SB273 and property owned by a government entity

[HD76]

Does this sound correct to y'all?

To me it seems like property owned by a local government corporation would would also fall under places that cannot post 30.06/30.07 because they are government owned. Even though it is a non-profit corporation, it is listed as a governmental unit under Section 431 where government corporations are codified.

Sec. 431.108. GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS. (a) A local government corporation is a governmental unit as that term is used in Chapter 101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) The operations of a local government corporation are governmental, not proprietary, functions.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.431.htm

I remembered someone telling me the Hilton Hotel next to the GRB was posted. I checked online, and it is listed at texas3006.com. http://www.texas3006.com/view.php?id=304

A check of HCAD, shows the property owner as HOUSTON FIRST HOLDINGS LLC. Also the state class code lists the property as "XV -- Other Exempt (Government)" HCAD 1240990010001

A google of this name gave me this. Page 3 give some back ground on the government corporations that have owned the property the hotel is on, and lists Hilton as the management company of the company.http://www.houstonfirst.com/Portals/3/D ... 053438-000

So it would seem to me that a request to the City of Houston and HOUSTON FIRST HOLDINGS LLC could force them to remove the sign from the hotel.

[ScottDLS]

You are correct. The 30.06 signs at the Hilton in Houston legally have never been enforceable. The City owns the non-profit that owns the land, therefore the city owns the land. Somebody should call them on it now with SB273 in effect. I used to stay there a couple years ago, but I drove from Dallas, so left my gun in the car. I would have carried in the hotel even with the 30.06 signs, but I was working during the day when I left the hotel and my employer policy and some 30.06 signs at clients precluded it. So I just left in the car.

[C-dub]

This is very interesting. Do we need to start requesting lists of all the property or "holdings" of the city we live in? I wonder how many places would turn up that we don't know about that are posted that would end up having to remove their signs.

[Glockster]

This is very interesting. Do we need to start requesting lists of all the property or "holdings" of the city we live in? I wonder how many places would turn up that we don't know about that are posted that would end up having to remove their signs.

That would probably be quite interesting!

[ELB]

Does this sound correct to y'all?

...

So it would seem to me that a request to the City of Houston and HOUSTON FIRST HOLDINGS LLC could force them to remove the sign from the hotel.

Certainly as presented it sounds correct. Are you going to send them a letter?

[jason812]

Talk about shady. How can a non profit lease property to a corporation that is clearly making a profit? That is an expensive (at least for me) hotel to stay at. I was there in Feb (before I had CHL) for HOUSTEX and wondered how the hotel could be posted and the GRB not but connected via sky bridge. I also wondered how a public building could be connected to a non public building but it all makes sense now. I like how the law doesn't apply to those who make the laws.

[tlt]

Better still, why is the government in the property business at all.

[JALLEN]

Better still, why is the government in the property business at all.

Why should greedy capitalists make all the money?

Seriously, why worry about 30.06 signs when we see the government, which pays no taxes, is in business? Next thing you know, they'll be wasting the profits on sports stadiums, then gambling casinos and eventually drive all the private businesses out, if the Indian tribes don't beat them to it.

[jason812]

Better still, why is the government in the property business at all.

This makes me wonder who actually owns the land movie theaters and other businesses are located on. I wonder how many 30.06 signs on businesses are actually not enforceable.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm going to have some fun with this!!!!

Thanks for a great find.
Chas.

[ELB]

This is very interesting. Do we need to start requesting lists of all the property or "holdings" of the city we live in? I wonder how many places would turn up that we don't know about that are posted that would end up having to remove their signs.

This is an interesting idea.

[Scott Farkus]

I think the city of Austin has a similiar thing with the buildings on either side of City Hall. iirc, they were developed by the City around the same time they built the new City Hall and leased to Silicon Labs and other private companies. The addresses are 200 East* West Cesar Chavez and 400 East* West Cesar Chavez, and the tax appraisal website shows both addresses owned by Silicon Labs and City of Austin. So I'm not entirely sure what the deal is, but both buildings - as well as City Hall - have been posted 30.06 since they were built. I haven't been down there since SB 273 passed so I don't know whether they still are, but I need to get down there and check that.

*Correction: s/b West Cesar Chavez, not East Cesar Chavez

[srothstein]

I think the city of Austin has a similiar thing with the buildings on either side of City Hall. iirc, they were developed by the City around the same time they built the new City Hall and leased to Silicon Labs and other private companies. The addresses are 200 East Cesar Chavez and 400 East Cesar Chavez, and the tax appraisal website shows both addresses owned by Silicon Labs and City of Austin. So I'm not entirely sure what the deal is, but both buildings - as well as City Hall - have been posted 30.06 since they were built. I haven't been down there since SB 273 passed so I don't know whether they still are, but I need to get down there and check that.

That is an interesting point and I am curious how it will work out. Charles might be able to help here. Just to clarify, Travis CAD records on-line show that the city owns the land but that Silicon Labs owns the buildings at both addresses. I think, but am not sure, that the intent would be to ban 30.06 at those locations. I can definitely see how someone could argue that the intent was to ban 30.06 in government buildings and not in private buildings that just happened to be on land leased from a governmental agency.

[Scott Farkus]

That is an interesting point and I am curious how it will work out. Charles might be able to help here. Just to clarify, Travis CAD records on-line show that the city owns the land but that Silicon Labs owns the buildings at both addresses. I think, but am not sure, that the intent would be to ban 30.06 at those locations. I can definitely see how someone could argue that the intent was to ban 30.06 in government buildings and not in private buildings that just happened to be on land leased from a governmental agency.

Again, I don't know how these things typically work but is this any different from the situation with the Houston Zoo? As I understand it, the City of Houston owns the land but does whatever organization runs the zoo (Houston Zoo, Inc.?) own the buildings that comprise the zoo? For example, who actually owns the gorilla habitat structure, the city or Houston Zoo, Inc.?

Probably showing my ignorance here but I wasn't aware that one person/entity could own land and the other own the building that's permanently attached to land. I thought that was the definition of "real estate" - land or property permanently attached to land.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Real estate is not my area of practice, but I would think a governmental entity would not be able to own real estate as a joint tenant in common with a private person or entity. Also, whoever owns the land owns all permanent improvements such as buildings.

Chas.