City property now "owned" by private organization

[jcgmig78]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Texas
Went to the city's Park and Recreation office to rent city park soccer field for team practice. I was told that I could not rent the field that I wanted. When I asked why they told me that another team owns that field. So when I asked if it was no longer city property, I was told that it is city property but, since the other team installed lights for the soccer field they now "own" the field and can choose who rents the field and charge whatever amount they want. I asked the original price to rent the field and it was $24 per 1.5 hours. Now, the team that controls the field wants to charge us $300 per player that will be using the field per season. I didn't think a private organization could own city property for personal use and to make money. Do we have a reason to sue?

 

[adjusterjack]

Do we have a reason to sue?

No.

But you have reason to play elsewhere.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Texas
Went to the city's Park and Recreation office to rent city park soccer field for team practice. I was told that I could not rent the field that I wanted. When I asked why they told me that another team owns that field. So when I asked if it was no longer city property, I was told that it is city property but, since the other team installed lights for the soccer field they now "own" the field and can choose who rents the field and charge whatever amount they want. I asked the original price to rent the field and it was $24 per 1.5 hours. Now, the team that controls the field wants to charge us $300 per player that will be using the field per season. I didn't think a private organization could own city property for personal use and to make money. Do we have a reason to sue?

Following is a link to the Texas Local Government Code, Title 8, Subtitle A, Chapter 253 Sale or Lease of Property by Municipalities: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.253.htm

You can read Section 253.001, Sale of Park Land, Municipal Building Site or Abandoned Roadway, with attention paid to (a) and (b).

Under (a), except as provided by (b), the governing body of a municipality may sell and convey land, but under (b), land owned, held, or claimed as a public square or park may not be sold unless the issue of the sale is submitted to the qualified voters of the municipality at an election.

 

[HighwayMan]

Do we have a reason to sue?

You don't even know what the real story is yet. Often clerks in city offices have no idea what the real deal is or at least don't know how to articulate properly.

Your best bet now is to speak to someone in a management position over there at Parks or try one of your elected city representatives.

 

[quincy]

You don't even know what the real story is yet. Often clerks in city offices have no idea what the real deal is or at least don't know how to articulate properly.

Your best bet now is to speak to someone in a management position over there at Parks or try one of your elected city representatives.

I wanted to add that my previous post failed to detail all of the possible exceptions to the sale of city-owned land. Although I mentioned (a) and (b) of section 253.001, the entire section should be read to learn of these exceptions.

I agree with Highwayman that you need to learn more about the circumstances and conditions of the sale. The answer to the question you ask here can be neither a "yes" nor a "no" without knowing more.

 

[HighwayMan]

It doesn't sound like the property was actually sold, based upon what the OP said. The clerk in Parks probably had no idea how to accurately describe what happened -
she said that it is still city property but that the other party now owns it which makes no sense at all.

 

[quincy]

It doesn't sound like the property was actually sold, based upon what the OP said. The clerk in Parks probably had no idea how to accurately describe what happened -
she said that it is still city property but that the other party now owns it which makes no sense at all.

I agree it makes no sense so I suspect there was a misunderstanding.