I sometimes do speed work at the local high school track, but sometimes the gate is locked. I can understand that they want to prevent vandalism (what can one do to a track?), but my taxes go to support the school. I guess they have an overriding interest. After all, they close public parks at 11pm or 10pm in some places. So I supposed I don’t have a ground to stand on, or run on either, for that matter.
But, there are wellness centers at the U.of Ill. in Champaign, and also one here at the MUSC in Charleston, SC, that admit members only, and only those who affiliated with the college (or U.) can become members. Again, tax money helps support those state colleges and universities. Can they do this? Shouldn’t they be forced to allow any local person (who helps pay for their very existence) to become a member? A wellness center owned by a local municipality, the St. Andrews Public District, has memberships opened to all. Those who don’t live in the district, must pay more. That’s perfectly legal, as those persons are not paying the taxes to support them. They also allow non-members to enjoy their facilities for a fee. They are owned by a public agency and must do. Why are these state supported colleges and universities any different? Aren’t they public facilities too?
There are tennis facilities owned by the city of Charleston. They sell memberships and, again, if you don’t live in the city you must pay a little more. But due to the equal rights and privileges provision in the US Const. (which provides that a state cannot deny a non-resident the same use of its facilities as a resident), they must allow non-members to use the facilities, for a fee, of course.
So, I’ve gone on some tangents, but all are related. Perhaps some one has some case law as to the track, which I’m pretty sure can be closed. But how about these colleges precluding use of its facilities to the taxpayers who support them? I guess they must be on good solid footing, as many of them do, but I wonder if there is any actual case law.
It could be that these centers are funded (at least partially) by tuition. And paying tuition allows you priveleges that mere taxpaying does not. For instance, I don’t think you could take classes at a public university if you were not registered as a student and paying tuition.
Keep in mind that most public property is limited as to use. You can’t go jogging in the hallways of the courthouse, nor can you use the gym they build for the judges. Your examples are just an extension of that. The property was built with public money, but for a specific purpose.
But the point is that you can register as a student and pay tuition. These wellness centers in colleges are off limits to the public. You cannot sign up and be a member and pay the dues. Of course the college is funded partially by tuitions, but also partly by taxes. As for the centers, the students must pay a fee covering their use, whether they use it or not.
And as to the other post, of course you cannot run through a courthouse. A courthouse isn’t made for running, but a track is.
If you read my post again, all the uses that I mention are uses that the facilities were designed for. Tennis courts are for playing tennis. Tracks are for running. A gym is for working out.
barbitu8, I think you missed it when manhattan wrote :
" …nor can you use the gym they build for the judges."
Just because something is supported by the public does not mean the public has total access to it. It means they (ought to) have a say in how it functions, or who or what it is for.
Aren’t the wellness centers available to students of the university? What is the difference between requiring enrollment for coursework and requiring enrollment to use the center?
Other examples:
You can’t perform surgery on someone in a public hospital. You can’t spend the night at a public homeless shelter if you have a home (well, at any rate you shouldn’t). You can’t go to the police station and borrow a cruiser to pull over speeders, answer emergency phone calls, etc.
Also, the public university is only partially subsidized by public funds; consider as well that you don’t have full access to farms, industries, etc. which receive public subsidies.
Aren’t the wellness centers available to students of the university? What is the difference between requiring enrollment for coursework and requiring enrollment to use the center?
OK, I agree. Enrollment is required. But I think you missed my point that I cannot enroll to use the center. They only allow those affiliated with the U. membership.
Farms and such are not public property. Sure I help subsidize them, but they’re privately owned. Schools, city-owned facilities, parks are public property. A police station is also not public property although the public is sometimes “invited”
There’s a difference between public property and publicly-held property.
You can do just about anything you want on public property that doesn’t create a public hazard or breach the peace. “Public property” basically covers sidewalks, roads, some parks, and so forth. As a person, you have an instrinic right to the access and reasonable use of public property. Public property is not owned by the government; it is owned by “the public”.
Publicly-held property is property owned by the state (or a subdivision thereof) as if it were private property. Courthouses, fitness centers, and schools are all “publicly-held property”. Except where access is necessary for the public to exercise a guaranteed right (such as voting), the public’s access to publicly-held property is by grace. The government may establish such rules and restrictions on access as it chooses subject to various rules which limit or entirely proscribe certain forms of discrimination.