Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have an idea for Dan, if he's still around. How about calling a local restaurant or gallery on the street mall, and ask if they'd like to hang about 20 of your framed photos on the walls?

Probably wouldn't start with the coffee shop ;)

Would be ironic to have a gallery opening, where you weren't allowed to attend.
 
ampguy said:
So is he banned from walking on the public street, or just banned from entering the stores?
Click to expand...

He is banned from entering stores, but it appears that he is harassed by the police and private security from the adjacent mall building when walking down the street with a camera. This is not a city with lots of shopping options.

BillBingham2 said:
But a question that really bugs me is that I do not think that a mall is public property, it's private no?
Click to expand...

Again, it is a city street about 5 or 6 blocks long that has been closed to car traffic- one big wide pedestrian 'mall'. Not an enclosed building, not private property. A public space. Do a Google Maps search of "Church Street Burlington VT" and you will see what it is with Street View.
 
ampguy said:
I have an idea for Dan, if he's still around. How about calling a local restaurant or gallery on the street mall, and ask if they'd like to hang about 20 of your framed photos on the walls?

Probably wouldn't start with the coffee shop ;)

Would be ironic to have a gallery opening, where you weren't allowed to attend.
Click to expand...

That is a brilliant idea!
 
ampguy said:
I have an idea for Dan, if he's still around. How about calling a local restaurant or gallery on the street mall, and ask if they'd like to hang about 20 of your framed photos on the walls?

Probably wouldn't start with the coffee shop ;)

Would be ironic to have a gallery opening, where you weren't allowed to attend.
Click to expand...

That's a brilliant idea, and get the local and regional media to cover it.
 
sepiareverb said:
Do a Google Maps search of "Church Street Burlington VT" and you will see what it is with Street View.
Click to expand...

No need for those of us who have been there. Uncommon Grounds is on the street, which was blocked for cars a long time ago but remains public property. There is a mall on Church Street, which I can see leads to some confusion in this forum but the coffee shop is not in the mall. There is, however, a café just off the street called Muddy Waters - it has great books you can read while you are there and the coffee was always better than Uncommon Grounds anyway :D

Dan, thank you for telling your side of the story. Well done!
 
sepiareverb said:
Again, it is a city street about 5 or 6 blocks long that has been closed to car traffic- one big wide pedestrian 'mall'. Not an enclosed building, not private property. A public space. Do a Google Maps search of "Church Street Burlington VT" and you will see what it is with Street View.
Click to expand...

The street is most likely PUBLIC, unless the land owner of the outside mall buildings bought the street from the city with the stipulation that they will take care of any utilities and maintenance.

Just because the street is blocked to car traffic, doesn't mean it now private property. It may still owned by the city. Witch could complicate the locals perception of who owns what, and what is public or private. This could confuse the security guards too on their jurisdiction.. Just the Mall?? (Buildings) or the Mall PLUS Street?? So, they may be over-compensate by including everything. It is obvious that someone will need to see who owns what from the city planning and title dept to get the facts straight. AND, some one will have to challenge this largely undefined trespass law and get some limits amended to it, to protect casual photographers and tourists plus the general local public too. Since it is "area specific" for the outside Mall only.

Plus, ANY mall (enclosed or not) IS Private property. The sidewalks (if on a city street) are public, in most cases, Unless they bought and or built the roads and sidewalks around it. Just because a building has public access, does not make it "Public Property". The city does not own any of the stores. they all privately owned, and rented from the landlord like "Simon Malls", or other Mall land developer that built the Mall in the 1st place.
 
Last edited:
I'm so sure it is still public property that I would have to see a legal document that states otherwise before I would change my mind.
 
robsomogyi said:
I'm so sure it is still public property that I would have to see a legal document that states otherwise before I would change my mind.
Click to expand...

Agreed,

But the local perception is still the factor that is in control right now, Not the police, until it is challenged and made more specific for the police to enforce property.
 
wgerrard said:
Well, you edited my remarks, but still... I'm not imposing my religious views on anyone. However, when Stupak says his religious views compel him to place anti-abortion language in legislation, he is leveraging the political pocess to impose his religious views on society.

Look, this is way off topic in this thread. Suffice it to say I am not opposed to using the political process to impose my political views on the nation. That's the purpose of the political process. I do not want to compromise with conservatives. I want fewer conservatives. I want single payer health care, and think the reaction to the lame amalgamation that is Obama's current plan is a sad and condemning comment on the failings of American society. I think the extremist and proto-fascist conservatism of the GOP and its corporate and media supporters is the single biggest threat to the nation today. I don't trust them. I don't believe them.
Click to expand...

Wow... just wow. So much for reasoned debate; you should look into joining the Coffee Party, LOL!
 
This all looks like a conspiracy to deprive these individuals of their civil liberties - I can only hope these victims get legal representation and file law suits.
 
sepiareverb said:
Again, it is a city street about 5 or 6 blocks long that has been closed to car traffic- one big wide pedestrian 'mall'. Not an enclosed building, not private property. A public space. Do a Google Maps search of "Church Street Burlington VT" and you will see what it is with Street View.
Click to expand...

OMG!! I did the google map thing and he needs to contact the ACLU. Just because the street is closed to vehicles does not mean that it's not owned by the city!

I'm wondering........

B2 (;->
 
dcsang said:
ya know.. I see nothing wrong with what he was doing but I too think there's more to the story than meets the eye.

What I find more disturbing is the cops will issue an order without having any laws broken for a business. I wonder if they would do the same just as easily if there was a domestic dispute or a woman being sexually harassed.

Interesting story - I wonder how it would fly up here in Toronto..

Dave
Click to expand...

With you here -- haven't read all the posts, but ...

granted that he might be obnoxious and defensive and we do not have all of the facts -- but I was struck by the fact

1) that the police will enforce an order on a business's sayso and

2) that they think this is not a matter of public record because they are no initiating it, but simply acting on a private entity's sayso

3) that i would likely be defensive and less that on my best behavior if I had been approached several times by policemen, more than once in my place of employment for doing something admitted not to be a breach of the peace or in violation of any law.

4) smart psychology and issues of legality aren't exactly the same thing, and finally

5) making someone uncomfortable has increasingly become a trigger for legal action. Rather difficult to comform one's behavior to someone else
individual reactions, no? That's part of the reason laws were developed -- to sanction what reactions one needed to pay attention to.
 
charjohncarter said:
I admit I wasn't looking that hard. Were the people and kids eating 'carnitas' in Uruapan? Maybe that is why they were smiling.
Click to expand...

The carnitas of Michoacan are the best by far, everyone seems to know about them, the best ones were at a small town where the restaurant simply put a bowl of them on the table with a bucket of beers.

I think it was the day I made the Sugar Cane images.

J
 
When Chicago tried something similar with a section of State Street (not sure if that was the right name) they retained ownership of the street. They just stopped all traffic, other than busses from going on it. I am sure that the City did not sell or deed Church Street to any corporation. There for it's still a street, closed off the vehicles but still owned by the city. I am going to drop a note to a couple of ACLU offices tonight, camera geeks just want to have fun after all. Cities never give up streets, I know I tried to purchase a 3 foot slice down a dead end in the middle of now where once. Would have paid $3000 USD for the land but I would not give to the reelection campaign of the crooked town council head.

The article even noted that one of the folks who have received this note could not pass through to get to some public transportation. Dan and company have suffered terrible mental anguish, poor them.

B2 (;->
 
The article is not so much about photography but a VT law. The fact that you can be preemptively banned from stores you were not in or caused a problem and without store owners knowledge, in some cases.
Yes, the 'main subject' of the story happens to be a photographer but that is only a starting point for the story.
The title is misleading and alarmist.

Steve
 
I recall the city of Euclid, Ohio, did not like Hippies in the parks, and actually tried to pass a "No Loitering" law for the parks.

Someone pointed out that the parks were built for loitering.

Perhaps someone is trying to make it in to the nutty law collection book?
 
Ah but it is true. They now have to pass the senate bill because the senate will not vote for theirs. Then it goes to the president for signature and then we we have a law.

Senate "promises to reconcile" the differences after it is law. Believe that? They will be on to some other disaster like cap and trade or making illegals citizens if they been here 48 hours.

If you would read something other than mainstream news you would pick up on the Chicago thug politics brought to Washington. I am near Chicago, and it is exactly the same thing I have been seeing for 60+years. Bend and twist the law to get what you want.

It may not fly, but it definately under consideration by the house parlimintarian. But if they do it, there will be a constititional challenge.

I suppose you want the kind of health care like UK where they put old hospitalised people in a cold room so they get pneumonia and die. I know a UK doctor. That is how you save money and ration care. If you think you will get the same care in the future as now, you are in for a rude awakining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom