Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: city property as private property

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Just a quick question for the legal eagles here.

    If somehow Nichols angle should succeed in the courts, that city property is really like private property, and not "public". Wouldn't that open the door to further abuses of power, much larger in scale?

    For example, I can ask anyone to leave my property, anyone I don't like for what ever reason I have. Should the city be granted this freedom. Would it not be much easier for the city to practice discrimination against unwanted classes of people attempting to gather, or attend events.

    Obviously they wouldn't publish a no "insert favorite target group name here" wanted, butinformally they (city police)could randomly ask people to leave or be trespassed.

    Best Regards

    FM



  2. #2
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    Under normal circumstances the whole concept of govt property somehow being like private property would be laughed out of court, and society as a whole. But nowadays everything seems open to interpretation and "common sense" (as in "common sense dictates that parks should be a safe place and therefore free of firearms).

    So, I'd say yes - if we continue sliding down this slope, all bets are off. I'm sure that "right wing extremists" would have a tough time gathering in public places if all of a sudden the public places were recast as equivalent to private property in the context of govt controlling lawful activities authorized to take place on such property.

    George Orwell would be proud.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    If somehow Nichols angle should succeed in the courts, that city property is really like private property, and not "public".
    He's not making that argument.

    His argument is that as the property owner, the city has the authority to set rules for conduct just like any other property owner.

    This issue is about the authority of the City as property owner, not the public or private status of the property.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If somehow Nichols angle should succeed in the courts, that city property is really like private property, and not "public".
    He's not making that argument.

    His argument is that as the property owner, the city has the authority to set rules for conduct just like any other property owner.

    This issue is about the authority of the City as property owner, not the public or private status of the property.
    The argument that they can set such conduct rules doesn't pass the giggle test. If that were true, a city would be allowed to make dress code, including that related to free speech, a condition for park entry. Imagine a sign that said "religious and political attire banned." People supporting the ban could argue that "there's no need to wear your religion or politics when out in public. Such religious and political leanings imbue impure thought upon the children, and leave them at risk of following a different theistic or political bent. If we allow children to continue down this path, they may end up firebombing family planning clinics or blowing up themselves and those around them. Sure, it's your right, but only at home, if you need to show how proud you are of your religion or politician, it's obvious you suffer from small penis syndrome."

    It seems laughable, but that's essentially the argument being made - you're choosing to engage in an activity that makes me uncomfortable. I own the property, so I will limit that choice as a contingency for your use. If this stands up in court, we lose a lot more than the right to keep and bear arms, it opens the door for parallel arguments to be made about any other enumerated right to be abridged by the city as a "rule" (truly, an ordinance) for use of "their" (really, the public's) property.

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    In my hypothetical POV, it seems to me to be other side of the same coin.

    "His argument is that as the property owner, the city has the authority to set rules for conduct just like any other property owner."

    So by agreeing to this premise, now they (the city) havethe same rights as private property owners.As a private property owner, I can post a no gunswelcome sign. I understand I can ask anyone to leave. I just wanted to understand better what would stop the city from acting in the same manner? I'm not certain that there would be a restriction on this to "posted rules of conduct".

    It seems a great opportunity for abuse to me, but I just wanted to read what others think about it.

    Regards




  6. #6
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If somehow Nichols angle should succeed in the courts, that city property is really like private property, and not "public".
    He's not making that argument.

    His argument is that as the property owner, the city has the authority to set rules for conduct just like any other property owner.

    This issue is about the authority of the City as property owner, not the public or private status of the property.
    I see your point, but it does seem like a distinction without a difference. It seems like the "public property" concept and the reason for making a distinction between public and private property include usage of the property as an intrinsic factor. At best, the current mayoral effort is a thinly-veiled attempt to do an end run around the basic concept.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    FamilyMan wrote:
    In my hypothetical POV, it seems to me to be other side of the same coin.

    "His argument is that as the property owner, the city has the authority to set rules for conduct just like any other property owner."

    So by agreeing to this premise, now they (the city) havethe same rights as private property owners.As a private property owner, I can post a no gunswelcome sign. I understand I can ask anyone to leave. I just wanted to understand better what would stop the city from acting in the same manner? I'm not certain that there would be a restriction on this to "posted rules of conduct".

    It seems a great opportunity for abuse to me, but I just wanted to read what others think about it.

    Regards


    The city, as a government, has constitutional and state-imposed limitations on its powers. Among those limits are restrictions on how they may restrict your rights.


    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •