DooFster
Regular Member
http://library.municode.com/HTML/14787/level2/TIT12MIRE_CH12.02SPEV.html
---
Section F there doesn't seem to be terribly useful, but there is no implication of the public street becoming "not public".
---
---
No mention of the use being granted exclusively.
---
---
So they failed miserably at this. Now I know for next time. If they can't produce a permit, then don't let them off the hook.
---
---
So this is interesting. Preemption would apply here, methinks.
In any case, in the whole section of the municipal code, I could not find anything that make the public street private. I could not find anything that states that they are permitted to demand bag searches. I DID see a section that mentions that they can, as part of their permit, charge a fee. So I am not sure how that works, when the event is held on public property.
The way I am interpreting this, the permit allows them to use the public space for their event. I see nothing in the Munipal Code that says anything about that space being privately held during the validity period of their permit. It is permitting them to have their event, not granting them exclusivity. Yeah, that's the word I was looking for.
---
So a quick search of "Vegas Streats" on the CLV website Business License page returns what appear to be very short business licenses, all showing an "Out of Business" status. The operator is probably doing a 1 day business license or something, 'cause there seems to be a unique entry for each month. The name Ricardo Guerrero is listed in several places, along with Slidin Thru LLC. He is listed as the Managing Member of the LLC.
http://www.lvrj.com/business/slidin-thru-ready-to-expand-from-truck-to-restaurants-135308448.html
So the permittee is Slidin Thru LLC, with his name attached. Next time around, they need to be able to produce an event permit on the spot.
---
I noticed while we were there that there are two distinct areas of the event, the part that is out on 6th st, which is clearly public property, and a part that runs through what amounts to a sidewalk and parking lot strip that runs between LV Blvd and 6th. That strip of property is owned by Exber, Inc, which is the parent company of the El Cortez. So, for the moment, that section can be reasonably called private property. There might be an argument later that they have conceded their private property rights by allowing it to be a public footpath and parking area (an argument the smut-peddlers have used, successfully), but for now, I'm just going to concern myself with the 6th st part.
So, the fencing was set up such that you had to go through a search to get into the event area, but it routed you directly into the Private Property (Exber) part. You can't access the 6th St part without going through the private property area, which I think could probably be remedied.
So, I think the bottom line here is whether the event permit grants them exclusive right to control access to what would normally be public property. If it does, then this is not an OC issue, it's a "And just who the hell thought THAT would be okay" kind of problem. I'm gonna email the Permit office and ask them about the exclusivity part, and see what they say. We'll go from there.
So here's my question: were we right in what we were doing, and should they have kicked us out in the manner that they did, minus the LVMPD Sergeant??
Sent from my LG-P925 using Tapatalk 2