TexasCHLforum.com

winters wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

jamminbutter wrote:It seems that the TAD entry may refer to the actual land and not the building.. From what I have read and also heard from a friend on the Keller Parks committee is that the ISD manages and owns the building. Though that doesn't seem to make 100% sense.

You can't "own" the building and not the land... Not unless you're a complete fool, or we're talking about a double-wide. /sarcasm

I'm on friendly terms with the manager over there... maybe I'll go ask her if she can shed any light on the City/ISD relationship details. Nothing to lose since it's already posted.

Ever heard of the texas medical center? i don't know of any hospital that owns the land all of those builds are on.Even the parking garages are owned by TMC. Quite a few of the roads there are actually private not public.

Sorry to get off track with my sidebar snark comment... but...

I would bet heavily that if "Entity A" owns the land and "Entity B" wants to build a building on it.... There's some contractual relationship between A and B that provides for a lease term for A's property. It is also likely that someone.... Possibly B or possibly "Entity C" decided it was a good enough business proposition to build that building on A's property and manage it until the lease expires or renews.... Especially if they tied Entity B into a long term occupancy deal....

However..... At the end of the contractual relationship... whatever it may be.... Whoever built that building better move it, or Entity A, the folks that own the underlying land, will take it over if it's not gone at the end of the lease.

So..... Yes... There may very well be a business reason that makes sense for me to build a building on land that I don't own... but... I'd better be able to fully amortize that building under the terms of the agreement I have with the landowner. Because unless I can relocate that building, I will have t give it up at the end of the contract.

Back to the case at hand..... City of Keller is listed by TAD as the owner of the land....
Code says that if the land is owned by the City, it can't be posted 30.06.

Does that hold in this case? Missing details still need to be fleshed out.

n5wd wrote:What I might do, if I were the interested party, is to write a letter to the City Attorney and ask him whether he would view TPC (whatever the pre-emption statute is that prevents government owned properties from being posted with 30.06) as making those 30.06 signs at the natatorium as unnecessary and unenforceable. If not, why not?

Since it would be the city attorney that would be responsible for the police who would file charges with the county, if there were charges, and the city attorney is responsible for what the police do....

It is my understanding that the "City Attorney" is not a full time gig. The City pays an attorney by the hour for his time.

Definitely on my list of options.... just want to turn over a few more stones first.

Thx!

Rex B wrote:Based on that valuation, I'm protesting my home valuation

I searched every property listing in that Georeference block and found nothing that came up Keller ISD.
http://www.tad.org/georeference?code=22348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pcgizzmo wrote:Why risk it? It's a Natatorium. Everyone is in their bathing suites

At the risk of sounding paranoid.....

There are times I'm in there volunteering for an event. Looking up at the crowd of parents packing the bleachers. Looking at the two hundred kids on the deck waiting to swim. Then looking at the doors, the complete absence of any security.

The fallacy of that logic.... disarming honest people in that environment ...

jamminbutter wrote:It seems that the TAD entry may refer to the actual land and not the building.. From what I have read and also heard from a friend on the Keller Parks committee is that the ISD manages and owns the building. Though that doesn't seem to make 100% sense.

You can't "own" the building and not the land... Not unless you're a complete fool, or we're talking about a double-wide. /sarcasm

I'm on friendly terms with the manager over there... maybe I'll go ask her if she can shed any light on the City/ISD relationship details. Nothing to lose since it's already posted.

sjfcontrol wrote:Sounds like a "Bona-fide" grey area to me. I tell my students to do what they are comfortable with, considering the consequences. (Or is it a "gray" area?)

It's "gray", if you're in America. "Grey" in the UK (and other subjects of the Crown).

I may need to just go hat in hand to the local CLEO and ask for him to look into it, or clarify for me the relationship between the ISD and the City regarding that building.

I just don't see how it can be a "school" if it's open to the public and used as much by private organizations as it is by the ISD.

Feels to me like a City-owned facility that is "managed" by ISD employees..
Would that make it a "school or educational institution", per 46.03?

cb1000rider wrote:I would probably feel "OK" to carry to that one - that's my personal opinion.
However, I don't carry to places that have public lockers where I'd need to leave something of value. Locks simply aren't good enough.. Those "master" locks that I used in school can be opened (without force) in < 1minute.

True.

I'm usually there watching a practice/meet or volunteering.
I rarely swim there.

cb1000rider wrote:Is this facility adjacent to a school? Are their daily swim practices there? If so, I'd be careful.

No and yes.
Not anywhere near a school. Within ~200 yards of City Hall, actually.
Daily "school" swim practices during the week and during the school year. Yes.
Daily "club" (ie. not a school activity) practices year-round.

I hear you on the legal opinion...

Thanks!

Short version.

I live in Keller ISD. The City of Keller owns the property upon which stands the "Keller ISD Natatorium" (that's the name on the building).
TAD: http://www.tad.org/property-data-sheet- ... d=07925972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The facility is used for a wide variety of purposes, from training the HS swim teams to running private classes and private clubs. The facility is open to the public most days. I can go in, pay 3 dollars or so to swim laps. They run swim and fitness classes for the elderly and for preschoolers. The facility is open year-round, including most holidays and also during the summer when school is not in session.

I spend a lot of weekend and evening time there... my kids swim with a club team and I volunteer occasionally to help run events for a private club that operates out of that pool.

My contention is that since the property is owned by the City, not the ISD, that unless the facility can be clearly defined as a "school or educational institution" (46.03(1)), then they cannot post it 30.06.

The building has been posted with 30.06 signs for several years.

My questions:
-- What is the legal definition of a "school or educational institution" ?
-- If the ISD "manages" the facility (the director is an ISD employee), but remains open to the public year round, and the facility is built on City-owned land, does it meet the definition of "school or educational institution" ?
-- If it's unclear, where do I go to get clarity?

I'd prefer not to be disarmed in an unsecured building where I spend a lot of time.



Thanks!

PS: I understand very clearly that CHL is not allowed "while school sponsored events are taking place". No need to dwell on this. Clear as a bell.