Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms

[Billybob]

That took effect Nov of 2017; doesn't sound like anything related to this new park, just says we can ignore signs and if we don't leave when asked we can be fined $250.

Am I missing something?

I could be misconstruing it but it seems that this part says public property leased by a private corp. like the gathering place can prohibit carry as where regular parks cannot, maybe lawyer Dave will clarify this for us.
"4. The portion of a public property structure or building that is leased or under contract to a business or not for
profit entity or group for offices".

 

[Billybob]

I didn't catch that one.... Section (D)(1):
The portion of a public property structure or building during an event authorized by the city, town, county, state or federal governmental authority owning or controlling such building or structure;

This could be construed as one of the pavilions in a park, no? Like you rent out an open air pavilion with benches and electricity for a family or church picnic, birthday party, charity event, etc.? It is considered a structure owned by the city or town, and authorized for use since you have to apply for some of that stuff.

I don't like how that could technically be read as a violation.

It appears by definition a sidewalk, patio, etc. are structures. Could much of the park aside from the natural grassy areas be considered structures?
"Structures such as buildings, driveways, sidewalks, patios or other pavement,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_lot

I'm hoping lawyer Dave will come in and clarify this for us.

 

[JD8]

Regardless of legal technicalities on the River Parks website it states that "River Parks was established as a public-private partnership in 1974. Tulsa County and the City of Tulsa provide the majority of funds for day-to-day River Parks operations". So it's clear tax dollars are being used which was my point.
http://www.riverparks.org/about-us/

It's not a legal technicality it's just a different entity structure than you were speaking of..... and as I said.... tax dollars were not being used to maintain or secure the park. The RPA can't afford what they have, much less the TGP.

Just because maintenance and security are paid by Gathering place doesn't establish ownership which is still with River Parks. It also does not mean tax dollars are not also involved in other ways. The issue with the bridge is this, while River Parks and the gathering place have taken over the bridge and will cover routine maintenance the city(taxpayer) are still on the hook for capital improvements and repairs. No info has been given regarding who is responsible for those at the gathering place so again taxpayers may still be paying some cost just as they did to establish the park. "River Parks Authority will be responsible for routine and nonstructural maintenance of the bridge, with the city assuming financial responsibility for major capital improvements".
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html

You're following a red herring here that has nothing to do with the legality of the park, it's structure, and how the SDA law is applied. In the end though.... as you said.... looks like the question is answered.

 

[Billybob]

It's not a legal technicality it's just a different entity structure than you were speaking of..... and as I said.... tax dollars were not being used to maintain or secure the park. The RPA can't afford what they have, much less the TGP.



You're following a red herring here that has nothing to do with the legality of the park, it's structure, and how the SDA law is applied. In the end though.... as you said.... looks like the question is answered.

Did you read my post#74? A question arises as to whether the completion of the rest of the park will be paid by the gathering place because that has not been specifically stated. Or could the following phase possibly be wrangled around to be considered capital improvements to the existing park? It's already been stated TPS bond money is going to be used so who's to say more taxpayer funds will not be used.

And again $65mil. in tax dollars went into making the park possible and they want free water utilities like a public park would have, that along with the capital improvements issue seems to show tax dollars are involved so why can't we get away from the outright lie about it all being a free gift and not costing the public anything? But again as I said before that lie helps cover the fact that tax money has went into a project the voters specifically turned down, have to wonder if some might construe that as taxation without representation.

 

[JD8]

Did you read my post#74? A question arises as to whether the completion of the rest of the park will be paid by the gathering place because that has not been specifically stated. Or could the following phase possibly be wrangled around to be considered capital improvements to the existing park? It's already been stated TPS bond money is going to be used so who's to say more taxpayer funds will not be used.

And again $65mil. in tax dollars went into making the park possible and they want free water utilities like a public park would have, that along with the capital improvements issue seems to show tax dollars are involved so why can't we get away from the outright lie about it all being a free gift and not costing the public anything? But again as I said before that lie helps cover the fact that tax money has went into a project the voters specifically turned down, have to wonder if some might construe that as taxation without representation.

Yes, I read it, it's just a lot of mental masturbation. I've seen the Tulsaworld get a few things wrong over the years so I'd prefer someone get a completely accurate description of who owns what and what the contracts between them say.

As for the rest......OH noes!!! They want free water!!! For a $400million dollar GIFT!!! Throw our tea in the river I say!!!

Not sure where the "not costing the public anything" argument came into play..... but a vast majority was donated. Even that 65million had federal grants in it.

 

[C_Hallbert]

Tulsa seems determined to remake itself in the images of Austin, TX and Oakland, CA. (There is should be some concern by Oklahoma citizens that the abbreviation for California is the same as that customarily used in medicine for cancer).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tRidiot]

Yes, I read it, it's just a lot of mental masturbation. I've seen the Tulsaworld get a few things wrong over the years so I'd prefer someone get a completely accurate description of who owns what and what the contracts between them say.

As for the rest......OH noes!!! They want free water!!! For a $400million dollar GIFT!!! Throw our tea in the river I say!!!

Not sure where the "not costing the public anything" argument came into play..... but a vast majority was donated. Even that 65million had federal grants in it.

The question is, is it actually a GIFT? Was it GIVEN? Seems to me like it wasn't... seems to me like a bunch of legal loopholes to have shell corporations and get all the hoopla, fanfare and tax breaks associated with a "gift" but still retain control of said gift.

If it's public, it's public.

If it's private, it's private.

It can't be both, depending on your mood at the moment. That is reserved for the Obamacare tax. lol

 

[donner]

The question is, is it actually a GIFT? Was it GIVEN? Seems to me like it wasn't... seems to me like a bunch of legal loopholes to have shell corporations and get all the hoopla, fanfare and tax breaks associated with a "gift" but still retain control of said gift.

If it's public, it's public.

If it's private, it's private.

It can't be both, depending on your mood at the moment. That is reserved for the Obamacare tax. lol

so if they called it a private space, run by a not-for-profit, and it enjoyed the same 'tax breaks and incentives' given to other businesses that employ and attract people to an area, we'd be good?

 

[inactive]

Tulsa seems determined to remake itself in the images of Austin, TX and Oakland, CA. (There is should be some concern by Oklahoma citizens that the abbreviation for California is the same as that customarily used in medicine for cancer).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right Tulsa and the first Congressional district here is just like Oakland. You’re off your tit.

 

[donner]

Right Tulsa and the first Congressional district here is just like Oakland. You’re off your tit.

i'm tellin ya. Parks are the gateway drug to socializm