TFred
Regular Member
Ah, see, you never heard me say (well, you never read me type!) "public property open to the public." That is not the situation here. The local jurisdiction has leased a building and associated property to a private entity. While the private entity does have some events on the property that are open to the public, they control the entrances to the property, and sometimes do charge admission. They also generally charge admission to the building.What I keep hearing you say is that a private entity can dictate what the rules will be on public property open to the public knowing full well those rules are in violation of state law. That is what I’m hearing you say. Is that what you are saying?
The AG opinion we've talked about here does not exactly fit this scenario. The AG opinion is about a single event. The disclaimer at the end of the AG scenario is the other extreme, where the jurisdiction has essentially "contracted out" the management of the public space to circumvent the preemption code. Neither of those cases apply here.
TFred