Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms

[tRidiot]

Seems pretty simple. A group of concerned Tulsans should take the issue to court. Where’s the ORA and/or the OK2A?

I'm giving it some time, but seeing as how they fought an extremely identical fight here in Bartlesville recently and achieved a policy change, I'm optimistic this will be on the agenda.

Of course, the Kaiser Foundation and the City of Tulsa will likely bury them in lawyers, not to mention the possibility I raised before about having the state legislature carve out an exemption for them. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

 

[Billybob]

Nope. Try again. The trust pays for the upkeep and repairs. I believe the park is privately owned but "leased" to Riverparks. Don't like it? Concealed is concealed or don't go. Either way the guy in the OP is a douche. Either it seems you need to clarify or educate yourself on all the funding and legal entities at hand. You seem to be misinformed. Otherwise, put your money where you mouth is and sue Kaiser and the city.

You are incorrect, it's been made clear that the River Parks, a pubic entity, owns the park and that it is leased to The Gathering Place which is a LLC. owned by River Parks.

"gave ownership to River Parks Authority, which signed a long-term lease back to an entity of the foundation"
https://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/...cle_a4cb4da3-9f9c-5203-9f22-7d6782e74ff1.html

"Tulsa’s Gathering Place LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the authority. Gathering Place LLC is the legal name given to the Gathering Place park in 2014 when it was given to the River Parks Authority"...
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html

As for funding again it took $65mil. in taxpayer's funds to make it possible.

"The city has spent about $65 million on infrastructure in and around the park, including $15.9 million to reconstruct and upgrade Riverside Drive".
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/gat...cle_ff226ee3-5916-50ba-981f-6ffb9452af6f.html

Interesting to not that while considering itself private the gathering place wants water utilities paid by the taxpayers.

"The foundation has also requested that TMUA provide free non-irrigation water and sanitary and storm-water services for the park in perpetuity".
https://www.tulsaworld.com/newshome...cle_f3ad9f3a-8ceb-5bce-ae1e-fbcb9782a321.html

As for ongoing cost if this park agreement is like with the pedestrian bridge routine and nonstructural maintenance is separated from capital improvements which one would think would include certain major repairs which the city is responsible for. The fully explained agreement about what the Gathering Place, River Parks, and the city are responsible for should be made public since a public entity and tax dollars are involved but it hasn't.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html

It should also be remembered that in 2007 voter refused to fund the idea of a new river park development yet now tax dollars have went to it and may continue without voters having any say.
http://www.newson6.com/story/7730978/voters-say-no-to-river-tax

As for the OP being a douche it how is it that some exercising rights are wrong and others right? Are gun owners to be the new minority that can have their legal rights as long as they don't flaunt them and get "uppity" about them?

As for legal action since an article mentioned that at least one of the people removed belonged to OK2A I'm guessing there's a good chance Don Spencer may well become involved like when he had no gin signs removed from other parks. And that might be good since legal action involving the claim of a "private park" would likely bring clarity about funding and agreements that have been made involving public property and funds which only certain people were involved in.

 

[RidgeHunter]

walking backwards out of the park filming cops was probably the hardest workout this dude's done in years.

what was that hideous belt/holster he was wearing too? and were those earplugs tied to his hat? is he gonna twist those in before he runs through those 4 mags when SHTF?

if your goal is to get on video with your protest get some long pants, a button down, and some decent leather dude. have some pride.

 

[HiredHand]

As I posted in the other the thread.

It’s interesting that it was donated to the Parks Authority, which is a municipal public trust, and not to the city. I’ve highlighted the part that I believe is particularly pertinent in this case.


“4. What is the legal relationship between a municipal public trust and its beneficiary municipality?

Oklahoma municipal public trusts are created as separate legal entities from their beneficiary municipality in the form of an express trust governed by a trust indenture. State law and related court cases have held that a public trust is separate and apart from and not merged with its municipal beneficiary – see 60 O.S. § 176.1(a)(2); Woodward v. City of Anadarko, 351 P.2d 292 (OK 1960). Trusts are not considered a branch or division of the municipality, but are instead separate legal entities that have powers separate from that of the municipality. For example, because the trust is a separate legal entity from the municipality, it is not governed by the constitutional debt limitation applicable to its municipal beneficiary. In addition, many of the state laws applicable to municipalities are not expressly applicable to these municipal public trusts. Contracts and other official documents related to the trust activities are generally executed under the name of the trust, rather than in the name of the beneficiary municipality, by its trustees within the powers and limitations of the trust indenture.”

Source: http://www.crawfordcpas.com/Municipalpublictrusts.pdf

 

[tRidiot]

As I posted in the other the thread.

It’s interesting that it was donated to the Parks Authority, which is a municipal public trust, and not to the city. I’ve highlighted the part that I believe is particularly pertinent in this case.


“4. What is the legal relationship between a municipal public trust and its beneficiary municipality?

Oklahoma municipal public trusts are created as separate legal entities from their beneficiary municipality in the form of an express trust governed by a trust indenture. State law and related court cases have held that a public trust is separate and apart from and not merged with its municipal beneficiary – see 60 O.S. § 176.1(a)(2); Woodward v. City of Anadarko, 351 P.2d 292 (OK 1960). Trusts are not considered a branch or division of the municipality, but are instead separate legal entities that have powers separate from that of the municipality. For example, because the trust is a separate legal entity from the municipality, it is not governed by the constitutional debt limitation applicable to its municipal beneficiary. In addition, many of the state laws applicable to municipalities are not expressly applicable to these municipal public trusts. Contracts and other official documents related to the trust activities are generally executed under the name of the trust, rather than in the name of the beneficiary municipality, by its trustees within the powers and limitations of the trust indenture.”

Source: http://www.crawfordcpas.com/Municipalpublictrusts.pdf

I agree, that particular point is concerning, as many municipalities could be eyeing a similar circumstance to allow the prohibition of firearms in public spaces. How would you feel if your city council suddenly voted to put all city parks and spaces in a "public trust" which was not subject to state preemption and was considered technically exempt?

Let's face it, there are lots of city administrators and "elite" city ruling class who consider themselves better than the general public, and believe that they know better than the rest of us what is best for the common good. And gun ownership and carry is definitely not on the top of their list...

 

[inactive]

You are incorrect, it's been made clear that the River Parks, a pubic entity, owns the park and that it is leased to The Gathering Place which is a LLC. owned by River Parks.

The rub here is that River Parks isn't strictly a public entity. It's not a city or country property but rather the land is held in trust. It's a public trust, but that's not exactly public the same way a city or country park would be. I believe the SDA's authority has not been tested on such public trusts. The largest, most (though not identically) similar entity I can think of is the GRDA.

It's even more complicated by the fact that public trust land is leased out to GKFF, a private LLC to manage and administer it.

Let it be know I'm all for wanting to carry there. I'm just wanting to point out the peculiarity of River Park's legal status.

 

[Shadowrider]

Seems pretty simple. A group of concerned Tulsans should take the issue to court. Where’s the ORA and/or the OK2A?

Exactly. What was this guy expecting to happen? Was he expecting to go in and tell them "it's a public park and a violation of state law" and have the mall cops and real cops say "Oh. Our bad, sorry, carry on?"

This is Tulsa, city leaders up there have been anti-gun for as long as I can remember. The only thing they'll understand is losing a bunch of money pursuant to a court action.

The only thing these stunts do is make us look like uneducated backwoods hayseeds.

 

[inactive]

If you watched the terms of some like Kathy Taylor for example, they’re also often too stupid to be afraid of lawsuits that cause them to hemmorage cash.

 

[HiredHand]

Exactly. What was this guy expecting to happen? Was he expecting to go in and tell them "it's a public park and a violation of state law" and have the mall cops and real cops say "Oh. Our bad, sorry, carry on?"

This is Tulsa, city leaders up there have been anti-gun for as long as I can remember. The only thing they'll understand is losing a bunch of money pursuant to a court action.

The only thing these stunts do is make us look like uneducated backwoods hayseeds.

No doubt in my mind that they were looking for a fight with TPD. Prior to the event the group made it clear to the city and TPD that they would be attempting to enter the park while armed.

 

[SMS]

There is a lot of discussion about who owns the property and who runs it etc...but a key point to consider is that the Oklahoma SDA doesn't refer to ownership when it comes to parks, recreation areas, and fairgrounds.

According to the law "Any property designated by a city, town, county or state governmental authority as a park, recreational area, or fairgrounds" is exempted from the prohibited places portion of the statute and specifically states that anyone in control of said designated area cannot prohibit carry.

So the big question here is; Has the city of Tulsa designated this area as a park, recreational area, or fairgrounds? If they have, then it doesn't matter one bit who owns the land, pays the utility bills, or funds the operation.