TexasCHLforum.com

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 ...

RoyGBiv wrote: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.

I'm all for you asking... I'm always curious about what they say and what the justification is.
I know that actual schools around here are used by private organizations. And often the outdoor facilities are open to the public...

You can build something on land that you don't own. ISD or city, it's still government owned. Owned by the ISD would probably be a bad indication, but since Texas law isn't clear on the issue....

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.

It lists the value around $170,000....How can a building with an olympic size pool, weight facilities, offices, etc.... only be worth that much?

jamminbutter 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.

It lists the value around $170,000....How can a building with an olympic size pool, weight facilities, offices, etc.... only be worth that much?

Government contracts, lowest bidder?

Based on that valuation, I'm protesting my home valuation

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;

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....

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!

n5wd wrote: 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....

Sometimes the PD operates under directives from the city attorney, but the city attorney definitely isn't responsible for what individual officers do.
If you want to know if you'd be prosecuted - ask the city attorney.
If you want to know if you'd be arrested - ask the PD.

They are not necessarily the same policy.

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.

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.

cb1000rider wrote:

n5wd wrote: 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....

Sometimes the PD operates under directives from the city attorney, but the city attorney definitely isn't responsible for what individual officers do.
If you want to know if you'd be prosecuted - ask the city attorney.
If you want to know if you'd be arrested - ask the PD.

They are not necessarily the same policy.

My understanding is that city attorney can only prosecute class C misdemeanors. Counties charge everything higher under the elected county prosecutor...Since 46.03 violation is a felony, I guess your best bet would be the Collin (right?) County DA.

I'm going to say 30.06 doesn't really apply since the place is government owned regardless of whether by ISD or city. But 46.03 is a felony...so you will have to decide whether you want to be the (dah...duh...dah...) "test case"

As much as I labour on this question it just seems to be another colour of grey.

Or you can just ask. Strike up a conversation with an officer that appears approachable. I've had a few great conversations about it and it's a great way to understand what likely "might" happen without becoming a test case. I wouldn't ask the DA. I'd ask an officer as he/she is the one who is going to decide if the DA gets a say.

And honestly - most won't become test cases. DA's don't want test cases. Test cases limit their ability to enforce and limit the actions available to the PD in many cases. Especially if the jurisdiction has liberal leanings in terms of aggressive enforcement of firearms policy. If I was that DA, it'd be arrest, release, repeat... That makes it very expensive (punitive) and limits the legal challenge.

cb1000rider wrote:Or you can just ask. Strike up a conversation with an officer that appears approachable. I've had a few great conversations about it and it's a great way to understand what likely "might" happen without becoming a test case. I wouldn't ask the DA. I'd ask an officer as he/she is the one who is going to decide if the DA gets a say.

And honestly - most won't become test cases. DA's don't want test cases. Test cases limit their ability to enforce and limit the actions available to the PD in many cases. Especially if the jurisdiction has liberal leanings in terms of aggressive enforcement of firearms policy. If I was that DA, it'd be arrest, release, repeat... That makes it very expensive (punitive) and limits the legal challenge.

Not always going to get you a definitive answer. I have two friends that were on the same department at the time. Shortly after the new law went into effect making the posting of city property unenforceable, one was still of the opinion that anyone carrying in a police or fire station should be thrown in the slammer, while the other felt that the change in the law was a good thing. Unfortunately the one who thought you should be thrown in the slammer was the commander of the other, and he set policy for the unit. The good news is that he has since retired and moved on.

Right. So what you learn there is YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) depending on who you run into and there is no set policy for that department.
Last time I asked, I got something similar. The LEO I talked to knew the details of the law and said "I won't make an invalid arrest" - but also indicated that other people in his department might. I was actually quite impressed that he knew then 30.06 sign was invalid and that they were not under some hard-handed declaration to enforce it anyway.

It's an interesting discussion to have without being a test case.