In article <telecom25.53.7@telecom-digest.org>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomni.com> wrote:
> In article <telecom25.49.10@telecom-digest.org>,
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I could never understand is how
>> stores such as Walmart on the one hand want to encourage shoppers
>> (although I do not personally care for the chain) yet on the other
>> hand they can claim that someone is 'trespassing' if the person comes
>> in their store. Ditto with public transit. If it is a public place,
>> which is claimed,
> It is *still* _PRIVATE_PROPERTY_, and the property owner _does_ have the
> legal right to determine who can, and *cannot*, be present on their
> property.
> The property can extend an invitation (permission) to the 'general
> public', and then revoke -- by 'actual notice' to the party involved
> -- that permission for specific individuals.
> Where an invitation to the general public exists, *before* you can be
> charged with trespass, they must first expressly notify you that your
> presence is 'no longer welcome' (i.e., they ask you to leave the
> premises, "now"), and you fail to comply with that request in a timely
> manner.
>> then how can a member of the public who chooses to
>> go inside or upon the property of the store or the transit agency get
>> arrested by police for trespassing? Yet CTA does that all time; so
>> does Walmart. Seems to me like Walmart and transit agency want to have
>> things both ways at the same time. PAT]
> If you allow somebody into your apartment -- say, to use the phone --
> do you think you should have no recourse, if they sit down on the sofa
> and refuse to leave when you ask?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a considerable difference
> between purely private, residential property and privately owned
> property used for commercial purposes, as any reasonably intelligent
> person would explain to you. At my house, for example, I have to
> positively invite someone to come in to use the phone. Walmart does
> not 'invite' someone in to do shopping or use the phone. The store
> just sits there with an open door; people walk in and out at their
> leisure. No one specifically 'invites' or 'allows' them to come in
> to do shopping. Now if Walmart was to specifically lock their front
> door, and have someone sit there to question all comers, and specifi-
> cally allow them to come in to do shopping or use the phone or
> whatever that would be different. When is the last time you ever heard
> someone walk into Walmart, seek out the manager or some responsible
> employee and ask permission, "is it okay if I come in to go shopping?"
> PAT]
When is the last time you heard someone ask "is it okay if I come in to
go shopping?" at a garage sale. Which *is* held on "purely private,
residential property", to use your language.
An 'invite' to enter a premises can be "explicit" (as in the case of
you allowing someone in to your apartment to use the phone), or
"implicit" (as in the case of an establishment 'open to the public').
Absent _either_ an 'explicit' or 'implicit' invitation on the premises,
*AND* absent 'actual notice' that ones presence is 'not welcome'; it
is =NOT= trespassing for a person to "merely" be on the premises.
However, =regardless= if you once had an 'explicit' _or_ 'implicit'
invitation to be on the premises, when you receive ACTUAL NOTICE that
you are no longer welcome -- that said invitation has, in your case,
been withdrawn -- *THEN* if you enter (or _remain_ on) the premises,
you are trespassing.
Retail establishments -- or any other place for that matter -- that
first _tell_ someone "you are not welcome on our property; get out of
here now, and DO NOT RETURN", and *if*/*when* that person _does_ return
has them arrested for trespassing, *ARE* properly exercising their
'private property' rights. Absolutely no different than a farmer that
has somebody arrested for going hunting in his fields w/o permission,
and despite the posted 'no trespassing' warnings.
In article <telecom25.53.8@telecom-digest.org>,
Please post not email replies <linux-user@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Thomas Daniel Horne wrote:
>> ... The real kicker in the case of many volunteer
>> fire stations in the US is that they are not publicly owned at all.
>> They are often owned fee simple by a private corporation that is
>> organized under state charter to provide a public service. ...
> It's not just bathrooms that are off limits. For many of them,
> depending on the legal form of their organization, neither the public
> nor the municipality hiring them has any right to see their books or
> internal affairs. There was a recent case where the top two officials
> of a volunteer fire department suddenly resigned with no official
> explanation, but with a hint of financial impropriety. Yet, this same
> department regularly solicits the public for contributions. It tries
> to combine the best (for it) aspects of a privately owned corporation
> and of a public charity. To be fair to it, it does fight fires
> competently.
Do they claim that the 'contributions' are tax deductible? If the
answer is "no", then they don't have to reveal anything to the public.
OTOH, if they claim the contributions are deductible, that they are a
"501 (c) {something}" not-for-profit, then they are required by
federal law to release certain financial information to _anyone_ who
requests it.
If they are 'hired' by a municipality -- then the municipality _can_
make it a condition of that 'hiring' that they disclose to the town
whatever financial information that the town deems necessary. The FD
has a 'free choice' -- disclose the info, or don't get the city
contract.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your mention of 'bathrooms off limits'
reminds me of how difficult it is to find a public restroom in a store
in downtown Chicago. _None_ of the CTA stations allow anyone to use
the restroom; _none_ of the little shops along State Street downtown
permit it either. Even many restaurants do not permit the public to
use the restroom. Now, a restaurant _which also sells liquor_ is
required by the city code in Chicago to have available restrooms, but
places for _food only_ are not. You can easily go five or six blocks
in downtown Chicago before you can find either a public restroom or
for that matter, a pay phone.
Where this becomes worrisome for someone like myself is because since
my brain aneurysm, I do not have extremely good control over my bodily
functions; at least not perfect control. Years and years ago, CTA had
restrooms in all their stations as a courtesy to the public; some of
them were not terribly clean; even the ones which demanded a five cent
coin to go in and use them, (coin lock on the door) but at least they
were there. Then City of Chicago passed yet another ordinance which
outlawed the installation/use of 'pay toilets' and CTA's response was
to close all the bathrooms entirely. Lisa Hancock, this was another
example of the social do-gooder activists I guess: CEPTIA (Committee
for the Elimination of Pay Toilets in America) convinced City Council
to get rid of them. To hell with those of us who at least could count
on having somewhere 'to go' when downtown or in a CTA station. There
was also a very large public facility in the basement of City Hall for
at least fifty years; one day I went past (several years ago) and it
was totally boarded up and permanently out of service. PAT]
Robert Bonomi (bonomi@host122.r-bonomni.com)