Ft. Worth Zoo Update

[rtschl]

I received a cc letter from AG's office (Assistant Attorney General) today to Mayor of Ft. Worth dated March 30th. It stated that it had received citizen complaints about violation of 411.209 etc... Here is the new/relevant part:

While reviewing these complaints, the OAG has concluded that more information is needed in order to determine if there has been a violation of § 411.209. Specifically, the OAG needs additional information on the ownership of the Fort Worth Zoo, such as property records, management fee information, or any operating agreements between the City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Zoological Association. Please send the requested information as well as any other additional information that you believe would be helpful with this review.

My questions:

1. Is there any penalty if city doesn't provide information? Or does OAG assume complaint is factual if city does not respond?
2. Is there existing "acceptable" time frames for providing such documentation?

In essence, what incentive does the City have to cooperate?

[cb1000rider]

Really? Citizens need to submit lease agreements with their complaint.
I would have just attached a copy of the tax records for the property.

[Jusme]

Really? Citizens need to submit lease agreements with their complaint.
I would have just attached a copy of the tax records for the property.

I was confused at first but I think the OP is copying the portion of the letter sent to the Mayor of Ft. Worth requesting documents.

[rtschl]

Yes, I just received a copy of the letter sent to the Mayor of Fort Worth. So the city has to supply those documents not me. But I've seen the PDF for the agreement with the City and the Zoo and thought about sending it in with my complaint, but it is 48 pages and would have been very expensive. But it is available here: http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles ... ntract.pdf

When I sent in my complaint, I just sent them a printed copy of the Tarrant County Appraisal Districts page showing the land is owned by the City of Fort Worth. So if is in our best interests, I would send it. But I'll let the City of Fort Worth needlessly spend their citizens tax dollars.

[JP171]

Really? Citizens need to submit lease agreements with their complaint.
I would have just attached a copy of the tax records for the property.

I was confused at first but I think the OP is copying the portion of the letter sent to the Mayor of Ft. Worth requesting documents.

I agree that its to the mayor, but I find it asking for irrelevant information. The facts are plain as plain can be, the property is OWNED by the city, no where in the law does it say that unless leased to a third party or administrated by a non profit. it says plainly owned or leased by a government entity. to me the AG's office is looking for an out and letting the city have the time to come up with one so that there is no enforcement and no one has to actually do anything.
30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[locke_n_load]

This is ridiculous. The AG office can't figure out how to look up property taxes/records?
HCAD, I'm sure Dallas/FT worth has something similar.

And then there's this, that you actually sent in what they are basically asking for, and they are asking for it again.

When I sent in my complaint, I just sent them a printed copy of the Tarrant County Appraisal Districts page showing the land is owned by the City of Fort Worth. So if is in our best interests, I would send it. But I'll let the City of Fort Worth needlessly spend their citizens tax dollars.

[TreyHouston]

Job getting the ball rolling!

[Solaris]

Really? Citizens need to submit lease agreements with their complaint.
I would have just attached a copy of the tax records for the property.

I was confused at first but I think the OP is copying the portion of the letter sent to the Mayor of Ft. Worth requesting documents.

I agree that its to the mayor, but I find it asking for irrelevant information. The facts are plain as plain can be, the property is OWNED by the city, no where in the law does it say that unless leased to a third party or administrated by a non profit. it says plainly owned or leased by a government entity. to me the AG's office is looking for an out and letting the city have the time to come up with one so that there is no enforcement and no one has to actually do anything.
30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Verifying the property meets the conditions of the law is NOT asking for irrelevant information "Specifically, the OAG needs additional information on the ownership of the Fort Worth Zoo" It is 100% relevant as you highlighted in red.

Yes the AG could find this out on their own, but they want to use the CITY's own words against them by having them provided the evidence and using it against them. If the AG just went with property records, the city could claim wrong ones, out of date, etc. Requiring the CITY to provide this info skips this silly game anf gives the CITY little recourse, since they incriminated themselves.

[Solaris]

Keep in mind we only get ONE shot at this. If the AG finds just one example of where the law can be skirted, EVERY city in Texas will follow that example to skirt the law. We need to get this right, and the AG seems to be on the right path for what will no doubt be precedent setting.

[Jusme]

Really? Citizens need to submit lease agreements with their complaint.
I would have just attached a copy of the tax records for the property.

I was confused at first but I think the OP is copying the portion of the letter sent to the Mayor of Ft. Worth requesting documents.

I agree that its to the mayor, but I find it asking for irrelevant information. The facts are plain as plain can be, the property is OWNED by the city, no where in the law does it say that unless leased to a third party or administrated by a non profit. it says plainly owned or leased by a government entity. to me the AG's office is looking for an out and letting the city have the time to come up with one so that there is no enforcement and no one has to actually do anything.
30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Verifying the property meets the conditions of the law is NOT asking for irrelevant information "Specifically, the OAG needs additional information on the ownership of the Fort Worth Zoo" It is 100% relevant as you highlighted in red.

Yes the AG could find this out on their own, but they want to use the CITY's own words against them by having them provided the evidence and using it against them. If the AG just went with property records, the city could claim wrong ones, out of date, etc. Requiring the CITY to provide this info skips this silly game anf gives the CITY little recourse, since they incriminated themselves.

When the City has to justify the signage at the zoo, then provide the evidence, they will have egg on their face. They have tried to skate around the law by claiming it is a day care center, but that doesn't fly either. so now they will either have to have the signs removed, or provide some other documentation (that doesn't exist) or face fines. Please keep us updated if you get anymore correspondence from the AG.

[mr1337]

Really? Citizens need to submit lease agreements with their complaint.
I would have just attached a copy of the tax records for the property.

I was confused at first but I think the OP is copying the portion of the letter sent to the Mayor of Ft. Worth requesting documents.

I agree that its to the mayor, but I find it asking for irrelevant information. The facts are plain as plain can be, the property is OWNED by the city, no where in the law does it say that unless leased to a third party or administrated by a non profit. it says plainly owned or leased by a government entity. to me the AG's office is looking for an out and letting the city have the time to come up with one so that there is no enforcement and no one has to actually do anything.
30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Verifying the property meets the conditions of the law is NOT asking for irrelevant information "Specifically, the OAG needs additional information on the ownership of the Fort Worth Zoo" It is 100% relevant as you highlighted in red.

Yes the AG could find this out on their own, but they want to use the CITY's own words against them by having them provided the evidence and using it against them. If the AG just went with property records, the city could claim wrong ones, out of date, etc. Requiring the CITY to provide this info skips this silly game anf gives the CITY little recourse, since they incriminated themselves.

When the City has to justify the signage at the zoo, then provide the evidence, they will have egg on their face. They have tried to skate around the law by claiming it is a day care center, but that doesn't fly either. so now they will either have to have the signs removed, or provide some other documentation (that doesn't exist) or face fines. Please keep us updated if you get anymore correspondence from the AG.

Oh man. If what you're saying is true, this will be a great thing to watch. *grabs popcorn*

[The Annoyed Man]

See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

[JP171]

and the precedent has been set, the law is worthless and the AG is a wimp that is going to exactly nothing on all the complaints, and yes I told ya so

[ScottDLS]

See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

[JP171]

See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

its over 75 acres so yes it meets the definition but not the spirit