TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:After thinking this through, there is a fairly concerning precedent here. What is to stop any large City from putting a few small rides on any plot of 75 acres or more and calling it an amusement park?

In substance these would clearly not be amusement parks, but then neither is the Dallas zoo. They clearly market themselves as a zoo, not an amusement park.

This may require a legislative solution. Simple fix, just eliminate the amusement park loophole entirely, along with the day care and educational institution loopholes.

There is no day care loophole...

Mel wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Mel wrote:

Jusme wrote:http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm
"Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

What makes you think that Fair Park isn't open for operation more than 120 days/year?

It is but it doesn't have amusement rides permanently installed. They are only there during the State Fair

What? You think they take down the ferris wheels, the roller coaster, the bumper cars, the tilt-a-whirl, and all the other rides after the fair? Things must have changed. When I was a kid, we used to go to fair park all summer just to ride the rides. Do they not do that any more?

The amusement rides aren't open 120 days a year. I suspect the law was written specifically with the State Fair in mind. They can try, but doubt they'll get a favorable ruling from AG.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:And remember that the zoo is claiming their entire premises are an amusement park. So any regulations such as not serving alcohol, or ADA requirements for access would apply to the entire zoo, not just specific rides.

Six Flags in Arlington sell beer and wine at some restaurants, don't they?

twomillenium wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Keep in mind that the AG is an attorney first and foremost, and he is not above going back and saying "Oops, based on new case law my previous decision no longer valid." If you will notice the ones he is proceeding with at this time are easy cases, that help establish case law, which will help him go after tougher and tougher cases. Additionally each case where he doesn't go after the posting helps us in the next legislative session to remove off limits locations and tighten the exemptions that they claim or make up. For those who want to replace the AG can I make a suggestion of wait and see where he takes these wrongful exclusion complaints before breaking out the tar and feathers, he might surprise you with a well thought out plan.

If he can admit his mistake, then I also can. I hope G.A. Heath is right, but until then, Paxton is on the "get rid of list".

I disagree. It's the legislature's problem to fix, not the AG. With the monorail and the merry-go-round they meet the plain meaning of the 46.035 statute as it was written. Sure it was "intended" for Six Flags and Seaworld, but it was written 21 years ago. By the AG's reading of the law it appears that the Dallas Zoo meets the definition. The "intent" of the legislature might have been different, but what the law SAYS in defined statutory construction is how it should be interpreted. Of course anyone from a County Court judge to the State Supreme Court can interpret it however they want...but they shouldn't.

Otherwise we'll be reading a Constitutional "right" to abortion and Sodomite marriage into the 14th amendment... (ohh...ahhh, never mind)...

Liberty wrote:Dallas falls, is Houston next?

No because Houston is not big enough to qualify as an amusement park and it's not a school.

Glockster wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Sec. 46.035(f)
(1)"Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times.

Does the Dallas zoo have amusement rides?

There are other requirements as well. Don't have access to my bigger screen so can't re-chase it down, but there are inspection requirements, licensing and on and on. The biggest violation perhaps is one requirement that they post at the entrance specific language about reporting ride hazards and such and if I recall correctly violation of that one calls for a daily misdemeanor violation and fine daily. I put together a listing on this about a year ago and compared it to what I found on each zoo and what I found was that they may have an amusement ride license, none met the state licensing requirements to be an amusement park.

The problem is the 46.035 requirements are all they must meet to exclude us. The occupational code or whatever else qualifies them doesn't really matter unless the agency responsible decides to take it up.

Solaris wrote:Guess I am now on the prosecute Paxton side......

Maybe if he is gone, Abbott can appoint someone better.

Does the governor appoint or is there a special election? And anyway the charges against him are just as specious & politically motivated as the ones against Perry were until they were thrown out.