| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2008 10:37:13 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Regardless of what the last person entered in Wikipedia, Union Station is owned by the United States Government, more specifically, by the Department of Transportation. Look it up.
United States Code:
Originally posted by Trinch:
TITLE 40, SUBTITLE II, PART C, CHAPTER 69, SUBCHAPTER I, §6902
Assignment of right, title, and interest in the Union Station complex to the Secretary of Transportation
The Secretary of Transportation has the right, title, and interest in and to the Union Station complex, including all agreements and leases made under sections 101â₉€œ110 of the National Visitors Center Facilities Act of 1968 (Public Law 90â₉€œ264, 82 Stat. 43). To the extent the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior agree, the Secretary of the Interior may lease space for visitor services. |
|
Is that Union Station in Washington, or a different Union Station?
Does it apply to the entire building, or just the actual portion of it used to service rail traffic?
Has the DoT sold its interest since that law was passed?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:38:11 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Spazmo, the article is referencing an act passed in 1968, however, that is the text from the current US code. In otherwords, hasn't changed since. |
Still says nothing about which union station and in any case any law or act that passed regarding union station in the past 40 years (such as the legal sale of the station by the government to a non-profit organization) would supersede that code. The section may still be "on the books" but that doesn't mean it reflects the current state of affairs. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:44:59 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Spazmo, the article is referencing an act passed in 1968, however, that is the text from the current US code. In otherwords, hasn't changed since.
ETA: Feel free to look for yourself. |
The issue I have with this, though it may be true, is that the DOT doesn't control leasing in the Union Station, Lasalle does per the website. I honestly believe that even if in some round about way the government owns the property they have leased that land to a management company and that company is responsible for the property. The fact of the matter is that there are those in this discussion that believe that even if it is privately owned the landowner should forfeit some of their rights, which is down right scary thinking, imo. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:46:02 PM · #79 |
Wikipedia is correct.
At least, I would assume the roofers know who paid them.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:48:01 PM · #80 |
Actually, §6903 says that the Secretary of Transportation may not make agreements or contracts to sell property rights at the Union Station complex (and yes, they are talking about Union Station in Washington, DC as defined in §6901).
And all of this is in Title 40 of the US code as last signed in 2006.
Fact is, Union Station (in Washington, DC) is owned by the US government and under the authority of the Department of Transportation. Frankly, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:26:02 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Actually, §6903 says that the Secretary of Transportation may not make agreements or contracts to sell property rights at the Union Station complex (and yes, they are talking about Union Station in Washington, DC as defined in §6901).
And all of this is in Title 40 of the US code as last signed in 2006.
Fact is, Union Station (in Washington, DC) is owned by the US government and under the authority of the Department of Transportation. Frankly, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. |
The only thing that's clear is that you're wrong.
But go ahead and live out your fantasy, no need for reality to intrude. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:31:54 PM · #82 |
Good night.
ETA: Before I go, someone should probably contact DOT since they are still claiming ownership of Union Station in their 2007 Financial Report. Silly bureaucrats.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 23:43:47. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:49:05 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Good night.
ETA: Before I go, someone should probably contact DOT since they are still claiming ownership of Union Station in their 2007 Financial Report. Silly bureaucrats. |
I'll leave it to you to contact the "other" owners and tell them they spent millions on nothing. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 12:04:42 AM · #84 |
Me thinks this thread has deteriorated into an argument of "facts" that people really do not know, or can not adequately prove, are facts.
I think we can agree that the anti photographer pattern that has developed since 9-11 has bitten into our civil liberties, as it has in many other areas. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 12:40:57 AM · #85 |
I wish to apologize for making this thread and then staying out of the discussion, I have been almost unable to keep up let alone reply.
I also did not expect or intend this to turn into such a debate but I guess in hindsight this is a good topic to discuss.
There are obviously two different debates going on here; 1) If a publicly accessible landmark is private or public property, and 2) If owners of private property publicly accessible should be able to deny visitation or photography by certain people.
It is also very unclear, the tone and body language that both the photographers and the security guards used.
If Union Station IS private property then the photographers were in the wrong and they should have politely packed up their gear and left. However I can understand their desire to speak to the management, however they should not have continued photographing assuming they were in the right.
In my humble opinion they should have packed up the gear and then asked to speak to management about the conflict, Union Station would have been there afterwards. I understand if they were professionals on the clock this could have seriously screwed up their deadlines/budget/etc, however IMHO professionals would have checked ahead to make sure they were in the clear and been there with press passes. That is just my personal opinion though.
I do note however that the security guard(s) also may have broken the law by demanding the pictures to be deleted. However this is probably a gray area since they could argue they meant the pictures taken after being told to stop, which I believe while not technically legal may have been a reasonable request.
As for it being a harmless little tripod and panning device, where does one draw the line? What if they brought studio lights, models, maybe some backdrops, battery packs for the lights, chairs, a folding table and laptops. There has to be a point where you say, ok, this is too much, kindly pack up and leave. They reached that point, and then refused to comply and made a fuss over it.
About five years ago while accompanying someone to a local doctors office I noticed they had the coolest looking air conditioning unit I had ever seen on the back of the building, parts looking new and others looking worn out, tubes and pipes everywhere. I was taking photos for about ten minutes before a security guard came up to me and told me this was private property and I would need to stop photographing.
I imagine being outside I could have made a stink, demanded to know exactly why and on who's orders, however I was on their property, the guard was not rude, expressed it was private property, and told me to stop without threatening me. I asked for certain if I could not continue, he said no, I packed up and went back to the car where I was waiting. I didn't make an a** out of myself, I didn't blog about it.
Several months ago I was inside a very unique doctors office, and I took out my much more professional camera and took some shots of their glass block walls. I was noticed by several nurses, I did not ask for permission first, however they did not bother me at all.
The point is, it is up to the owner to decide, if they want to be a total jerk about it, it is their property, their right.
If Union Station was truly public and the photographers were in the clear and knew that, I still think they handled the situation poorly. The way to get a positive result is not to act negative. Security guards are people also and cannot know every detail of every law, they are employed, if told by their employer to tell someone to leave, they will. It isn't exactly their place to protest it, just as it isn't a police officers place to protest the law but not enforcing it.
IMHO again, if it was public property, they should have explained their rights to photograph in that area and politely stated they refuse to leave unless escorted by a police officer, once again, politely. Getting in someones face will not often turn the most favorable result.
They could have also had summaries of the photography law to demonstrate they were in the clear. However, there is no point in arguing with security guards, however it would be reasonable to talk to management, other media, or even a lawyer.
Maybe I am just an overly polite person and think everyone else should be also.
I know one thing for a fact though, no matter what their intent or who was right or wrong, the photographers did little or nothing to further expand our rights as photographers and possibly in turn just made it harder for the next "professional" photographer who wishes to photograph Union Station to do so. |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 12:59:27 AM · #86 |
"Buildings and Structures include Union Station in Washington, D.C. Union Station is an elegant and unique turn-of-the-century rail station in which one finds a wide variety of elaborate, artistic workmanship characteristic of the period. Union Station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The station consists of the renovated original building and a parking garage which was added by the U.S. Park Service. The Federal Railroad Administration received title to Union Station through appropriated funds and assumption of a mortgage. Mortgage payments are made by Union Station Venture Limited which manages the property. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, a non-profit group instrumental in the renovation of the station, sublets the operation of the station to Union Station Venture Limited." |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 10:54:05 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by togtog:
I wish to apologize for making this thread and then staying out of the discussion, I have been almost unable to keep up let alone reply.
|
I don't think you need to apologize. You brought a situation to our attention that could some day happen to one of us. Hopefully we wouldn't react the same way the photographer in the blog did. I was going to comment earlier on the blog, but the thread was kind of going elsewhere. So I'll comment on it now. I clicked on that photo and it kind of scared me. You can zoom in and almost see those people's boogers. Maybe not boogers, but it had really great detail over a very large portion of a building. Just think what someone with all the wrong intentions do with a camera like that! |
|
|
|
05/16/2008 11:29:38 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
"Buildings and Structures include Union Station in Washington, D.C. Union Station is an elegant and unique turn-of-the-century rail station in which one finds a wide variety of elaborate, artistic workmanship characteristic of the period. Union Station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The station consists of the renovated original building and a parking garage which was added by the U.S. Park Service. The Federal Railroad Administration received title to Union Station through appropriated funds and assumption of a mortgage. Mortgage payments are made by Union Station Venture Limited which manages the property. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, a non-profit group instrumental in the renovation of the station, sublets the operation of the station to Union Station Venture Limited." |
Perhaps it falls into this quasipublic area like snowskiing operation. They are private opoerations but often run on leased government forest land.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 04:45:11 PM EDT.
