No. You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome", and you shouldn't make a web site "accessible" by gutting it of all content and functionality that isn't already accidentally accessible. This is at best a case of malicious compliance.
I never said it was accessible. I said it was a text based site, which it is. I feel like you're misunderstanding on purpose just to argue.
I also never said that it was okay for them to do that. But it meets the minimum requirements of the law and is legally compliant (or so their lawyer says).
In fact, my point was that they should not do that. They did it to avoid getting sued. Now any functionality they could have offered, such as online crime reporting or crime stat lookups, are not even options.
It's rather uselessly pedantic to claim that a single page placeholder qualifies as a simple text-based web site for the purposes of a discussion like this.
They're complying with the letter of the law. They don't have the resources to do it right, and if they don't, they get sued. I don't see how you can be pro-ADA and not ok with this outcome.
