excuse in the book.
In fact, just a few years ago when the federal government required states to compile with the No Child Left Behind Act, the excuse was, there no money. However, when the federal government issued a mandate that states would have there educational funds reduced if they didn't compile, there was a sudden shift in the educational practices.
I strongly feel that many state departments are feeling the pressure of decreases budgets and increasing requests for services. Therefore, instead of doing what their responsible for, the people that sit behind the desk and make decisions, also make excuses. How can this be resolved, easy…people should quit wasting their time making up excuse about what can and can’t be done and do their job. Instead of spending hours documenting how-come-not, use the time wisely and just do it. State departments continue to react to growing demands on services, however if there were some proactive measures, I’m sure there wouldn’t be so many lawsuits filings.