Update: Penguin Poll: Picture this
Downtown Silver Spring’s developer has given the green light to photography in the outdoor shopping area, The Baltimore Sun reports.
Thursday’s policy change permits still photography and videography along Ellsworth Drive, as long as tenants and visitors aren’t harrassed or filmed against their wishes, The Sun writes.
The shopping center will even hang a welcome sign on the Fourth of July, when photographers are scheduled to conduct a walking tour of the area, says The Sun.
“Photographs spur debate on First Amendment” (The Baltimore Sun)
(Updated Jun 29, 2007, at 10:16 a.m.)
Local shutterbug Chip Py was snapping pics along Ellsworth Drive recently when security guards asked him to stop. It turns out Ellsworth Drive and the entire Downtown Silver Spring shopping district is leased to a private company, which deems photography a no-no.
Py brought his case to local blogs and then to larger media outlets, but the court of public opinion is still undecided over photography in the Downtown Silver Spring shopping center.
According to a 1972 court case:
The public’s license to enter a private business establishment is limited to engaging in activities directly related to that business and does not normally extend to the pursuit of unrelated business [example: photography].
– Lloyd Corp. vs Tanner
In other words, shop and eat ’til you drop. Just don’t snap any pics.
However, some argue that despite the private lease, Ellsworth Drive serves as a public, de facto town square. (In fact, the county owns the property and street.)
Also, photographing private property (example: building exteriors, people in plain sight) is permissible as long as the photographer remains on public property (example: a county-owned garage or a public sidewalk).
Should the private company leasing Ellsworth Drive permit photography in the shopping area?
Cast your vote on The Penguin poll, or leave your comments here.
Hopefully a less dumb situation concerning Silver Spring will end up in the news soon.
Don’t sweat it, Pennster. The Penguin’s restaurant review drops tomorrow. That should give everyone something else to talk about.
How about an “Enough about this topic, already !” option on the poll ?
Give up a few rights here, a few rights there, and before you know it, it’s Nazi Germany all over again.After all, why should a catholic nation have cared about the rights of a few Jews? Maybe you don’t care about my right to take a photo, but it always starts somewhere, and if let go it will eventually reach you. But, as history shows, by the time the complacent masses wake up, it is allready too late. I’m going to take some more photos.
That’s patently absurd. When the county renews the lease, they need to put in an explicit clause forbidding the leaseholder from forbidding photography.
That said, it looks like Peterson is backing away from the policy after the bad publicity.
It really upsets me that Pennster would find our basic rights such a trifle matter. Tens of thousands of Americans have died to guarantee us such trifling, basic freedoms. Perhaps Silver Spring is too progressive for him. Maybe he would be happier in China where the people are imprisoned for bringing up such matters.
I don’t know what’s so dumb about the discussion of personal vs. private rights in a space that everyone takes ownership in but a corporation holds the title (or, in this case, the lease) to. What should we be talking about instead, Pennster?
I mean, you do work at Park and Planning, right? Surely, you can give us some better talking points.
This question is irrelevant because it is a well known fact that in situations where private development is involved the issue of public space is legally lost. It’s the same reason why you can’t take pictures or hand out fliers in a shopping mall. All you can really do in these private commercial developments is spend money shopping or eating.
I say get over it because this is what you guys signed up for when Silver Spring welcomed Folger Pratt/Peterson Co. into town. They are the big developer that revitalized Silver Spring, and they are the big developer that can now legally manage the property. This issue is the equivalent of beating a dead horse, and other town centers & residential communities have run into the same problem over and over again.
Look at it this way, your neighborhood association in XYZ McMansion Community tells you to paint your door green and you all do it or else you get fined or kicked out. Developers have the rights not the resident or shopper for that matter.
The downtown area looks, feels, and functions like public space. In the future, the county should ensure that private companies leasing public space treat it as public space.
Besides, it’s just a dumb rule. Photos could be used to shed negative light on the area, but they would more likely be used to shed positive light on it. It seems stupid that the development company would care.
Just so you know, the “Silver Springer” comment above is not the same Silver Springer (me) from the Silver Spring Scene.
Editor’s note: To avoid confusion, please use distinct names when leaving comments. Thanks! (Jun 28, 2007)
If you’ve read the Baltimore Sun article, then you know that the Downtown Silver Spring developers have altered their policy to allow limited photographer access to Ellsworth Drive. That’s great, but not what we’re asking for.
Free Our Streets is asking for PFA Silver Spring LC to welcome photography, videography, and other filming on Ellsworth Drive, consistent with First Amendment rights as they would apply on any other public street.
The Downtown Silver Spring development includes $187 million in county and state funds and the once completely public property Ellsworth Drive, public investment that should come with public rights.
And so the Downtown Silver Spring Photo Walk is still on. A declaration of photographic freedom on July 4th
Oh and Comment 8 from “silver spring resident”, you might want to research the detail on the Downtown Silver Spring Lease like we did here: http://www.freeourstreets.org/2007/06/25/ellsworth-drive-background/
The issue is not so cut and dry as you might imagine. The developers lease the land from the city for $1 a year and more importantly, the Ellsworth Drive land that was wholly public property was leased under conditions that point towards 1st Amendment level openness.
Marc Fisher is keeping the research going, too:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/06/photos_on_the_4th_showdown_in.html?hpid=news-col-blogs
Wayan,
You are right that the issue is not so cut and dry, but as your research shows:
Exhibit G of the Ground Lease states: “Subject to the terms of the Declaration [of Easements] and the terms of this Lease, Tenant [developer] shall have the sole and exclusive right to manage and program the uses of the Project and to impose and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations as Tenant deems necessary to maintain order and to promote the safety, security and economic success of the Downtown Silver Spring Project.”
In the end Peterson has the final word. Even if it is deemed unreasonable to stop a person from taking a picture, what you have to realize is that private development can restrict your 1st Amendment rights whether you like it or not.
Try to exercise other 1st Amendment rights, like your right to free speech and see how far it gets you. I guarantee that if someone attempted to organize a protest or hand-out opinionated literature on Peterson property, they would be immediately stopped.
My point is that residents are angry about not being able to take a picture, while at the same time there are many other 1st Amendment rights they cannot exercise as well.
Silver Spring Resident,
You are right. And that is what this is all about. I am the photographer in question and Photography is only the first layer of the onion.
The issues I raised in my oirignal letter to the council are exactly as you stated. And that is why this has got the attention that it has. The issue here is where do the public rights stop and the corporation rights start when a development is publicly funded.
We will take up your challenge of exercising our first amendment rights that you reccomended on what we deem as puiblic space on the Fourth of July at 12 noon.
Come on out and join us because we belive that public rights comes to any one who builds with public money.
And that horse aint dead, in fact it’s about get up and gallop!!
Chip Py
I spoke first about this issue in an intense defense of personal rights on the Silver Spring Scene blog. I was saying that the issue has been debated and debated and debated and it shouldn’t have been a debate in the first place. The whole situation was DUMB. Dumb on Peterson’s part, not the photographer’s.
Oh and by the way, STOP CALLING IT PARK AND PLANNING! Yeesh, how many times do I keep having to say that. They are SEPARATE departments now. I work at the PLANNING Department.
Note: This comment has been edited for content (Jul 3, 2007).