BD / SCV Open Rehearsals?

[BRASSO]

I don't think it's to much of a big deal either way.

Oh, I agree with this assesment too.. its no big deal.

I was only stating that the assumption we sometimes hear that because a Corps rents a public facility that this automatically gives them the legal right to " keep everyone out " is by no means settled law. But for practical purposes, if nobody challenges the issue, then, you are correct, its essentially a non issue, Besides, as I mentioned above, most Corps do allow fans to attend their outdoor practices, so its really is.... not an issue.

[Everyfan]

Oh, I agree with this assesment too.. its no big deal.

I was only stating that the assumption we sometimes hear that because a Corps rents a public facility that this automatically gives them the legal right to " keep everyone out " is by no means settled law. But for practical purposes, if nobody challenges the issue, then, you are correct, its essentially a non issue, Besides, as I mentioned above, most Corps do allow fans to attend their outdoor practices, so its really is.... not an issue.

So, can I demand that my city unlock the doors to the city owned center where many public events are held so I can walk indoors when it is raining? Am I allowed to just walk in and wander around the place when it is rented for a fundraiser or even a private wedding? You are saying that as a "public" place, I should. Just because a place is owned by "the public" does not mean it is open to the public. There are may publicly owned places that are not open to everyone for many reasons. I agree that if a place is open to the public, you cannot discriminate regarding who can use the facility, but if it is not naormally open to the public (even if publicly owned) you CAN limit who has access.

[BRASSO]

So, can I demand that my city unlock the doors to the city owned center where many public events are held so I can walk indoors when it is raining? Am I allowed to just walk in and wander around the place when it is rented for a fundraiser or even a private wedding?

Yup. You could.

It might take a judge order and or ruling to do so however ( by then the rains stops, or the urge to gawk at an alleged " private wedding " abates ). And of course, it mostly depends on the situation too.

For example, people used to think that because they own private property on an ocean beach that they own that beach and that beach is therefore private, and for them alone. But not so in some states. As a matter of fact, in the state of Florida, there is no such thing as a " private ocean beach ". Ocean beaches in Florida are ALL public beaches. The state's Courts ruled several years back that the ccean is " public ". Therefore a person's denial to that ocean beach is impermissable by private owners of property on that beach. This ruling initially did become problematic, because noone also has a legal right to walk on that person's private property to get to that beach. SO.... as a follow up ruling, the Florida courts mandated that all beachfront communities in the state of Florida set up public access points every few hundred yards so that the public can access the public's ocean. Other states have similar laws. But not all states do at the present time. As for " private weddings " that you mention here, such " private weddings " here as well are determined by how " private " the setting really is. For example, on the ocean beaches in Florida, it is not unusual to see uninvited gawkers walking around right on the beach where the groom and bride are taking their wedding vows. So sure, it is possible to just wander in and wander around both public and alleged private places where its just assumed ( inaccurately in some cases ) that there is automatically protected privacy there, or that local government officials can automatically keep the public out, simply because they say they choose to.

Edited May 3, 2016 by BRASSO

[Everyfan]

Yup. You could.

It might take a judge order and or ruling to do so however ( by then the rains stops, or the urge to gawk at an alleged " private wedding " abates ). And of course, it mostly depends on the situation too.

For example, people used to think that because they own private property on an ocean beach that they own that beach and that beach is therefore private, and for them alone. But not so in some states. As a matter of fact, in the state of Florida, there is no such thing as a " private ocean beach ". Ocean beaches in Florida are ALL public beaches. The state's Courts ruled several years back that the ccean is " public ". Therefore a person's denial to that ocean beach is impermissable by private owners of property on that beach. This ruling initially did become problematic, because noone also has a legal right to walk on that person's private property to get to that beach. SO.... as a follow up ruling, the Florida courts mandated that all beachfront communities in the state of Florida set up public access points every few hundred yards so that the public can access the public's ocean. Other states have similar laws. But not all states do at the present time. As for " private weddings " that you mention here, such " private weddings " here as well are determined by how " private " the setting really is. For example, on the ocean beaches in Florida, it is not unusual to see uninvited gawkers walking around right on the beach where the groom and bride are taking their wedding vows. So sure, it is possible to just wander in and wander around both public and alleged private places where its just assumed ( inaccurately in some cases ) that there is automatically protected privacy there, or that local government officials can automatically keep the public out, simply because they say they choose to.

Cool. I am headed out to wander around my local police department. I hear they have a cool armory and shooting range that they must let me access...it is a "publicly owned" facility and all. I get what you are saying, but I believe that the government (federal, state or local) has the ability to make these "public" spaces unavailable to the general public. I have never seen any court ruling that says otherwise.

Next stop...Area 51!!!

[BRASSO]

Cool. I am headed out to wander around my local police department. I hear they have a cool armory and shooting range that they must let me access...it is a "publicly owned" facility and all. I get what you are saying, but I believe that the government (federal, state or local) has the ability to make these "public" spaces unavailable to the general public. I have never seen any court ruling that says otherwise.

Next stop...Area 51!!!

I guess.... actually I know..... that you missed my stated phrase above of " it mostly depends on the situation " as to whether or not people have access to what is alleged to be " private facilities" or that the government can just state that the public can not use public facilities of their choosing because they said so. I just gave you an example where beaches that used to be deemed " private beaches" ( signs were posted as such too and received the imprimatur of local public officials ), and the public told to keep out and had no rights at ANY times to use these alleged private beaches. But what did we learn ? You gave a much different example now ( a police station ) . But here the public safety has been determined by the courts to be the overarching importance than an individual's right to a willy nilly access to a police station facility ( not exactly a football field ). As for your quip " next stop.. Area 51!! ", ironically you are seemingly unaware that while the public does not have physical access to a facility that is owned by the US Defense Dept( US courts have routinely granted US Defense facilities broad discretionary powers to keep out unauthorized personnel at ALL Defense Dept. facilities) the public does now have access to governmental documents, research papers, maps, graphs, re. Area 51 under the " Freedom of Information Act ", that for decades those documents, maps, etc were considered off limits to the public. Finally, you must also not be paying much attention to what public officials are doing in North Carolina regarding physical access of the public to public facilities. Just because local officials pass an ordinance " to keep the public out " in some manner does not mean its legal, nor that it passes judicial muster, if challenged. It might. It might not. " It mostly depends on the situation ", as I said above, and only time and the Courts tell us definitively on these matters.

Edited May 4, 2016 by BRASSO

[84BDsop]

Oh, the irony of learning of Calif. politicians deciding to build tall fences to wall off any unapproved anauthorizeds from getting thru to areas the Calif. politicians believe they do not belong in...... and citing " safety reasons " as one of the rationales.

You're forgetting security...stuff gets stolen out of facilities sometimes. A corps renting a school DOES have the right to protect the assets of itself and it's members, in addition to protecting the safety of it;s members.

[84BDsop]

It can be either very warm but most likely windy and cool toward the evenings.

Warm and cool?

Methinks you've never actually BEEN there.

Surface of the sun in the day/arctic winter at night are FAR more accurate....ask any alum.

[c mor]

Yes, Sam.

From the beginning.....it was so.

Sweatpants to start, for the first 30 minutes.

Shorts, or just boxers to blistering noon.

After lunch - WIND

When the sun goes down, temp plummets. sweatpants back on under the jeans, and down jacket.

There is a Mars video in their media box from 2009 I think...

I can't post a link, but it is a pretty funny vid.

Mars is JOY!

Edited May 4, 2016 by c mor

[GUARDLING]

You're forgetting security...stuff gets stolen out of facilities sometimes. A corps renting a school DOES have the right to protect the assets of itself and it's members, in addition to protecting the safety of it;s members.

On tour in 2011 we saw some pit equipment stolen wayyyyyyyyyy back field where the pit was rehearsing before the dinner break . we actually saw them from the press box running but couldn't get to them fast enough. I think , in my experience , even public facilities I have rented and open to the general public those places are not open daily nor 24/7.

[BRASSO]

. A corps renting a school DOES have the right to protect the assets of itself and it's members, in addition to protecting the safety of it;s members.

Well... yes and no. The rights to protect" the safety", privacy and the assets of one, can sometimes run up against the rights of another to provide themselves equal protection of their rights. it would be a misnomer to believe that one's rights are seen in isolation to others rights. As such, " depending on the situation " courts have oftentimes had to make decisions when countervailing rights of others are in conflict with one another. As mentioned, public officials in several states ( up to 12 states now ) have denied public access to public facilities " in some situations ". Do the local public officials that enacted this denial of public facilities have the right to do so ?.... and for privacy and "safety" reasons, that they are citing for its law enactment ? Well, maybe..... maybe not. The courts will ultimately decide. So in the meantime, we learn from this that simply because local public officials put up a law that forbids entry to a public facility under the guise of " safety " ..and privacy reasons, etc.. and enacts punishments to violators of their law, that thats the end of it, and that the public ( or any segment of it ) has no legal access to that public facility, is by no means the end of it, nor is it neccesarily settled law either.

Edited May 4, 2016 by BRASSO