Chesapeake General Hospital Public Hospital - Claiming to be private property

[Grapeshot]

imported post

kennys wrote:

From what I am seeing the Chesapeake Hospitol Authority owns the land. This is a snip of what I found about them.

http://dls.state.va.us/lrc/authorities/Chesapeake%20Hospital.pdf

TFred this is what I got back about an hour ago from a e-mail I sent this morning.

I do not see this being limited to the land only at all - real and personal property is included IMO.

BTW - from that link the following:

§ 3. The Authority shall be deemed to be a public instrumentality, exercising public and essential governmental functions to provide for the public health, welfare, convenience and prosperity of the residents of the City of Chesapeake and such other persons who might be served by the Authority (“its service area”) and to provide improved medical care and related services to such residents and persons and is hereby authorized to exercise the powers conferred by the following sections. (1966, c. 271; 1987, c. 396)

Yata hey

 

[kennys]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

kennys wrote:

From what I am seeing the Chesapeake Hospitol Authority owns the land. This is a snip of what I found about them.

http://dls.state.va.us/lrc/authorities/Chesapeake%20Hospital.pdf

TFred this is what I got back about an hour ago from a e-mail I sent this morning.

I do not see this being limited to the land only at all - real and personal property is included IMO.

BTW - from that link the following:

§ 3. The Authority shall be deemed to be a public instrumentality, exercising public and essential governmental functions to provide for the public health, welfare, convenience and prosperity of the residents of the City of Chesapeake and such other persons who might be served by the Authority (“its service area”) and to provide improved medical care and related services to such residents and persons and is hereby authorized to exercise the powers conferred by the following sections. (1966, c. 271; 1987, c. 396)

Yata hey

I see you caught that too.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

kennys wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

kennys wrote:

From what I am seeing the Chesapeake Hospitol Authority owns the land. This is a snip of what I found about them.

http://dls.state.va.us/lrc/authorities/Chesapeake%20Hospital.pdf

TFred this is what I got back about an hour ago from a e-mail I sent this morning.

I do not see this being limited to the land only at all - real and personal property is included IMO.

BTW - from that link the following:

§ 3. The Authority shall be deemed to be a public instrumentality, exercising public and essential governmental functions to provide for the public health, welfare, convenience and prosperity of the residents of the City of Chesapeake and such other persons who might be served by the Authority (“its service area”) and to provide improved medical care and related services to such residents and persons and is hereby authorized to exercise the powers conferred by the following sections. (1966, c. 271; 1987, c. 396)

Yata hey

I see you caught that too.

Perhaps someone local could contact the Chesapeake City Attorney with these cites in hand.

Yata hey

 

[peter nap]

imported post

It is NOT private property.

I just checked the records and it is in the name of Chesapake Hospital Authority

 

[user]

imported post

No question in my mind, based on what y'all have said. If it's an "authority or ...local governmental entity, including a department or agency", then "no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the ... possession,... ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute." Va. Code section 15.1-915.

You've got to put them on notice that they're not in compliance, otherwise, what they do is not "in bad faith". If you're challenging behavior, as opposed to an ordinance, you have to show that it was in bad faith in order to recover attorneys' fees. Don't send a "lawyer letter", because the person sending the letter needs to be able to act as a witness at trial.

If you merely printed off excerpts from this thread with a short "I thought you should be aware of this..." note and send it to the chairman of the board of directors, or some such person, that's sufficient notice to the hospital.

Besides, it doesn't matter whether the land is owned by the hospital or not. Even if they rented it out from some private person, it wouldn't make any difference, because the hospital itself is a public agency.

By the way, stopping a gun owner at the entrance, and interfering with his care of his child, is an "arrest". Any time a person is faced with intimidation or threat such that they are not "free to leave", that's an "arrest" (an old Norman French word that simply means, "stop"). False arrest is unlawful and tortious. I wouldn't take the case on a contingent fee basis, but the statute cited above does say that the award of attorneys' fees is in addition to any other relief awarded. If there was any suggestion of a threat of an improper touch, that's also an assault. ("Offer or threat to engage in the offensive, unprivileged touching of the person of another without cause, justification, or excuse."; often confused with battery, which is requires the actual touch.)

It just occurred to me, as well, that the act of lying about the nature of the ownership was a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, section 59.1-200(14). A public entity doesn't have sovereign immunity if it's proprietary in nature, rather than administrative or ministerial.

There is a specific procedure for suing a municipal corporation that requires certified mail to their attorney, I think it has to be six months ahead of the filing, if I remember correctly. Such a letter could be sufficient notice.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

It is NOT private property.

I just checked the records and it is in the name of Chesapake Hospital Authority

Does this not remind you of the Wateside style debacle?

Of course they are public and subject to preemption, but they say they are not. Doesn't that make it so? :banghead:

Do they have a cafeteria?

Yata hey

 

[Mike]

imported post

user wrote:

Besides, it doesn't matter whether the land is owned by the hospital or not. Even if they rented it out from some private person, it wouldn't make any difference, because the hospital itself is a public agency.

Right, a lot of people for some reason see the word "land" in the preemption statute when it is not there - the issue is whether the local authority is making and enforcing an ultra vires policy.

 

[darthmord]

imported post

TFred wrote:

Did we ever figure out what happens if an "authority" rents property from a private owner? If that private owner can
prohibit, what's to keep the authority from just asking them to do so, to circumvent the law?

TFred

I would think that by renting / leasing the property, they are requiring the owner to make all the required allowances necessary for the public entity to function lawfully.

Sort of like how a private office building that requires firearms has to toe the line for federal restrictions in the spaces leased / rented for federal use.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Before you get too excited about winning this, remember that Virginia law allows for creation of these "Authorities" as quasi government organizations. Park authorities are s good example. If the government does not actually FUNDD them then they can be considered as private entities performing a governmental function, and that may exempt them from the relevant code sections. Get a copy of their charter.

Regards

 

[Mike]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Before you get too excited about winning this, remember that Virginia law allows for creation of these "Authorities" as quasi government organizations. Park authorities are s good example. If the government does not actually FUNDD them then they can be considered as private entities performing a governmental function, and that may exempt them from the relevant code sections.

Why would this be? I never heard of it, and besides, even a purely private entity performing a governmental function or acting as an agent of the government must obey constitutoinal and statutory restrictions on state action.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Before you get too excited about winning this, remember that Virginia law allows for creation of these "Authorities" as quasi government organizations. Park authorities are s good example. If the government does not actually FUNDD them then they can be considered as private entities performing a governmental function, and that may exempt them from the relevant code sections.

Why would this be?  I never heard of it, and besides, even a purely private entity performing a governmental function or acting as an agent of the government must obey constitutoinal and statutory restrictions on state action.

Just as an example, the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority is NOT part of either the state or local park system. It is outside of either. In fact it could be considered as federal because they do get federal monies. So places like Bull run park, Algonkian, Bull run Marina, and Fountainhead are not subject to the same regulations as places like Burke Lake (Fairfax County Parks), Prince William Forest (Federal), Locust Shade (Prince William County Parks). But because NVRPA gets funding from the local county governments it does have to follow public entity restrictions.

These authorities can have separate taxing authority with sanction of the legislature, and they stand outside the normal restrictions in other areas. Only if they actually get funding from a governmental entity can they be forced to adhere to the same restriction that apply to government.

Check out this article. It tells part of the story you need to understand.

Regards

 

[Mike]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

These authorities can have separate taxing authority with sanction of the legislature, and they stand outside the normal restrictions in other areas. Only if they actually get funding from a governmental entity can they be forced to adhere to the same restriction that apply to government.

Check out this article. It tells part of the story you need to understand.

You are confused - the article pertains to the concept of sovereign immunity under Virginia law and if anything stands for the proposition that local authorities are in fact terated as municipal corporations under the law - local authorities are local authorities regardless of where they get their money, and the NOVA park authority is a local authority and they know they are preempte by 15.2-915 and have taken specific action to repeal their old preempted gun banning regulations.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Well read it for yourself - it basically states that the City of Chesapeake is the owner and legal authority etc, et al, finis.

http://dls.state.va.us/lrc/authorities/Chesapeake%20Hospital.pdf

While IANAL, I do have a few friends that are.

Yata hey

 

[wylde007]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Before you get too excited about winning this, remember that Virginia law allows for creation of these "Authorities" as quasi government organizations. Park authorities are s good example.

Could School Boards be of a similar character?

They are municipal entities, but they have their own attorney staff, directives, annual budgets and real-property portfolio - all independent of the "city" that they function within.

Or is that an apples-to-oranges comparison?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

These authorities can have separate taxing authority with sanction of the legislature, and they stand outside the normal restrictions in other areas. Only if they actually get funding from a governmental entity can they be forced to adhere to the same restriction that apply to government.

Check out this article. It tells part of the story you need to understand.

You are confused - the article pertains to the concept of sovereign immunity under Virginia law and if anything stands for the proposition that local authorities are in fact terated as municipal corporations under the law - local authorities are local authorities regardless of where they get their money, and the NOVA park authority is a local authority and they know they are preempte by 15.2-915 and have taken specific action to repeal their old preempted gun banning regulations.

I am not confused, you are missing my point.

As I said there are comparisons between Park authorities and other types of locally created authorities. These entities are all over the place and they are not government entities in all cases.

You are lost in the specifics of the gun issue. While I have provided the sovereign immunity link as an example of the unexpected consequences of the formation of these organizations, I am not arguing that this particular hospital is sovereign. I am also NOT making any argument related to NVRPA and their firearms status. All I am trying to point out is that these authorities are held to different standards and laws than the governments of the jurisdictions that they serve. They are frequently held to be separate entities from the local government and so the same restrictions may not always apply that might with an outright governmental entity.

There were a number of court battles fought to establish what laws might apply to NVRPA in the 1970's and 80's. Because they had accepted federal funds a number of federal laws came into play that would not have otherwise.

The point I was trying to make here is that you cannot assume that simply because this hospital authority serves a seemingly governmental function, and that they are located in Virginia or even that they may be owned by a local government, that they are in fact a governmental entity that would be covered by the general prohibition on gun regulations that would apply to an actual governmental body. The courts will look at where they get their funding. If they do not get public funds, you may have to go to court to establish the actual status of the organization. This difference in legal status is one of the reasons local governments use "Authorities" to perform certain functions outside the normal governmental umbrella.

Regards

 

[kennys]

imported post

Don't know with this past ruling on another issue how they would be defined. I should have paid more attention in school and became a lawyer.

http://valawyersweekly.com/blog/2008/09/08/state-fund-can-recoup-from-hospital-authority/

 

[Mike]

imported post

kennys wrote:

Don't know with this past ruling on another issue how they would be defined. I should have paid more attention in school and became a lawyer.

http://valawyersweekly.com/blog/2008/09/08/state-fund-can-recoup-from-hospital-authority/

Thanks - looks like the authority we are talking about admits being a "municipal authority."

SNIP:

The Chesapeake Hospital Authority contested its liability under the net worth exception in Virginia Code § 38.2-1609, arguing that the statute authorized recovery of insurance payments only from “persons,” and as a municipal corporation, it was not a “person.”

 

[Virginiaplanter]

imported post

Prendergast v. Park Authority, 227 Va. 190 (1984). Park Authority is Under the Control of Local Governments Which Created Them.


[2] Moreover, even if the constitutional provision had predated the Act, that circumstance alone would not be sufficient to permit the trial court to conclude that an entity created pursuant to the Act is an "arm" of the Commonwealth. Some policies contained in the Constitution are stated more specifically than others but this does not mean that whenever the General Assembly legislates with regard to a specific constitutional policy any entity ultimately created to implement that policy will by that fact alone be clothed in the tort immunity of the Commonwealth. Such a result would lead to a hodgepodge of governmental entities, some immune in tort and others not immune, depending, not on the nature of the entity, but on whether it can point to a statement in the Constitution that specifically relates to the work of the particular entity. Such a procedure to determine whether a given entity is an arm of the government would do violence to the carefully crafted considerations that have evolved, in the cases, for this purpose.

[3] The correct approach is the one we have long employed in the Commonwealth: the attributes of the particular entity which seeks immunity must be examined to determine whether it is an "arm" of the Commonwealth. We employed this approach in VEPCO v. Hampton Red. Authority, 217 VA. 30, 225 S.E.2d 364 (1976), a case in which we concluded that the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority was not an arm of the Commonwealth. The issue there was whether the housing authority was immune from liability in tort for the operation and maintenance of a housing project. We decided that it was not immune. On the question whether the housing authority was an arm of the Commonwealth, we considered it significant that the Housing Authorities Law did not, in and of itself, create the housing authority. We said that "local activation, optional with each locality" was required. 217 Va. at 32, 225 S.E.2d at 367. We also noted that once the housing authority came into being, it was subject to substantial local control.

The Park Authority was not directly created by the Commonwealth. It is a creature of one or more localities and is essentially subject to their control. This fact was noted by the trial court in its letter opinion and conceded by counsel in oral argument. Indeed, the trial court stated that it made its ruling "despite the fact that the language of the Park Authorities Act and the Housing Authorities Act are in many respects identical." Here we are compelled by facts, similar to those in Hampton Red. Authority, to reach a similar conclusion. We hold that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Park Authority is not an arm of the Commonwealth."

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Before you get too excited about winning this, remember that Virginia law allows for creation of these "Authorities" as quasi government organizations. Park authorities are s good example.

Could School Boards be of a similar character?

They are municipal entities, but they have their own attorney staff, directives, annual budgets and real-property portfolio - all independent of the "city" that they function within.

Or is that an apples-to-oranges comparison?

IMO school boards are very much in the same situation - they cannot ban guns from their meetings/offices etc.........unless the meeting is held on K-12 school property.

Yata hey

 

[Renegade]

imported post

Hmmm...is this the correct address? It looks like it.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/cfmx/reis/details.cfm?TaxID=370000000011