I actually reviewed KP-108 yesterday and refreshed my memory on what you're talking about. Had a long post written about it, including a lengthy section of that opinion. Then when I clicked "Submit" the site went down again like it did the other day and I lost the whole post.srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:30 pmThe opinion was very carefully worded and covered two separate points. The primary purpose of the opinion was if the law against posting signs on government property applied to private entities that leased the property. He said they could not be charged or forced to take the signs down under the law regarding government agencies posting signs. He did restrict that to some pretty specific conditions, including that it must be a hands off lease.imkopaka wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:26 amWait, I'm confused. How does being on government property factor into the validity of the signage? I thought the AG opinion RE: Dallas Zoo basically said that private entities operating on government property have the authority to post valid signs. Am I missing something?
But the AG managed to slip into the opinion a warning. The signs are not enforceable because the law on whether they apply on government owned property still applies. I was referring to this in my statement about the hospital on city owned property. They can legally post the signs but they have no valid meaning.
Thanks for the information guys!