On the contrary. The statute wouldn't use both words if they were regarded as equivalent. And leased or not, as you point out, the city still holds the fee simple interest in the property, so it is still "owned" by the city. Regardless of who else might have a concurrent ownership interest, the statute is satisfied. In fact, I would say the statute includes any property in which a city has any ownership or leashold interest, including joint ventures, etc. And since the statute only refers to what may be done on property owned or leased by cities, I don't see any requirement for symmetry between city owners and private owners.frankie_the_yankee wrote: Legally, a leasehold conveys most of the rights of outright ownership. It is in fact, a form of ownership. I regard it as significant that the statute refers to property "owned or leased" by a government entity as property that cacnnot be enforceably posted. Clearly, the statute regards ownership and leasing as equivalent.
I am not a lawyer, and I could be completely wrong.