TexasCHLforum.com

Short version.

I live in Keller ISD. The City of Keller owns the property upon which stands the "Keller ISD Natatorium" (that's the name on the building).
TAD: http://www.tad.org/property-data-sheet- ... d=07925972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The facility is used for a wide variety of purposes, from training the HS swim teams to running private classes and private clubs. The facility is open to the public most days. I can go in, pay 3 dollars or so to swim laps. They run swim and fitness classes for the elderly and for preschoolers. The facility is open year-round, including most holidays and also during the summer when school is not in session.

I spend a lot of weekend and evening time there... my kids swim with a club team and I volunteer occasionally to help run events for a private club that operates out of that pool.

My contention is that since the property is owned by the City, not the ISD, that unless the facility can be clearly defined as a "school or educational institution" (46.03(1)), then they cannot post it 30.06.

The building has been posted with 30.06 signs for several years.

My questions:
-- What is the legal definition of a "school or educational institution" ?
-- If the ISD "manages" the facility (the director is an ISD employee), but remains open to the public year round, and the facility is built on City-owned land, does it meet the definition of "school or educational institution" ?
-- If it's unclear, where do I go to get clarity?

I'd prefer not to be disarmed in an unsecured building where I spend a lot of time.



Thanks!

PS: I understand very clearly that CHL is not allowed "while school sponsored events are taking place". No need to dwell on this. Clear as a bell.

These are my thoughts and aren't definitive answers:

-- What is the legal definition of a "school or educational institution" ?

I think we've established that Texas doesn't have one. We've talked about churches perhaps meeting the meaning of "school institution" if they provide secular education. Some people have talked about accreditation, but nothing points to that as being required. Personally, I wouldn't want to go up against a jury on it - as almost anything can be claimed to be a "school" without the lack of formal definition.


-- If the ISD "manages" the facility (the director is an ISD employee), but remains open to the public year round, and the facility is built on City-owned land, does it meet the definition of "school or educational institution" ?

Is this facility adjacent to a school? Are their daily swim practices there? If so, I'd be careful.


-- If it's unclear, where do I go to get clarity?

You can ask for the opinion of an attorney. In my experience, what you'll get is an opinion, which the court may or may not agree with.

cb1000rider wrote:Is this facility adjacent to a school? Are their daily swim practices there? If so, I'd be careful.

No and yes.
Not anywhere near a school. Within ~200 yards of City Hall, actually.
Daily "school" swim practices during the week and during the school year. Yes.
Daily "club" (ie. not a school activity) practices year-round.

I hear you on the legal opinion...

Thanks!

I would probably feel "OK" to carry to that one - that's my personal opinion.
However, I don't carry to places that have public lockers where I'd need to leave something of value. Locks simply aren't good enough.. Those "master" locks that I used in school can be opened (without force) in < 1minute.

cb1000rider wrote:I would probably feel "OK" to carry to that one - that's my personal opinion.
However, I don't carry to places that have public lockers where I'd need to leave something of value. Locks simply aren't good enough.. Those "master" locks that I used in school can be opened (without force) in < 1minute.

True.

I'm usually there watching a practice/meet or volunteering.
I rarely swim there.

Makes sense.. hopefully someone will come along and give you another opinion... :-)

I may need to just go hat in hand to the local CLEO and ask for him to look into it, or clarify for me the relationship between the ISD and the City regarding that building.

I just don't see how it can be a "school" if it's open to the public and used as much by private organizations as it is by the ISD.

Feels to me like a City-owned facility that is "managed" by ISD employees..
Would that make it a "school or educational institution", per 46.03?

It sounds a lot like a city zoo that might have a school field trip there everyday. However, on the "school" issue, I'm not sure, but lean towards it not being a school since there are no "classes" held there.

Sounds like a "Bona-fide" grey area to me. I tell my students to do what they are comfortable with, considering the consequences. (Or is it a "gray" area?)

sjfcontrol wrote:Sounds like a "Bona-fide" grey area to me. I tell my students to do what they are comfortable with, considering the consequences. (Or is it a "gray" area?)

It's "gray", if you're in America. "Grey" in the UK (and other subjects of the Crown).

It seems that the TAD entry may refer to the actual land and not the building.. From what I have read and also heard from a friend on the Keller Parks committee is that the ISD manages and owns the building. Though that doesn't seem to make 100% sense.

jamminbutter wrote:It seems that the TAD entry may refer to the actual land and not the building.. From what I have read and also heard from a friend on the Keller Parks committee is that the ISD manages and owns the building. Though that doesn't seem to make 100% sense.

You can't "own" the building and not the land... Not unless you're a complete fool, or we're talking about a double-wide. /sarcasm

I'm on friendly terms with the manager over there... maybe I'll go ask her if she can shed any light on the City/ISD relationship details. Nothing to lose since it's already posted.

You can certainly own a building on land you do not own. Long-term land-leases under a lessees owned building are more common in other states, but they also exist in Texas.

man, this is a tough one. I'd really like to see Mr Cotton weigh in on this.

I would probably lean toward it being that the "city owns the property" being the winner (and making sure I kept it concealed), but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

Walk over to the police station across the street and ask them. They are the one's that will have to enforce it. Of course we know what they will say. Honestly I wouldn't risk it. You would be a test case. Why risk it? It's a Natatorium. Everyone is in their bathing suites