Under 42 USC 12182(b), an owner violates the ADA if it fails to remove architectural barriers to handicap access in existing facilities where removal is readily achievable, or, if removal is not readily achievable, if it fails to make its goods or services available to a handicapped person through alternative methods, if they can be achieved without much difficulty or expense.  At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff bringing suit under this section bears the initial burden of plausibly showing that the cost of removing the barrier does not exceed the benefits gained by removing it.  While the plaintiff need not address the four statutory factors affecting that determination, 42 USC 12181(9), he is well advised to offer as much evidence as he has regarding them to counter the defendant’s showing of high cost of removal of the barrier.  Here, plaintiff offered no evidence regarding the cost of widening the bathroom door on defendant’s boat.  Not having met his initial burden, summary judgment was properly entered against him on the removal issue.  However, genuine issues of fact remained as to whether defendant had offered easily available alternative means of allowing plaintiff to use the facilities, as by offering a narrower than standard wheelchair or carrying plaintiff into the bathroom.