Harbor park

Ok so I know this has been touched on before. I did a search but most of the results I found were rather old. From what I have been able to gather the park is covered by preemption. I would just like to know if this still stands true. I didn't notice anything on the harbor park website to suggest otherwise. I would just rather be safe than sorry.

On another note I noticed something from my search that I think I need clarification on. Somebody had posted about considering CC/OC at the park but opted out in order to enjoy a tasty beverage(beer). It was my understanding that it was legal to consume so long as you were OC. I may be mistaken and that is why I am asking. I would rather not break the law.

Don't know about Harbor park and you are correct about the drinking!

I believe not consuming alcohol while CC only applies to restaurants and clubs, which I doubt a park would be licensed as.

zoom6zoom said:

I believe not consuming alcohol while CC only applies to restaurants and clubs, which I doubt a park would be licensed as.

Click to expand...

You're right!
I stand corrected.

Harbor Park

The facility is owned by the City of Norfolk and the Tides have a 20-year lease. Its construction was financed by rent paid by the Tides and other revenue from non-baseball events held in the facility. The total cost of construction for the stadium exceeded $16 million. Harbor Park was selected by Baseball America as the finest minor league facility in the land in 1995.

http://www.milb.com/team1/page.jsp?ymd=20081124&content_id=482553&vkey=team1_t568&fext=.jsp&sid=t568

Thanks for the feed back.

Grapeshot I didn't notice that blurb on the website when I looked before. Thanks for pointing that out.

The first and only game that I've been to so far I assumed otherwise just to be on the safe side. I would prefer to avoid trouble when I can but now that I know I can carry and be on the truly safe side. Thanks again.

Owned by Norfolk.

It is my understanding as well that Harbor Park is owned by the city of Norfolk, and subsequently covered by preemption. There is always a strong police presence there, but I have carried there numerous times without incident.

I wasn't drinking, but I wouldn't put it past any of the officers working there to arrest someone under the guise of the multiple establishments serving food and ice cold beer as constituting a restaurant. Hell, they might even say the same about the vendors who walk the stands. Norfolk is about as unfriendly as they come, and they will go to just about any length to arrest an otherwise LAC to "teach them a lesson".

This is just my opinion, but I would think that the only portion that would be considered a restaurant would be the Hits at the Park place back behind right field.

FretlessMayhem said:

This is just my opinion, but I would think that the only portion that would be considered a restaurant would be the Hits at the Park place back behind right field.

Click to expand...

There are a whole boatload of ABC licenses one may obtain. http://www.abc.virginia.gov/licensing/liccost.htm Just because the word "Restaurant" appears in the description does not mean that any venue with that type of license is, for ABC purposes, a "restaurant". Look at all the other types of businesses the venue could be.

According to this http://www.abc.virginia.gov/licenseeSearch/jsp/controller.jsp Harbor Park has two licenses - one for the concessions (license # 58853 Food Concession Stadium) and another (#58857 Restaurant non-government property) for the restaurant. While none of this will prevent the Norfolk PD's employees from arresting whomever they desire, for whatever reason (or lack or reason), it does make getting a conviction more difficult.

As for the "voluntary surrender" status - I have no idea what that means. If they are still serving beer it probably means the licensee has the option of voluntarily giving up the license as opposed to it having been taken away by administrative action. Sometimes understanding and translating governmentese can be difficult.:banghead:

stay safe.

FretlessMayhem said:

It is my understanding as well that Harbor Park is owned by the city of Norfolk, and subsequently covered by preemption.

Click to expand...

I may sound like a heretic for a moment, but the mere fact of public ownership of a property doesn't prevent the prohibition of firearms on that property. As stated in the Attorney General's opinion issued March 16, 2010, a private entity leasing public property is not covered by preemption and can prohibit possession of firearms on the property being leased.

That's why, for example, Inova Fairfax Hospital can ban firearms, even though Fairfax County owns the property. It is leased to Inova, which is a private non-profit. Similarly, while Harbor Park might be owned by the city of Norfolk, if it is leased to the Tides, and the Tides are a private entity, then the Tides would have the authority to prohibit firearms at Harbor Park.

However, as the AG pointed out, "it must be stated that a locality cannot circumvent the constitutional rights of citizens through the expedient of leasing government land to private entities who effectively act as agents for the local government." If the government leased the property out for the purpose of allowing the leasee to prohibit firearms, that would be a different question (one that was not answered).

grylnsmn said:

However, as the AG pointed out, "it must be stated that a locality cannot circumvent the constitutional rights of citizens through the expedient of leasing government land to private entities who effectively act as agents for the local government."

Click to expand...

And yet this is exactly what is happening. The property is leased to the management company to operate the venue in order to bring revenue to the City of Virginia Beach through the sale of admissions licenses (event tickets). The managerment company is hired either because the City of Virginia Beach believes the management company can do it cheaper, or more effectively/efficiently, than the City of Virginia Beach could. We learned much of this several years ago with the City of Norfolk and the City of Richmond. The AG's opinion cited applies to the lease of locality property to a private entity for the specific and narrow purpose of carrying out the activity of the private entity. (Specifically, a City of Alerxandria park leased to the American Red Cross to provide a location for ARC to hold an ARC function that only marginally connected with any City of Alexandria governmental function/purpose.) The purpose of rental fees/permit fees is to cover the costs of preparing and cleaning up the venue and ensuring that the locality is properly reimbursed for all the other administrative costs involved in renting out the venue. It is not to raise revenues for the locality.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

And yet this is exactly what is happening. The property is leased to the management company to operate the venue in order to bring revenue to the City of Virginia Beach through the sale of admissions licenses (event tickets). The managerment company is hired either because the City of Virginia Beach believes the management company can do it cheaper, or more effectively/efficiently, than the City of Virginia Beach could. We learned much of this several years ago with the City of Norfolk and the City of Richmond. The AG's opinion cited applies to the lease of locality property to a private entity for the specific and narrow purpose of carrying out the activity of the private entity. (Specifically, a City of Alerxandria park leased to the American Red Cross to provide a location for ARC to hold an ARC function that only marginally connected with any City of Alexandria governmental function/purpose.) The purpose of rental fees/permit fees is to cover the costs of preparing and cleaning up the venue and ensuring that the locality is properly reimbursed for all the other administrative costs involved in renting out the venue. It is not to raise revenues for the locality.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Yes, the opinion specifically applies to leasing a property for a specific event, but the same principles outlined in the opinion would apply to any lease. It makes no differentiation as to whether the purpose is to make money for the locality.

And really, the opinion outlines what we would consider to be common sense if it were reversed the other way. If a locality were to own an apartment building, preemption would not prevent someone leasing an apartment from prohibiting firearms in their apartment, but it would prevent the management company (which would be hired as agents of the locality to administer the property) from prohibiting firearms anywhere on the property.

In the same way, if Harbor Park is outright leased to a private entity like the Tides, then the Tides are not subject to preemption. However, if the property is not leased, but instead the Tides are hired to run/manage the property and act as agents of the locality, then they are as bound by preemption as the locality is.

grylnsmn said:

In the same way, if Harbor Park is outright leased to a private entity like the Tides, then the Tides are not subject to preemption. However, if the property is not leased, but instead the Tides are hired to run/manage the property and act as agents of the locality, then they are as bound by preemption as the locality is.

Click to expand...

Begs the next question, who owns the Tides?

TFred

TFred said:

Begs the next question, who owns the Tides?

TFred

Click to expand...

According to Wiki, they are owned by Maryland Baseball Holding, LLC, which appears to be owned (or at least have been owned) by a private equity firm called Moag & Company. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that they are owned in whole or in part by any locality in Virginia.

The question then becomes what is the exact arrangement between the Norfolk Tides and the city of Norfolk. Is it a full-blown lease for the stadium, or is it merely an agreement to manage the property?

EDIT: There is one other possibility. It is possible that the Tides both have a contract to operate the park and also lease it out for specific events (i.e. games). During the events (games), they might then have different rights with relation to preemption than they would at other times. No cite, but just a speculation. It depends on the actual legal relationship and agreements.

grylnsmn said:

I may sound like a heretic for a moment, but the mere fact of public ownership of a property doesn't prevent the prohibition of firearms on that property. As stated in the Attorney General's opinion issued March 16, 2010, a private entity leasing public property is not covered by preemption and can prohibit possession of firearms on the property being leased.

That's why, for example, Inova Fairfax Hospital can ban firearms, even though Fairfax County owns the property. It is leased to Inova, which is a private non-profit. Similarly, while Harbor Park might be owned by the city of Norfolk, if it is leased to the Tides, and the Tides are a private entity, then the Tides would have the authority to prohibit firearms at Harbor Park.

However, as the AG pointed out, "it must be stated that a locality cannot circumvent the constitutional rights of citizens through the expedient of leasing government land to private entities who effectively act as agents for the local government." If the government leased the property out for the purpose of allowing the leasee to prohibit firearms, that would be a different question (one that was not answered).

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think the question about Inova Fairfax Hospital has been resolved as, if I remember correctly, they are an "authority" - authorities are not allowed to to regulate guns.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

Grapeshot said:

Actually, I don't think the question about Inova Fairfax Hospital has been resolved as, if I remember correctly, they are an "authority" - authorities are not allowed to to regulate guns.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915

Click to expand...

According to the Virginia State Corporations Commission, there is an active, non-stock corporation (# 0248225-5) named "Inova Alexandria Health Services Corporation", with main offices at the same address listed for offices for Inova Fairfax Hospital (8110 Gatehouse Rd Suite 200, Falls Church, VA). The Inova Board of Trustees doesn't appear to list anyone I've identified as involved in local government.

On the other hand, I haven't been able to find any documents referring to Inova as an authority. Everything I've found refers to them as an non-profit corporation.

grylnsmn said:

According to the Virginia State Corporations Commission, there is an active, non-stock corporation (# 0248225-5) named "Inova Alexandria Health Services Corporation", with main offices at the same address listed for offices for Inova Fairfax Hospital (8110 Gatehouse Rd Suite 200, Falls Church, VA). The Inova Board of Trustees doesn't appear to list anyone I've identified as involved in local government.

On the other hand, I haven't been able to find any documents referring to Inova as an authority. Everything I've found refers to them as an non-profit corporation.

Click to expand...

[h=3]Virginia Hospitals[/h]va.hospitalscenter.com/
Alexandria, VA 22304 ... This facility is a hosiptal district/authority run by government run acute care hospital ... This facility is a privately owned for profit business run acute care hospital; Inova Fair Oaks Hospital .... This facility is a state government run acute care hospital; Pioneer Health Services of Patrick County,Inc ...

PDF] $344850000* INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ...

www.dacbond.com/GetContent?dctm_r_object_id...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
by and among the Authority and one or more of Inova Health System Foundation (“Inova”), Inova Health Care Services (the “Corporation”), Inova Alexandria ...

http://healthieralexandria.org/content.aspx?id=29864

Inova Health System
Fairfax County Industrial Dev. Auth., VA
http://www.bondsonline.com/print/Todays_Market/Credit_Rating_News_.php?DA=view&RID=9000

Inova Health System acquires Loudoun Healthcare Inc - Mar 08 ...

www.alacrastore.com/.../Inova_Health_System_acquires_Loudoun_...
US - Inova Health System merged with Loudoun Healthcare Inc, an owner and operator ... Services, Inova Alexandria Health Services Corp., Inova Alexandria Hospital, ... Fairfax County Industrial Development Authority, Virginia Inova Health ...

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/bacs/fairfax_board.asp?lookup=22006

Grapeshot said:

[h=3]Virginia Hospitals[/h]va.hospitalscenter.com/
Alexandria, VA 22304 ... This facility is a hosiptal district/authority run by government run acute care hospital ... This facility is a privately owned for profit business run acute care hospital; Inova Fair Oaks Hospital .... This facility is a state government run acute care hospital; Pioneer Health Services of Patrick County,Inc ...

Click to expand...

If you look at that page, it lists all of the hospitals in Virginia, along with their status. The following are all of the Inova hospitals:

Inova Alexandria Hospital
4320 Seminary Rd
Alexandria, VA 22304
This facility is a not for profit privately operated entity run acute care hospital

Inova Mount Vernon Hospital
2501 Parkers Lane
Alexandria, VA 22306
This facility is an other non-profit organization run acute care hospital

Inova Fair Oaks Hospital
3600 Joseph Siewick Drive
Fairfax, VA 22033
This facility is an other non-profit organization run acute care hospital

Inova Fairfax Hospital
3300 Gallows Rd
Falls Church, VA 22042
This facility is an other non-profit organization run acute care hospital

Contrast that with Chesapeake General Hospital, which was a topic of a previous thread:
Chesapeake General Hospital
736 Battlefield Blvd North
Chesapeake, VA 23320
This facility is a hosiptal district/authority run by government run acute care hospital

None of the Inova hospitals is listed as being an authority.

Your other links all deal with the Industrial Development Authority of Fairfax County, Virginia. Fairfax County describes it on their site thus:

Purpose:
To enter into loan agreements, contracts, deeds, and other instruments for the purpose of financing and refinancing certain facilities, including medical facilities and other facilities owned and operated or used by organizations described in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. To protect and promote health and welfare of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia and to issue its revenue bonds for such purposes. The Authority does this through its involvement with all Inova hospitals; Inova Fair Oaks, Inova Fairfax, Inova Mt. Vernon and Inova Alexandria as well as the Authority's involvement at the Loudoun Hospital Center. The Authority helps to introduce resolutions for Inova Health System Review Bonds for the benefit of the Inova Health Sytem.

All of that is consistent with the fact that Fairfax County owns the hospital itself, and Inova only leases it. It's no different than if I lease an apartment, the property owner is the one usually responsible for any improvements or repairs to the property (unless caused by my negligence). That doesn't legally make Inova an authority covered by preemption.

grylnsmn said:

....

Your other links all deal with the Industrial Development Authority of Fairfax County, Virginia. Fairfax County describes it on their site thus:

Purpose:
To enter into loan agreements, contracts, deeds, and other instruments for the purpose of financing and refinancing certain facilities, including medical facilities and other facilities owned and operated or used by organizations described in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. To protect and promote health and welfare of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Virginia and to issue its revenue bonds for such purposes. The Authority does this through its involvement with all Inova hospitals; Inova Fair Oaks, Inova Fairfax, Inova Mt. Vernon and Inova Alexandria as well as the Authority's involvement at the Loudoun Hospital Center. The Authority helps to introduce resolutions for Inova Health System Review Bonds for the benefit of the Inova Health Sytem.

All of that is consistent with the fact that Fairfax County owns the hospital itself, and Inova only leases it. It's no different than if I lease an apartment, the property owner is the one usually responsible for any improvements or repairs to the property (unless caused by my negligence). That doesn't legally make Inova an authority covered by preemption.

Click to expand...

And yet the situation you describe, and the funding scheme related, are exactly the same as the infamous Norfolk case of a few years ago in which it was decided that the property was in fact controlled by the state's preemption law. Admittedly the case cannot be used as precedent but it can be used as an example of the line of reasoning.

As for your examplar of a public housing unit rented by a private individual - it does not apply as the unit is not being rented for the purpose of atttracting members of the general public to pay money in return for admission and other inducements and benefits. Harbor Park, on the other hand, is being used for exactly that purpose.

stay safe.

va.hospitalscenter.com/
Alexandria, VA 22304 ... This facility is a hosiptal district/authority run by government run acute care hospital ... This facility is a privately owned for profit business run acute care hospital; Inova Fair Oaks Hospital .... This facility is a state government run acute care hospital

Funding and leasing schemes are but smoke and mirrors. Renting a house or apartment are not comparable - private use and public not invited.

By your argument, the city could lease City Hall to a private entity, who in turn would exclude all that it desired: gun owners, non-residents and people with red shirts.

I do know that many of the old links have been sanitized, 404 error, no longer available - that alone is enough to make me suspicious
of what is left.

Grapeshot said:

va.hospitalscenter.com/
Alexandria, VA 22304 ... This facility is a hosiptal district/authority run by government run acute care hospital ... This facility is a privately owned for profit business run acute care hospital; Inova Fair Oaks Hospital .... This facility is a state government run acute care hospital

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are selectively quoting here. The hospitals that the comments you bolded apply to are not run by Inova. I already posted what they list for each of the Inova hospitals (no ellipses needed). Inova is not defined as an authority, nor is it run by the state or local government. That does make a difference.

Just because some of the hospitals on that list are run by the government doesn't mean that all of them are. For example, Reston Hospital Center is a private hospital. Mary Immaculate Hospital in Newport News is also private.

Grapeshot said:

Funding and leasing schemes are but smoke and mirrors. Renting a house or apartment are not comparable - private use and public not invited.

Click to expand...

If I were to rent a storefront in a building that happened to be owned by the locality the same principle would apply. I could legally prohibit the carrying of firearms in my store, even if it is owned by the government, because as the leasee I have legal control of the property. The fact that it is open to the public doesn't change that.

Grapeshot said:

By your argument, the city could lease City Hall to a private entity, who in turn would exclude all that it desired: gun owners, non-residents and people with red shirts.

Click to expand...

The answer there is "it depends". If the city hires a private entity to act as its agent (i.e. to run City Hall), then they are bound by the same restrictions as the city itself is. However, if they were to lease it out to a private entity for the private entity to run as they see fit, for something other than a direct government purpose*, then that private entity has a lot more leeway than the government themselves would have.

For example, the City of Fairfax still owns the Old Town Hall in the center of town. They currently rent it out for specific events (such as my cousin's wedding reception many years ago). Because of preemption, the city cannot prohibit carry in the building (although individual events can). However, if they were instead to rent the building out to a law firm to use as their offices, that law firm (even if open to the public) could prohibit carry there.

Grapeshot said:

I do know that many of the old links have been sanitized, 404 error, no longer available - that alone is enough to make me suspicious of what is left.

Click to expand...

Just because you are suspicious doesn't mean that they are an authority, which means that barring a court ruling that they are one, they don't fall under preemption at this time. We might want them to, but that is a different matter.

* A lot would turn on whether or not operating a hospital is a direct government purpose. As there are private hospitals that also fulfill that purpose, it could easily be argued that the operation of a hospital is not a necessary government function, and therefore the leasing of the hospital to a private non-profit doesn't make that non-profit an agent of the government.