Photography Banned in Downtown Silver Spring, Maryland

[johnnycake_.1]

Brad -

 

You might have overlooked a very important point, i.e. the US Constitution which includes

the 'Bill of Rights' is the 'law of the land.'

 

A 'contract' that has been adjudicated to have violated Constitutional law is void.

 

So, is a 'lease,' a time-limited contract, similarly void if it was adjudicated to have violated

Constitutional law. Could a 'contract,' a lease for example, stop you from 'voting?' No.

Do people 'live' in the Peterson Co. 'controlled' area?

 

"Bad idea vs Bad Execution."

 

I suspect the latter.

 

Johnny

[Brad_]

Johnnycake... Let's say you invite me into your home (whether leased or owned). And I

proceed to take pictures inside and you object, does the Bill of Rights still permit me to do so

over your objections?

[thomas_sullivan]

Brad...Montgomery County is not a person, it is not a private individual, the property in question was not private before the lease was drawn up and signed. That is the issue. Not private vs public.......but the fact that government officials who represent the public, leased a piece of public property to a private entity and apparently dissolved public rights in doing so. Your private residence being leased by a private individual does not have this issue.

[thomas_sullivan]

btw - I would have no problem with this whole thing if the county had just out and out sold the street to Peterson. That would be fine....assuming the counties citizens agreed. But the way they did it is clearly unconstitutional to me....you cannot lease away constitutional rights. You'll throw this country back 250 years if that is allowed to happen.

[daniel_smith6]

"he did maintain that the Mongomery County lease with the Peterson Co. did make the property private, and that included the roads and sidewalk, and that the Peterson Co. can control ingress/egress at their discretion."

 

Apparently there is still a public easement. Won't this take the complete control away from the Peterson company. They can't refuse to let Blacks or Canadians or other 'undesirables' onto the property, can they? What is their problem with photography when it is an activity anyone who walks through can do? Do they make people put up their cell phones just in case they have a camera built in?

[Brad_]

But Tom, how is leasing away constitutional rights any different than selling constitutional

rights through sale (rather than lease) of a property. In either case, elected representatives

are acting on behalf of the people. Also, should people who are renting homes in this

development not be permitted to control who comes in their front door?

[michael s.]

<< ... They can't refuse to let Blacks or Canadians ... can they ? ... >>

 

No, they can't.

 

But the reason for that is a set of federal civil rights laws (and in many cases parallel state statutes) forbidding racial, religious, national origin, and other forms of discrimination in housing, public accommodations, etc.

 

The photography issue is different. Speaking generally, a restaurant in the U.S. cannot refuse to seat me or serve me on the basis of my race or my faith. But a restaurant owner can certainly ask me not to take photos.

[johnnycake_.1]

Michael S., Jun 29, 2007; 11:16 a.m.

 

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have been forged in

controversies involving not very nice people."

 

- Felix Frankfurter

 

Michael.

 

The contrasts/differences between Federal law and Constitutional law are

profound; the former is a scion of Congress and legitimized by the Executive Branch...

scrutiny by the Judicial Branch... always pending...

 

The latter is 'engraved in stone.'

 

Michael. The restaurant is privately owned. Don't go back if it's a problem.

 

Brad - I would ask you to leave. If you did not leave, then I would ask an 'officer of the

court' to charge you with 'criminal trespass.'

 

Johnnycake

[michael s.]

<< ... The contrasts/differences between Federal law and Constitutional law are profound ... >>

 

I know that. That's why I was pointing them out. :-)

[thomas_sullivan]

you're not leasing or selling constitutional rights, you are leasing or selling the property. If you sell privat property you give up all ownership to it, it transfers to the buyer. If you sell public property, you give up all ownership to it, it transfers to the buyer. So, it's a clean definitive cut.

 

If you lease private property, you lease the use of that property to the leassee. You don't lease your owership of it. A leassee cannot alter the basic structure of the property. They can't rip down walls and build new ones, unless it's in the lease, they can't even paint the place without express permission from the owner. The owner still maintains all his property ownership rights to the property. He still has all his constitutional rights to that property. He still dictates the rules of how that property is to be used by the leassee. Same with leasing public property. The leasee leases the use of that property. The public, who actually "owns" the public property still maintains all their constitutional rights to the property. The public still owns the property, all rights associated with the ownership of that property stay with the owner. They don't get transferred to the leassee.

 

We aren't talking about Peterson not letting someone on the property. We are talking about them being able interfere with one of the owners rights. Namely, the right to take pictures on public property. This is the owners (the public) right. The lease does not lease away rights......or, more correctly said, in this case, shouldn't lease away rights.

 

I am all for private property. I am all for private persons rights. But, when society as a whole deems it necessary to have some property be public, the rights become public rights. A street is a very legitimate example of where it makes sense for it to be public property. But, if the owners of that public property agree that it is in the best interest of the community to lease it to a private entity, that's fine. But it does not alter the fact that it is public property.........and all the rights associated with public property remain.

[randy_santos]

Prior to this leasing and renovation that street was not a pleasant place. I'm not sure anyone in the downtown Silver Spring Community objected (to this proposal), in fact the community begged for improvement, the county put in place (and still does by offering great incentives to artists) big tax breaks and economic incentives for redevolpoment. I have no romantic vision of what that street used to be. There was a pawn shop at the end of that street that I know fenced a lot equipment stolen from my studio through the years, Good riddance to them and the abundance of crackheads. If we have to consider that one or two blocks private property so be it. I gladley relinquish my god given right to take pictures on that block. There's nothing interesting really to take photos of anyway unless something heavy goes down in the biographies section at Border's Books.

 

Argue all you want about the finer points of leases and law. Time to take it to the "streets", the man has kept you down long enough, organize, power to the people right on. Or you could just go to Starbuck's with your laptop for a Latte and read about it.

 

While some of you are in such a huff, check this out. Kind of the flip side of this whole argument:

 

http://www.break.com/index/sheriff-allows-illegal-trespass2b.html

[robert_m_johnson]

http://dcist.com/2007/06/20/photography_ban.php

[roger krueger]

It probably turns on the exact wording of the agreement--the Salt Lake City Main Street

Plaza case turned on precisely that--

 

A street was sold to the Mormon church. While the city still held an easement for public

access, the court ruled the 1st Amendment applied. So the city sold the easement rights to

the Church, and the court then ruled that since there was no longer any public control

over the space the 1st no longer applied.

 

I know 1st Amendment rights were upheld in a similar case involving Fremont Street in Las

Vegas, but I don't remember the precise circumstances.

 

But I've got to believe the lawyers involved in this project were extremely aware of these

cases and drafted the agreement considering these issues.

[daniel_smith6]

Yes, the Salt Lake City one was a pisser. I was there while it happened and saw the changing stories as it went along. Some will lie and change the story and expect no one to remember what was said and done before the latest version they want you to believe. Utah is like that in so many ways, but that is what one gets in a State run by a Church.

 

In Maryland, I can understand the 'no photos' inside the stores but not on the public easement outside them. Inside a mall you have a different situation. An 'outdoor' mall is not the same as a fully enclosed one and allowing people to pass through and by seems to me to be saying they can do what they normally do without restrictions. Now you have the guard types stopping a photographer from taking photos outside the stores on the 'public access' section.

 

Hope it gets challenged and costs the city and corporation a bundle... and they lose.

[johnnycake_.1]

Evidently, The Peterson Company is privately owned and based in Fairfax, VA.

 

Also, according to The Peterson Company website [ http://www.petersoncos.com/ ], the

Peterson Company leased area in Silver Spring includes:

 

"400,000 sf of retail including restaurants and entertainment, 248,000 sf of office, 15-200

room hotel, and 222 condominium units."

 

The condominium is named the Ellsworth [ http://www.downtownsilverspring.com/

residential.html ]. Are the residents of The Ellsworth protected by the US Constitution and

the Bill of Rights? Can an Ellworth condominium owner take a photograph through his

window of the adjoining street, people, buildings? Can The Peterson Company prevent the

condominium owner from taking the photograph? And what about a visitor staying in the

hotel? Can he be prevented from taking photograph out in window?

 

Again. A lease does not negate constitutional freedoms.

 

Johnny

[johnnycake_.1]

can I 'lease' someone else's Constitutional rights? Can I get 'more' Constitutional rights?

 

I would be surprised if I could. Yet, it seems that the 'lease' agreement between

Montgomery County, MD and The Peterson Company, by this interpretation, has done

precisely that. My rights were 'leased' to The Peterson Company.

 

So, this 'lease' seems to make my Constitutionally-based civil rights a 'commodity?' This

is a thought that I find laughably absurd. Montgomery County and The Peterson Company

need to 'revisit' their 'lease.'

 

The Montgomery County, MD government 'leased' my Constitutionally-based civil rights

much too cheaply! I want more money!

 

Johnny

[Brad_]

>>> Montgomery County and The Peterson Company need to 'revisit' their 'lease.'

 

No they don't. Many large cities, such as San Jose and San Francisco just as an example,

have been leasing unused property for years. The lessee controls and is responsible for

what happens on the property.

 

Simple...

 

 

>>> Can The Peterson Company prevent the condominium owner from taking the

photograph? And what about a visitor staying in the hotel? Can he be prevented from

taking photograph out in window?

 

Since you care a great deal about this, why not call the property manager and ask if

there's a special provision in the CC&Rs? Unless you were really expecting to get an

accurate answer here...

 

 

>>> The Montgomery County, MD government 'leased' my Constitutionally-based civil

rights much too cheaply! I want more money!

 

So what are *you* going to do about it to effect change?

[johnnycake_.1]

"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

"

 

Potter Stewart

[Allen Herbert]

I have just been reading a letter page in th AP...Popular English photo magazine..

 

This seventy year old bloke was taking a few photos in his local shopping center (mall) of some flower baskets with his new Canon G7. He then had his collar felt (confronted) by the uniforms who demanded he deleted the photos or else. I suppose he was a war veteran used to dodging bullets and was not in the least intimedated. He told them to take a hike (clear off) and stuck his cam in his pocket.They got on their radio calling him a IC 1 male. More arrived and demanded he left the premises or they would call the Police.

 

He was escorted,along with his wife,off the premises.

 

Yesterday, a bunch of brainwashed nutters were planting car bombs in London to murder some innocents. Probably, the authorities were far too busy with important things, to notice such trivia.

 

It just makes you think that(not really true.hopefully) when you hear such stories.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Photography was prohibited in many malls in the USA even in the early and mid 1960's.. Its amazing that newcomers to photography think that mall security stopping shooting images on private property such as a mall is a new thing. Maybe some folks are in type of 1960's time warp; pre star trek; and think Johnson is still president. This is an ancient rule in most malls; going back before cars had required seatbelts; cars had emission controlls.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Photography has been prohibited in many malls and stores in the USA for decades so folks dont copy a stores layout, merchandising rackage/schemes, signage, sales posters, or plan a robbery or burglary. By entering their private world/space you have rules to follow. Once most malls were entirely private. Today cities often help foot the bill; thus some folks "feel" they can do as they please; likes its just street out in nowhere. Some shoppers dont want loud boomboxes playing in inside malls; or folks who smell bad and have not bathed in weeks; or gangs either; or folks pan handling for money. You might not want guests visting your house to urinate on the rugs; if its your friends dog that did the deed at least its sort of more acceptable as an accident. <BR><BR>Normally if one wants to shoot images in a mall one does it above board; one gets approval for the act/event so the security is in the loop. Assuming that the security will magically say its "ok" is the mark of a amateur.<BR><BR>A fractional ownership of the mall by the "government" can throw alot of monkey business into the legal arena. The Boy Scouts can be halted from having a meeting in the parking lot at night for a astronomy lession.

[Allen Herbert]

so folks dont copy a stores layout, merchandising rackage/schemes, signage, sales posters, or plan a robbery or burglary.

 

So funny, as if you need to be a photographer to gather such info.A cell phone will do if you have a poor memory.

 

Ha, photographers are just like smelly gang members,so very funny. Most photographers are middle class,pillars of society, marched off to the cop shop being suspected of being perverts or terrorists.

 

Jeez, it's enough to put anybody off buying a Leica M8.

[Allen Herbert]

You might not want guests visting your house to urinate on the rugs; if its your friends dog that did the deed at least its sort of more acceptable as an accident.

 

I'm very worried that if i invite someone in my house with a cam they might take a photo of my wife on the bog. So, i have banned everyone from my house cause they might have a secret cam. I have put up a large fence,and hired some blokes with big guns. So you lot better beware....

 

So there.

[Uhooru]

"On the other hand, he did maintain that the Mongomery County lease with the Peterson Co. did make the property private, and that included the roads and sidewalk, and that the Peterson Co. can control ingress/egress at their discretion."

 

Are you sure he told you the Peterson Co. can control ingress/egress at their discretion."?

 

Because when I saw that I emailed them and got back this from him concerning egress/ingress. Its completely opposite of what you say he said. John Fisher,esq wrote me this:

 

"While it is true that the Ellsworth Drive property is "private property" in that it is subject to a 99 year lease, that lease is subject in turn to inter alia a Public Use Easement preserving to the public "a perpetual non-exclusive easement and right of passage and use, free of charge, for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress on, over and across Ellsworth Drive . . . ," thus, contrary to your quote, the "Peterson Company can [not] control ingress/egress at their discretion."

 

Instead, I advised the gentleman that the County under the General Development Agreement (not Peterson) had the right to close Ellsworth Drive up to four (4) times per year to conduct public festivals coordinated through the Silver Spring Urban District Corporation. I trust this clarifies the matter." <end of quote>

 

This is a little bit different than what was reported here. I emailed him back asking if photography is considered part of the public use cited in the Easement or if it just relates to ingress/egress.

 

This is probably a silly waste of time, but now I'm just curious to find out.

[johnnycake_.1]

Barry.

 

I don't remember the gentleman's name but he was replying to an inquiry that I made

when I contacted the offices of the Montgomery County government. I suspect that he was

on a cell phone and driving as it was necessary to ask him to repeat himself several times.

 

I am unclear from your post whether you contacted The Peterson Company or the

Montgomery County, MD government offices.

 

"Regulation" versus "control." Different words but similar in meaning and "zealous

regulation" can be so similar to "control" that they are identical for practical purpose. I

was told that The Peterson Company can "regulate" their private property.

 

Johnny