Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms

[JD8]

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.

Hiredhand addressed your public entity comment which was incorrect. The perpetual maintenance and security is taken care of by the trust for the next 99 years or something like that. Which has nothing to do with the bridge. This is all public info.

In terms of being a douche, sorry but he is in my opinion. He should've filed a lawsuit.

 

[inactive]

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.

It’s simpler than that I believe. They can’t designate land they don’t own. River Parks Authority and the GKFF open the land to the public for use, not the city nor the county.

I believe the “designate” portion of that would be referring to lands the city disignates as a park versus say, an outdoor lot that hosts trucks or maintenance equipment.

 

[SMS]

It’s simpler than that I believe. They can’t designate land they don’t own. River Parks Authority and the GKFF open the land to the public for use, not the city nor the county.

I believe the “designate” portion of that would be referring to lands the city disignates as a park versus say, an outdoor lot that hosts trucks or maintenance equipment.

They sure can designate land they don't own...for example, zoning could play a role in that.

 

[chuter]

It would be nice if this stunt was thought thru a bit; like having OK2A and some lawyers prepared to take on a test case, then having some guy in a suit and tie get confronted by the Police, on video of course.
I know, looks shouldn't matter, but they do. This looks like the stereotypical lib description of redneck gun owners, IMO.

 

[donner]

They sure can designate land they don't own...for example, zoning could play a role in that.

it's been a while since i've dealt with cities and zoning, but i don't believe merely zoning land for X immediately makes it X. In fact, often it's been my experience that it's the other way around. We have lots of empty land that is 'zoned' for multifamily living (i.e. apartments). But there are no apartments there (and often there might be homes on the property). It's not that the home is in violation, it's that the zoning came after the house and is part of 'the larger picture'. When things were zoned those folks had the chance to protest the zoning but might not have, banking on things being more valuable in a college town later. But if redevelopment occurs then it would have to comply the with zoning overlay going forward.

And often you can build things like churches (and probably parks) in areas zoned for lots of different uses.

But even zoning it for a park (which might actually be 'green space' or something 'outdoor' not actually 'city park') likely wouldn't change the ownership issues. And the land owner could always file for a rezoning since those things aren't set in stone.

I don't believe a city could simply 'zone' a dilapidated property as a park to force the teardown of a structure or anything like that.

 

[inactive]

They sure can designate land they don't own...for example, zoning could play a role in that.

That’s broadly zoning land (public or private) for development or use. I’m not sure that’s legally strictly the same as designating municipal land as a park, which is what is relevant for the purview of the SDA.

 

[crrcboatz]

A public park owned by a public/private trust that gets the majority of funding from taxpayers. A public park leased to a LLC that is owned by the same public/private trust that expects free water utilities and if like the bridge agreement expects the city to pay for major expenses like capital improvements(what about major repairs?). Again how can it be private being owned by River Parks and getting the advantage of public funds?

Show me any proof you have other than a biased opinion that this park is under the control and it's operating costs are paid for by a private trust and still cannot ,in your opinion,forbid you from open carry on your terms. The 4th Amendment covers this quite well. Play by their rules or go home .U r beating a dead horse and you know it. THAT pisses you off

 

[donner]

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...

Not an issue about SDA, but the Memphis city council did actually pull something like this, but for a different reason. They surprised a lot of people when they voted to transfer one of their parks (Forrest Park i believe was the name) to a private entity for something like $1. The entity, in turn, was leasing it back to the city for the same price.

The reason? State law prohibited cities from removing Confederate statues from public property without state approval.

Vote was at something like 6:00 pm and at 6:01pm the statue removal started across town.

 

[chuter]

If we get a dem controlled state congress, I can see making anyplace designated a park being made off limits, and depending on who the governor is, maybe signed.

 

[Free Trapper]

I've said it before and I will say it again...I just don't understand open carry.