BD / SCV Open Rehearsals?

[BRASSO]

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.

However, the fact that a public facility is not open 24-7 is not the basis upon which Courts typically rule on an individual's access to a public facility that local public officials may have enacted a law on. Courts generally are asked to decide which conflicting rights take precedent. To that extent, it is true that a renter of a public facility is typically accorded the right to " keep the public out " if they so choose. But is that right ironclad ? Hardly.... and again, would depend upon why some taxpayor believes they are denied their rights to entry to that public facility. In a practical sense, one can assume the burden would be on the plaintiff to convince the judge that their rights to use the public facility takes precedence over the larger group's quest for " safety " and " privacy " concerns. For example, the recent public facility usage law that North Carolinan legislators recently enacted for supposed group " safety & privacy protection rights "concerns, has these as its fundamental challenge of conflicting group rights with that of the bonafide rights of the Individual. These conflicting rights will ultimately not be decided by the local public officials, nor the electorate ( nor the media )..........but by the courts.

Edited May 4, 2016 by BRASSO

[GUARDLING]

However, the fact that a public facility is not open 24-7 is not the basis upon which Courts typically rule on an individual's access to a public facility that local public officials may have enacted a law on. Courts generally are asked to decide which conflicting rights take precedent. To that extent, it is true that a renter of a public facility is typically accorded the right to " keep the public out " if they so choose. But is that right ironclad ? Hardly.... and again, would depend upon why some taxpayor believes they are denied their rights to entry to that public facility. In a practical sense, one can assume the burden would be on the plaintiff to convince the judge that their rights to use the public facility takes precedence over the larger group's quest for " safety " and " privacy " concerns. For example, the recent public facility usage law that North Carolinan legislators recently enacted for supposed group " safety & privacy protection rights "concerns, has these as its fundamental challenge of conflicting group rights with that of the bonafide rights of the Individual. These conflicting rights will ultimately not be decided by the local public officials, nor the electorate ( nor the media )..........but by the courts.

I think this is yet another case of a solution looking for a problem. There isn't a thing in this sue crazed country of ours that can't be challenged now a days.

I think the Carolina issue is way different than a jogger wanting to get into a facility after hours or when in use or rented out. Iron clad today is an awful broad brush considering one can sue or take to court just about anything.

We are all tax payers but that doesnt give us the right to enter a place, even a public place against hours, when a private event is going on or often without an invitation. I think even as a taxpayer who help's to pay the salaries of the politicians and also paying for the dinner party at the white House doesn't give me the right to attend. JMO

As Ive said before, it's only my experience and i for sure have let people in to my events or rehearsals BUT there have been many times the sign goes up and rehearsal closed. This at times is my decision, sometimes the people i rented from. Many many times the community while on tour is sent a message to come and enjoy, even have snacks and a show and tell time.

A non issue i believe when either happens BUT you are right we can challenge anything we want and I suppose there are many out there who just love to put themselves in those positions.

From the other side of this , if it were me , only me, it's also about respect of those holding the event or rented the facility. If it says no entry, then I don't enter. This shouldn't be a big deal for the respectful or reasonable. I think there's plenty more in the world to challenge. jmo.

Edited May 4, 2016 by GUARDLING

[BRASSO]

We are all tax payers but that doesnt give us the right to enter a place, even a public place against hours, when a private event is going on or often without an invitation.

Actually, while you, others ( and me ) might agree with this sentiment, Courts have indeed ruled that the public ( taxpayors, and non taxpayors alike ) do have the right in many situations to enter what the public has deemed a private property, or public property, and without invitation too. I cited just one example above too. There are many others that could be cited.

To turn this on its head, the Courts have also ruled that the local public officials can take a private property that you own, and without your consent too. ( its called the Law of Eminent Domain ). So the Government can not only enter your private property, they sometimes have the right to take that house of yours, and that land of yours. Again, the courts look at what is deemed to them as the the overall "public good. "Thus, to assume that one can't access a public or even a presumed private facility because one has payed rent ( or a mortgage ) on a temporary basis is by no means a guarantee. I 've had a family member that once owned a home, payed mortgage on it, and believed as a result they could keep " the public out and off their property ". But boy, were they mistaken. The Court ruled that " for the public good " ( for a road ), the local public officials could enter the property, then take the property, then level the property, and make the family move out. So this notion that a renter of a public or private facility has broad powers to " keep the public out ", we can correctly say applies in some situations, but also not in other situations. The best answer thus is :.... " it all depends ". As for the country being " sue happy ", you have a point. On the other hand, if YOU feel you've been wronged, a lawyer can be your best friend, best asset, instead of attempting to fight city hall or the powers that be, all by yourself.

Edited May 5, 2016 by BRASSO

[GUARDLING]

Actually, while you, others ( and me ) might agree with this sentiment, Courts have indeed ruled that the public ( taxpayors, and non taxpayors alike ) do have the right in many situations to enter what the public has deemed a private property, or public property, and without invitation too. I cited just one example above too. There are many others that could be cited.

To turn this on its head, the Courts have also ruled that the local public officials can take a private property that you own, and without your consent too. ( its called the Law of Eminent Domain ). So the Government can not only enter your private property, they sometimes have the right to take that house of yours, and that land of yours. Again, the courts look at what is deemed to them as the the overall "public good. "Thus, to assume that one can't access a public or even a presumed private facility because one has payed rent ( or a mortgage ) on a temporary basis is by no means a guarantee. I 've had a family member that once owned a home, payed mortgage on it, and believed as a result they could keep " the public out and off their property ". But boy, were they mistaken. The Court ruled that " for the public good " ( for a road ), the local public officials could enter the property, then take the property, then level the property, and make the family move out. So this notion that a renter of a public or private facility has broad powers to " keep the public out ", we can correctly say applies in some situations, but also not in other situations. The best answer thus is :.... " it all depends ". As for the country being " sue happy ", you have a point. On the other hand, if YOU feel you've been wronged, a lawyer can be your best friend, best asset, instead of attempting to fight city hall or the powers that be, all by yourself.

I get what you are saying although i thin k it's gone off to extreme examples as well has nothing to do with someone entering a rehearsal . I don't think eminent domain is quite the same as well as I don't think the original question was talking about the government wanting to go into a rehearsal.

Like I said I think it's quite the opposite at sites while on tour ( which is also outside ) and I did state how many corps welcome the community, sometimes by invitation on a certain night so again IF there are nights where a corps wants that privacy I doubt anyone would challenge this ( let them if they have the time and resources ) and I i stated respect and being reasonable in judgement for me is foremost BUT you are right , there are those who drama and looking for a challenge they live for.

I think the original question about 2 specific corps have been answered .

[Everyfan]

I cited just one example above too. There are many others that could be cited.

Yes, yes yes. You have beaten us over the head with your "private beaches" story, but those were never actually "private." People assumed they could control access to the beach, but it was NEVER their property. Their property lines were defined in many public records and did not included those beaches.

Is there any actual case law that says a publicly owned facility like a community center or school cannot be "closed to the public?"

[BRASSO]

I think the original question about 2 specific corps have been answered .

Yes, way back on April 29th, at 2:13 pm, to be precise.

I stated then, on this very thread : ( quote ).... " In the end however, this is an exercise in thought only, as most corps do allow fans to attend their practices, particularly corps practices conducted outdoors ". Then in a follow up post later, I stated on here : ( quote ) " as I mentioned on here, this is not an issue" ( with these 2 Corps ). We then did have some civil thought discussions on the broader issue regarding privacy, safety issues as it relates to " keeping the public out " in both public/ private settings ( as an oblique follow up to last week's interesting thread topic, imo ) So it was a good exercise, imo, in a more broader vein on this " keeping the public out " thought process in different situations, I thought.

Edited May 5, 2016 by BRASSO

[GUARDLING]

Yes, way back on April 29th, at 2:13 pm, to be precise.

I stated then, on this very thread : ( quote ).... " In the end however, this is an exercise in thought only, as most corps do allow fans to attend their practices, particularly corps practices conducted outdoors ". Then in a follow up post later, I stated on here : ( quote ) " as I mentioned on here, this is not an issue" ( with these 2 Corps ). We then did have some civil thought discussions on the broader issue regarding privacy, safety issues as it relates to " keeping the public out " in both public/ private settings ( as an oblique follow up to last week's interesting thread topic, imo ) So it was a good exercise, imo, in a more broader vein on this " keeping the public out " thought process in different situations, I thought.

Yes you are right BUT as the original posters question has been answered I'll move on, sorry i didnt see what you had posted many pages ago. Conversation as you said is good. Looking for problems to fit solutions not so much IMO. Things tend to go very deep into the hypothetical sometimes and thats cool for some.

[BRASSO]

Yes, yes yes. You have beaten us over the head with your "private beaches" story, but those were never actually "private."

Who is " us " ? You have someone else beside you when you type your posts ?

As for the thread topic, it has been answered, as for your the " private beach " reply, public officials as well as private sub division communities in no less than 7 communities in the state of Florida had signs that stated " Private Beach... unauthorized personnel not allowed on the Beach ". ( or similar ). The Florida Courts ruled however upon legal challenge that these " keep out notices " were unlawful, and the Court made them take them down. The public before this time, assumed that they had no access to these beaches.. assumed the beach was private and because of the " keep out " sign. They naturally interpreted it this way. But they were wrong. This did have lawful access to the Beach, as the Ocean in all sections of Florida is deemed " Public ". The Florida Courts then mandated that ocean side communities set up public access points every few hundred yards. As it turned out, these alleged " private beaches " slowly began to see people on these beaches that were not there before. So thats that, and I don't know what more to tell you to convince you that public officials who enact laws that state " keep out " of this private ( or public ) facility, may or may not be acting lawfully. Courts decide these conflicting rights issues re. " keep out " laws, and postings. But yes,..... its true, we seem to have gotten a bit off track on these privacy, safety issues, access to public/ private facilities, etc that seems beyond the scope of Drum Corps, and particularly the public's access to the practices of these 2 Corps.

Edited May 5, 2016 by BRASSO

[Everyfan]

Who is " us " ? You have someone else beside you when you type your posts ?

As for the thread topic, it has been answered, as for your the " private beach " reply, public officials as well as private sub division communities in no less than 7 communities in the state of Florida had signs that stated " Private Beach... unauthorized personnel not allowed on the Beach ". ( or similar ). The Florida Courts ruled however upon legal challenge that these " keep out notices " were unlawful, and the Court made them take them down. The public before this time, assumed that they had no access to these beaches.. assumed the beach was private and because of the " keep out " sign. They naturally interpreted it this way. But they were wrong. This did have lawful access to the Beach, as the Ocean in all sections of Florida is deemed " Public ". The Florida Courts then mandated that ocean side communities set up public access points every few hundred yards. As it turned out, these alleged " private beaches " slowly began to see people on these beaches that were not there before. So thats that, and I don't know what more to tell you to convince you that public officials who enact laws that state " keep out " of this private ( or public ) facility, may or may not be acting lawfully. Courts decide these conflicting rights issues re. " keep out " laws, and postings. But yes,..... its true, we seem to have gotten a bit off track on these privacy, safety issues, access to public/ private facilities, etc that seems beyond the scope of Drum Corps, and particularly the public's access to the practices of these 2 Corps.