AT&T Center is San Antonio posted or not?

[Kevin_S]

Will be coming from Austin for a concert there and was wondering if it is posted. I will have family and am a cautious father. Any info would help. Thanks

[68Charger]

Posted. Texas3006.com

Great place to find out if places are posted or not. I live here, and been to many events there and they have a HUGE contrasting signs in from of the entrance. Leave it in the car.

Have fun at whatever event you're going. Usually at sporting events there's always one.

[lowonair]

Yeah the signs are definately big enough. They're visible from seguin on the way in. We went to a spurs game last year but that was off limits anyways.

[artx]

As others have said, it is posted. However, I believe it is owned by the city, so non-sporting, non-school events would be OK regardless of posting.

That said, about 2 years ago I tried to find definite, concrete proof of who owned the ATT Center (I wanted to print this out in advance of going there for a concert). I wasn't able to find anything concrete about who owned it. The address doesn't show up in the county appraisal district, which matches with it being city/county owned. (After all, if a private business was that large, they'd want the property tax revenue right ? )

I still hope to find this info eventually, but am at a dead end now.

[srothstein]

As others have said, it is posted. However, I believe it is owned by the city, so non-sporting, non-school events would be OK regardless of posting.

That said, about 2 years ago I tried to find definite, concrete proof of who owned the ATT Center (I wanted to print this out in advance of going there for a concert). I wasn't able to find anything concrete about who owned it. The address doesn't show up in the county appraisal district, which matches with it being city/county owned. (After all, if a private business was that large, they'd want the property tax revenue right ? )

I still hope to find this info eventually, but am at a dead end now.

Technical correction, but the ATT center is owned by the County, along with the Freeman Coliseum and the rest of the grounds it sits on. Construction was paid for by a sales tax on hotel rooms and rental cars, with a good chunk kicked in by the spurs, who have a very favorable lease there (they get a portion of the admission and all the parking from ANY event held there other than the stock show and rodeo.

BTW, the CAD records do not appear to be correct, but I think property ID 398016 is the AT&T Center and 398015 is the Freeman Coliseum and the rest of the grounds. It lists the first as the community arena on 27 acres of land, but has no value and no improvements. The second is listed as the expo park on 142 acres of land, again with no improvements and no value.

[ELB]

...
Technical correction, but the ATT center is owned by the County...

Yes, as I recall, the city got its nose out of joint when they were dickering with the Spurs over a new venue, and the County swooped in with a better deal on the land next to Freeman Coliseum. I am not much of a fan of using taxpayer money or concessions to get insanely rich sports team owners to do anything, but I got a laugh out of how the County snookered the City slickers on this one.

[larryeliz]

Checking in to see if there have been any changes to the concealed carry situation at this venue. I, like the original poster, am traveling to SA for a concert this weekend and want to carry, if I can. I thought I would check with this forum given that TX has had changes in handgun regs. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

[Revogod]

I was at the AT&T Center last week to buy my daughter a Rampage jacket she wanted for Christmas. I was surprised to see that every entrance I saw, except the entrance directly into the Fan Shop is posted as 51%. I imagine they did an end run and got an alcohol vender who only sells alcohol in order to be able to post those signs. Makes me wonder if that is the same reason the SA Zoo asked the City Council if they could sell beer/wine.

[larryeliz]

Is this legal given that the venue clearly derives the vast majority from services that are not related to alcohol. That said, if the vendor can legally post the 51% sign, could it be understood that one can not carry around or near the points where alcohol is sold? The 51% sign should not apply to the entire venue. Thoughts?

[larryeliz]

Sorry...I left out the word "revenue" from the statement about "deriving most of it revenue..."

[MeMelYup]

Is this legal given that the venue clearly derives the vast majority from services that are not related to alcohol. That said, if the vendor can legally post the 51% sign, could it be understood that one can not carry around or near the points where alcohol is sold? The 51% sign should not apply to the entire venue. Thoughts?

I am of the impression this is a loophole in the TABC laws. Can we address this in 2017?

[ELB]

Is this legal given that the venue clearly derives the vast majority from services that are not related to alcohol. That said, if the vendor can legally post the 51% sign, could it be understood that one can not carry around or near the points where alcohol is sold? The 51% sign should not apply to the entire venue. Thoughts?

You will find a discussion of how this works at this thread: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=56461

Note that member "srothstein" worked for the TABC, he has some pretty detailed knowledge. Pay attention to his posts.

[twomillenium]

If the alcohol that the vendor sold was consumed in an area controlled by the vendor, then the red 51% sign would apply. (just like restaurants with separate bars). Since the vendors are not in control of the whole and 51% of the revenue of the whole is not from at the sale of alcoholic beverages sold and consumed on the premises then the 51% sign could not be legally displayed for the whole. In other words the zoo would have to make at least 51% of it's revenue from the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. ( which would be far from likely)

The business does not have a choice to put up a red 51% sign up, it is the TABC that chooses for them. It is illegal to put up a red 51% sign if the establishment does not qualify, just as it is illegal not to display a red 51% sign if they do.
That is the way I understand it. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

[ELB]

... Since the vendors are not in control of the whole and 51% of the revenue of the whole is not from at the sale of alcoholic beverages sold and consumed on the premises then the 51% sign could not be legally displayed for the whole. ...

Actually it doesn't work that way. It is the revenue of the vendor holding the license that determines the color of the sign and where people can take their drink, not the revenue of the whole venue if there are different vendors. srothstein explains it here when explaining why the whole Majestic is subject to the 51% restriction even though the Majestic itself does not have an alcohol license: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 61#p692855.

[ScottDLS]

If the alcohol that the vendor sold was consumed in an area controlled by the vendor, then the red 51% sign would apply. (just like restaurants with separate bars). Since the vendors are not in control of the whole and 51% of the revenue of the whole is not from at the sale of alcoholic beverages sold and consumed on the premises then the 51% sign could not be legally displayed for the whole. In other words the zoo would have to make at least 51% of it's revenue from the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. ( which would be far from likely)

The business does not have a choice to put up a red 51% sign up, it is the TABC that chooses for them. It is illegal to put up a red 51% sign if the establishment does not qualify, just as it is illegal not to display a red 51% sign if they do.
That is the way I understand it. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

They are not going to be able to make the whole zoo 51% because regardless of the ABC definition of the licensed premises, the 46.035 definition doesn't include the walkways, parking areas, etc.

I guess if they post every BUILDING with 51% they could theoretically keep you out of them. As I said earlier, this makes me wonder how the licensed area for the State Fair of Texas vendors is defined. I'm sure I've seen 51% signs at the beer booths there. Yet you can take the beer anywhere in the park with a few exceptions.