OKC COPTA is now strictly enforcing any type of sight seeing and personal photography atop of city parking garages. You now have to have a city issued permit. According to EMBARK the sightseeing and photography was getting out of hand. YES this will effect you during the spring BIG 12 Tournament Baseball games where people like to tailgate in the Bricktown parking garage overlooking the field during the Bedlam game. Also residents like to park and sit and watch the fireworks during the 4th and New Years. You would be asked to leave you would have to have a city issued permit. The parking fee does not constitute a permit.

Bricktown parking garage is privately owned and operated, and in no way affiliated with COPTA/EMBARK.

I've not attended an Opening Night or any other fireworks display in ages. Where do they launch from now? Several years back I thought they used the top levels of the city garages downtown as the launch areas for the fireworks.

Is this why Steve was posting photos from parking garages on Twitter today?

I'd strongly question if you can't sit in the garage and DO something. Often, groups will say they are doing something but are unable to cite an ordinance. If i choose to pay to park in a garage and then choose to sit in my car and do something, they cannot force me to leave without giving me my money back. ie, i paid for a service and im using it. If i choose to walk around a garage and take pictures somewhere, then that's also protected as long as you aren't tagged as some terrorist scoping a target and i think any officer with half a brain would be able to tell the difference. So dont confuse a security guard with a walkie-talkie as an officer of the law. DEFINITELY not the same thing.

And if they are doing this, it would be a good time to contact your councilman and file some good old fashioned griping on the matter, along with why it's beneficial. Remember, complaints are trashcan liners if they dont have something to help solve a problem or help in some way. So complain about being harrassed and then tell about how your pictures are free publicity for the city when you post on social media.

Wasn't this discussed on here several years ago? Seems like Will Hider got jerked around for taking pictures from a parking garage. Or was it something else?

..

Is this why Steve was posting photos from parking garages on Twitter today?

Yes.

OKC COPTA is now strictly enforcing any type of sight seeing and personal photography atop of city parking garages. You now have to have a city issued permit. According to EMBARK the sightseeing and photography was getting out of hand. YES this will effect you during the spring BIG 12 Tournament Baseball games where people like to tailgate in the Bricktown parking garage overlooking the field during the Bedlam game. Also residents like to park and sit and watch the fireworks during the 4th and New Years. You would be asked to leave you would have to have a city issued permit. The parking fee does not constitute a permit.

What *kind* of permit?

I'll just drop this here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Unless there is a specific ordnance, they can't prevent photography from a public location.

OP specifically said X passed a rule, and it affects Y. An hour later it was debunked, pointing out that Y has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with X. Looking on X's website there is no sign of this rule, and it isn't being discussed anywhere else.

The evidence (or lack thereof) suggests bombermwc nailed it. Paul Blart: Mall Cop doesn't get to enforce laws that don't exist.

It was only debunked that the Bricktown garage isn't city owned.

There is in fact a city ordinance about this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv8YGqnUsAI8ZCa.jpg

I have a little bit of insight into this issue. The conversation on Twitter involved media members, avid photographers and EMBARK. The transit/parking agency (EMBARK) has established a photography permit. The permit specifically states that professional photographers - including media - must obtain permission to shoot from garages, and in the case of the media they must inform EMBARK of the nature of the story involved. The media bristles at this part in particular, and points out that EMBARK garages are publicly-funded. EMBARK in turn states that garages are NOT taxpayer-funded, and some debate transpires regarding TIF, public agencies, bonding, etc.

Anyway, I think both sides bowed up a little bit too much in the Twitter debate and that the likely real reason for the ban/permit was not communicated very well. I suspect that the real problem they were trying to address was professional PORTRAIT (and perhaps drone) photographers who are monetizing the garages by taking senior photos, engagement photos and the like, and in some cases engaging in unsafe behavior such as walking out on ledges for good shots, etc.. This is not an imagined issue; members of the public HAVE fallen to their deaths from places like the Santa Fe garage in the past while doing foolhardy stunts.

That said, EMBARK said in Twitter convo that they have never denied access to news media, and a participating reporter vowed to test this by taking photos without seeking permission. As far as I know that happened without incident and nothing else has transpired.

The whole thing was complicated by the fact that private security guards had taken the policy as an edict to run off ANYBODY who was seen taking photos, and EMBARK said this was an incorrect interpretation that they would discuss with their security company.

Again, I really believe the policy has more to do with portrait photography than anything, watching the conversation unfold as an impartial observer.

It was only debunked that the Bricktown garage isn't city owned.

There is in fact a city ordinance about this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv8YGqnUsAI8ZCa.jpg

There may be an ordinance against photography but what is cited is the trespassing ordinance, and it does not say anything about photograpy. My guess is someone's interpretation is owner is not granting you permission to do anything but park, and everything else is trespassing. Sounds flimsy to me if you did park there. Walking in and shooting may be trespassing though.

§ 30-32. - Trespass on private property.

No person shall trespass on private property.

(Code 1970, § 21-118; Code 1980, § 30-32)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-33. - Unlawful possession of or trespass on City property.

No person shall unlawfully take possession of any property, real or personal, belonging to the City, or which the City shall be entitled to possess or commit any willful trespass thereon, or unlawfully withhold possession from the City. The unlawful withholding or possession of any property mentioned shall be deemed a separate and new offense for every day the possession is withheld after the demand.

(Code 1970, § 21-131; Code 1980, § 30-33)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-34. - Trespass on school property.

No person shall trespass on school property.

(Code 1980, § 30-33.1; Ord. No. 19296, § 2, 10-3-89)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-35. - Trespass on public property.

No person shall trespass on public property.

(Code 1970, § 21-132; Code 1980, § 30-34)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-35.1. - Entering on certain posted public property.

(a)

No person, other than persons exempted in Subsection (b) of this section, shall enter or remain on any public property, on which signs have been posted prohibiting the possession of any weapons on said public property, who has possession of any illegal weapons, other than firearms.

(b)

The provisions of this section shall not apply to commissioned peace officers or duly CLEET licensed armed security personnel who are under contract with the posting entity, which owns, controls, leases or operates the posted premises.

(c)

Any person guilty of violating this section shall be guilty of a Class "b" offense.

(Ord. No. 20509, § 1, 1-9-96; Ord. No. 21845, § 1, 11-6-01; Ord. No. 22883, § 1, 11-22-05)

State Law reference— Right of person to control weapons on property owned by such person, 21 O.S. § 1290.22.
§ 30-35.2. - Penalties for trespassing.

(a)

Any person guilty of trespassing upon private, public, school, or other duly posted property shall upon conviction for the first offense, be guilty of a Class "a" offense.

(b)

Any person guilty of a second and/or subsequent offense of trespassing upon private, public, school or other duly posted property after a prior conviction of trespassing on the same property shall upon conviction of the second and/or subsequent offense be guilty of a Class "b" offense.

(c)

Any person guilty of trespassing on private, public or school property at any time other than during posted hours of operation, and who fails to leave immediately after having been told by a police officer in person or by means of a public address system to leave the premises, shall be guilty of a Class "b" offense.

(Ord. No. 22883, § 3, 11-22-05; Ord. No. 23677, § 1, 8-26-08)
§ 30-35.3. - Defenses to trespassing.

It is a defense to prosecution for "trespassing" on private property that a person at the time of the violation:

(1)

Has permission from the owner or person in lawful possession or control of the property, to be on the property contrary to posted notice of "no trespassing" and the business hours;

(2)

Had lawful authority as a matter of law to be present, including but not limited to utility easement repair, judicial order or license; or

(3)

An emergency or necessity reasonably requires that person's presence on the property in order to prevent a different and greater or more significant and immediate harm to that person or someone else.

(Ord. No. 23677, § 2, 8-26-08)

^

Right, but the point is COTPA is seeking to enforce the trespassing ordinance against photographers -- for some odd and random reason.

Pete, I suspect that ordinance is a generic trespassing ordinance, which can clearly be enforced in that garage because it is 100% privately owned.

That said, that sign has been up for some time, and I believe it is a CYA sign so that they CAN trespass someone if they choose to. The law requires that there be a notice posted on private property to serve as a warning before someone can be charged with trespassing, unless they were previously given a verbal warning.

Regarding that garage and that sign, it was up before the baseball season this year, and they did not stop anyone from viewing games, nor am I aware of them stopping anyone from taking photographs (the to floor is very popular for NBA b-roll, etc).

Again, I believe that sign mostly exists so that they can trespass panhandlers, suspicious persons and people engaging in risky behavior like skateboarding where the garage would be liable in case of injury. With that sign posted the po-po can trespass someone even without being called by the garage management. It's just a tool for enforcement.

^

COTPA was engaged in a Twitter discussion with Steve Lackmeyer where they confirmed they were specifically concerned about photographers but did not explain why.

Well, I see mkjeeves pulled the actual ordinance while I was typing that. As I suspected it is a generic trespassing ordinance.

And again, as I said in my other post, I don't believe EMBARK's reasons are odd. I suspect it is mostly about professional portrait photography. Also perhaps about controlling non-parker foot traffic in garages, which can pose as one thing but be up to another (auto burglary, for instance).

I don't find any of this curious, because I see an agency trying to protect itself from liability. It's just sound business practice.

^

COTPA was engaged in a Twitter discussion with Steve Lackmeyer where they confirmed they were specifically concerned about photographers but did not explain why.

The War on Photography. It's a thing.

^

COTPA was engaged in a Twitter discussion with Steve Lackmeyer where they confirmed they were specifically concerned about photographers but did not explain why.

Again, as I have stated several times now, I believe their policy exists mostly because of professional PORTRAIT photography, which is a huge business downtown with people seeking industrial and/or skyline backdrops. I think EMBARK did a poor job of explaining this in that Twitter convo.

I think they threw in the media reference on the permit as a bluff. It's only natural to only want positive stories shot from your place of business. I ask that question myself; i.e. "what is the nature of the story?"

The War on Photography. It's a thing.

The ticket you get from the machine is, in effect, a license to enter privately owned property for the purposes allowed by the license. Certainly skateboarders or bikers haven't bought a ticket, and whether everyone in a photo shoot has is a question. If you've got a situation where certain photogs are notoriously creating a hazard with their organized shoots in a garage, creating excess pedestrian traffic, yeah, that's a problem. For some guy just taking pics over the edge and not interfering with traffic, meh, let it go. I am guessing there is/are one or two specific commercial photogs being targeted in this instance and it kinda spread.

Just to be clear, COTPA garages are owned by the City -- they are not private property.

My only encounter I've had with this in OKC was several years ago while shooting photos of the newly finished underground tunnel. There is no parking ticket to be had to enter and it's generally open to the public during certain hours. I was told no photography allowed for security reasons. I was alone, wasn't shooting portraits, just walking through the tunnel with a handheld camera. Nothing was said about a permit.

My only encounter I've had with this in OKC was several years ago while shooting photos of the newly finished underground tunnel. There is no parking ticket to be had to enter and it's generally open to the public during certain hours. I was told no photography allowed for security reasons. I was alone, wasn't shooting portraits and nothing was said about a permit.

Which garage? Santa Fe?

Underground tunnel. http://www.downtownokc.com/maps/underground

Myriad Gardens also requires a permit for commercial photography, and it is a City-owned park, operated by a non-profit foundation; what's their legal basis?

The signage in the garages makes no distinction between commercial and personal photography; when I asked EMBARK on Twitter, they said only commercial required the permit...

^

Oh, was confused by the 'no parking ticket' comment.

I've taken photos down there several times and you see them posted all over social media.

What exactly is the problem they are trying to fix?

The War on Photography. It's a thing.

Railfans and aviation geeks know this well.

Myriad Gardens also requires a permit for commercial photography, and it is a City-owned park, operated by a non-profit foundation; what's their legal basis?

The signage in the garages makes no distinction between commercial and personal photography; when I asked EMBARK on Twitter, they said only commercial required the permit...

I can kind of understand the pro photography thing at the Myriad Gardens, where you get dozens of people making money by shooting long photo shoots in the park.

But is this really such a problem? Has anyone been inconvenienced or had their visit to the park diminished by this activity?

Perhaps it's an attempt by the City to collect revenue?

I can kind of understand the pro photography thing at the Myriad Gardens, where you get dozens of people making money by shooting long photo shoots in the park.

But is this really such a problem? Has anyone been inconvenienced or had their visit to the park diminished by this activity?

Perhaps it's an attempt by the City to collect revenue?

Do we know if the EMBARK permit includes a fee?

I understand the permit process if you use it to tell people how to be safe photographing from higher up in a garage, but the communication of the policy and its reasoning are lax...

^

Oh, was confused by the 'no parking ticket' comment.

I've taken photos down there several times and you see them posted all over social media.

What exactly is the problem they are trying to fix?

They may have given up on the idea. It was right after the remodel and the place was completely empty. (Isn't it usually?) There are CCTV cameras everywhere though. Security rolled up on a segway specifically to tell me I could not take photos.

The problem solved...imaginary, that clamping down on photos is a clamp down on terrorism.

Railfans and aviation geeks know this well.

Yep. The airport authority ran me off and police threatened to arrest me for taking airplane photos on top of the garage. A publicly owned city parking garage. I understand they have recently relaxed their hostile policy but it's too late for me. I don't live in OKC.

Doesn't matter who manages the garage, public property can be used for commercial or private photography. The city cannot force you to purchase or apply for a permit for commercial photography on public property.

I just don't understand the problem they are trying to fix.

Even if you want to play the terrorism card, every single thing is already on the Internet in great detail, including aerials, floorplans, etc.

I think it's just general fear without really understanding what they are afraid of.


It reminds me of a few summers ago where I was photographing several PC schools in advance of a class reunion. We were doing 'then and now' features on the grade schools and middle schools as well as the high school.

Since school was out, it was pretty easy to get into the schools. I would always stop at the office and explain what I was doing.

At one elementary school (won't name it) the principal was in his office and was adamantly opposed to any photography. I asked him why and he thought for a long time and couldn't provide an answer; just insisted he wouldn't allow it. I asked if there was a district or school policy; there was not. I asked him to articulate his concern and he could not.

The bottom line is that they are all so fearful at schools now that just rules all their thoughts. In the end, I convinced him. :)

There is no problem. It's all mental.

Public property that is publicly accessible (with or without a garage ticket) does not require a permit for photography. If it is a restricted area requiring access -- you obviously would be trespassing if you bypassed a reasonable means of security. If you can literally walk in without secured access, you are not trespassing on public property. You do not need express permission to access public property that is not a restricted area.

As most know, I take tons of photos almost every week and I've never been harassed or even approached by security, public or private.

One exception now that I think of it... I drove to the back of The Hill development to try and get some higher ground photos of the Steelyard. This security cop follows me and parks close and gives me the stink eye and never says anything, but follows me as I drove out.

Had he approached me I would have pointed out those are public streets that run through The Hill and anyone is free to drive on them.

I suspect most these security guards have nothing to do and when they encounter someone it can be an excuse to try and exercise their very limited power.

There is no problem. It's all mental.

Public property that is publicly accessible (with or without a garage ticket) does not require a permit for photography. If it is a restricted area requiring access -- you obviously would be trespassing if you bypassed a reasonable means of security. If you can literally walk in without secured access, you are not trespassing on public property. You do not need express permission to access public property that is not a restricted area.

Yup this 100%. It doesn't matter what signs they have posted or any scary (and irrelevant) city ordinances are posted on the walls. If it is public, it is open for any photography. The Supreme Court has ruled on this hundreds of time. It is a protected First Amendment right to take photos/videos in a public place.

I have been approached by construction site authority when I took photos of the boulevard about a year ago. I have also been approached by security at the Chesapeake arena when taking photos of the arena and the area behind it. I just tell them that I am allowed to take photos in public. This usually goes two ways, they either keep arguing or they pretend (or actually) call the police and/or their boss.

From the posts in this thread, it sounds like maybe some First Amendment Audits are needed here in OKC. :Smiley297

It seems this is largely about knowing your rights, especially when challenged by the Paul Blart's of the world.

They usually don't understand the laws and use intimidation to run you off, if they are so inclined.


I will say there have been several times a security cop has approached me and been very nice. I'm always nice to them and that seems to help greatly.

Even knowing your rights, doesn't mean they still won't be violated. When I was confronted by police at the airport on top of the garage, I politely explained my understanding of my rights. The police officers quickly instructed me that I can argue that with a judge, if I didn't leave the garage immediately they would arrest me and allow me to defend myself in court. Not wanting an arrest (even unlawful arrest) on my record (I do work for an airline after all and it's not worth the potential to lose my credentials) I gave up and left.

I did take the officers badge numbers and emailed the chief of police, never to this day did I receive a reply or an apology for the infringement of my rights.

It seems this is largely about knowing your rights, especially when challenged by the Paul Blart's of the world.

They usually don't understand the laws and use intimidation to run you off, if they are so inclined.


I will say there have been several times a security cop has approached me and been very nice. I'm always nice to them and that seems to help greatly.

This is a HUGE part of all these interactions. If someone confronts you, but you're pleasant, perhaps offer to shake your hand, completely demonstrate you're not there for a fight, your chances of *not* having a problem increase dramatically. OTOH, you get contrary...and you likely have problems. Sugar vs vinegar, as they say...

Even knowing your rights, doesn't mean they still won't be violated. When I was confronted by police at the airport on top of the garage, I politely explained my understanding of my rights. The police officers quickly instructed me that I can argue that with a judge, if I didn't leave the garage immediately they would arrest me and allow me to defend myself in court. Not wanting an arrest (even unlawful arrest) on my record (I do work for an airline after all and it's not worth the potential to lose my credentials) I gave up and left.

I did take the officers badge numbers and emailed the chief of police, never to this day did I receive a reply or an apology for the infringement of my rights.

Let me caveat this by saying it is 100% pure, Grade-A speculation and may be (if not likely) is 101% wrong...that said, the only thing I can think of at this point is that an airport garage *may*, repeat *may* fall under some different jurisdiction that crosses some obscure nexus involving the airport, TSA, and Homeland Security. The fact you were chased off by *police* rather than a *security guard* suggests to me it wasn't purely a Paul Blart issue.

Not saying it's *right* or *justified*, but suggesting at least the possibility there may be some other legal cards at play not obvious to the casual observer. These days, *anyone* taking photos near an airport is going to get viewed with a jaundiced eye.

Let me caveat this by saying it is 100% pure, Grade-A speculation and may be (if not likely) is 101% wrong...that said, the only thing I can think of at this point is that an airport garage *may*, repeat *may* fall under some different jurisdiction that crosses some obscure nexus involving the airport, TSA, and Homeland Security. The fact you were chased off by *police* rather than a *security guard* suggests to me it wasn't purely a Paul Blart issue.

Not saying it's *right* or *justified*, but suggesting at least the possibility there may be some other legal cards at play not obvious to the casual observer. These days, *anyone* taking photos near an airport is going to get viewed with a jaundiced eye.

No, not true. Cops have been found in the wrong numerous times telling people photography is illegal. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html

What we're seeing is the culture of fear playing out in real life...

Let me caveat this by saying it is 100% pure, Grade-A speculation and may be (if not likely) is 101% wrong...that said, the only thing I can think of at this point is that an airport garage *may*, repeat *may* fall under some different jurisdiction that crosses some obscure nexus involving the airport, TSA, and Homeland Security. The fact you were chased off by *police* rather than a *security guard* suggests to me it wasn't purely a Paul Blart issue.

Not saying it's *right* or *justified*, but suggesting at least the possibility there may be some other legal cards at play not obvious to the casual observer. These days, *anyone* taking photos near an airport is going to get viewed with a jaundiced eye.

Absolutely not. Photography at airports is only illegal if it involves the photographing of security procedures. Taking photos of an airplane from a publicly accessible, publicly owned location is 100% legal.

Absolutely not. Photography at airports is only illegal if it involves the photographing of security procedures. Taking photos of an airplane from a publicly accessible, publicly owned location is 100% legal.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Besides that, it doesn't matter which agency has a problem with it -- they all have to follow the law, which has repeatedly been shown to be on the side of the photographer.

Management companies also do not have any influence in public garages. They cannot assume private property rights of a public building just because a private company manages the facility. The owner of the property is still John Q. Public, and John Q. Public has every right to use public property for whatever use he sees fit, assuming he is operating within the law.

The war on photographers is real, and is one of the largest reasons I have put down my camera. It sucks being treated like a terrorist or otherwise unwanted, dangerous individual for the simple reason of capturing light on a sensor in a public place.

Management companies also do not have any influence in public garages. They cannot assume private property rights of a public building just because a private company manages the facility. The owner of the property is still John Q. Public, and John Q. Public has every right to use public property for whatever use he sees fit, assuming he is operating within the law.

Catch,
My only question about this is whether the property managing company liable for things that happen on the property that he is responsible for or does the city/state have to be liable. Just curious, not playing devil's advocate here.
C. T.

From what I understand all city owned garages including Bricktown Garage which is indeed a city parking garage and ran by COPTA and Embark are enforcing this because of people sitting up on ledges sight seeing, skateboarders, and transients camping out for the night. My GF and I we have seen some jump from one garage to another garage downtown. So those type of people have ruined it for the rest of us who want to take photos. The city owns quite a few of the larger higher parking garages you find downtown. There is private parking garages but you do have to ask permission to photograph on those garages. I wonder if I email the newspaper and ask if I can photo atop the Century Center?

...all city owned garages including Bricktown Garage which is indeed a city parking garage and ran by COPTA and Embark...
I don't know why you insist on continuing to argue this point, but the Bricktown garage is most assuredly NOT city-owned or operated. It is privately owned by Power Alley Parking LLC - check the county assessor's website if you must - and it is managed by Progressive Parking Solutions, a company out of Little Rock. I've personally parked in this garage for 14 years; you're welcome to stop by my office and take a look at the invoices I pay every month for myself and several employees.

Blah, Blah, Blah..... Just take your photos anyway and know you run the risk of being harassed and possibly (though highly unlikely, ticketed or even arrested).

I've been harassed on the Santa Fe parking garage roof by their rent-a-cops before. I just kept taking my pictures/video and then got on the elevator and went about my business. He just kept saying "You can't take pictures here. You can't take pictures here. You can't take pictures here." Which I actually commend the security guard for. While he looked ridiculous and probably felt ridiculous, he was very professional and didn't take it personally and didn't try and lay a hand on me. He did exactly what he was paid to do.

All of which is fairly moot considering you can now get a much better view with the use of a drone.

I don't know why you insist on continuing to argue this point, but the Bricktown garage is most assuredly NOT city-owned or operated. It is privately owned by Power Alley Parking LLC - check the county assessor's website if you must - and it is managed by Progressive Parking Solutions, a company out of Little Rock. I've personally parked in this garage for 14 years; you're welcome to stop by my office and take a look at the invoices I pay every month for myself and several employees.

YES THEY ARE OWNED BY THE CITY!!! You can contact COTPA. They are managed by an outside company. (period)

Steve wrote an article in April of last year which mentions Fred Mazaheri as the owner. It is not listed on the COTPA website.
http://parkingokc.com/parking

There is also this, which should settle it.

http://www.priceedwards.com/blog/pec-retail-investment-team-annonces-sale-power-alley-parking-garage


The Power Alley Parking Garage consists of 206,598 square feet of office and parking garage structure. *The garage has approximately 550 parking spaces with leases in place with the Hampton Inn & Suites hotel and the Hilton Inn & Homewood Suites, which is currently scheduled to complete construction by January of 2014. *The property was purchased from the developer Power Alley Parking, LLC. *Fred Mazaheri, with Midland Capital LLC, was the buyer of the 8-story office and parking structure. *

YES THEY ARE OWNED BY THE CITY!!! You can contact COTPA. They are managed by an outside company. (period)

Kemotblue,
I just visited the Oklahoma County Assessor's site and the facility is owned by POWER ALLEY GARAGE / MULTI TENANTS Owner Name1: BRICKTOWN GARAGE PARKING LLC. You should quit arguing and visit the site to see for yourself. Urbanized is correct. COTPA is not the correct source, It is not owned by Oklahoma City. Here is the link.
C. T.
http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R020027800

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable.

Not really... They shouted it louder than you. So they win! ;)

Guys, guys, guys. Stop trying to confuse poor Kemotblue with your 'facts' and your 'proof' and such.

Kemotblue,
I just visited the Oklahoma County Assessor's site and the facility is owned by POWER ALLEY GARAGE / MULTI TENANTS Owner Name1: BRICKTOWN GARAGE PARKING LLC. You should quit arguing and visit the site to see for yourself. Urbanized is correct. COTPA is not the correct source, It is not owned by Oklahoma City. Here is the link.
C. T.
http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R020027800

Thank you ctchandler I was mistaken. Now Urbanized your cocky rude condescending reply of an answer was uncalled for that is what caused me to throw out those all cap letters.

I have seen photographers rights cards you can print out and carry in your wallet, heck I think I have even seen them on grey cards. I know if I were doing more city photography I would carry one around.

Thank you ctchandler I was mistaken. Now Urbanized your cocky rude condescending reply of an answer was uncalled for that is what caused me to throw out those all cap letters.

Excuse me? Exactly which part was cocky, condescending or rude? The most "rude" thing I said was "I'm not sure why you continue to argue this point," which was hardly rude and only expressing genuine puzzlement over you continuing to argue a point that was repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect and which was super-easy to research on your own if you chose not to take my word for it.

If anything I think I'm owed an apology - especially after your most recent post - but I won't hold my breath. Peace out.

I have seen photographers rights cards you can print out and carry in your wallet, heck I think I have even seen them on grey cards. I know if I were doing more city photography I would carry one around.

Those are useless on private property. Those deal primarily with cops and security guards who try to enforce laws that do not exist while you are on city/state/public property.

Years and years ago (like way over a decade), I was detained outside the federal courthouse. Fortunately, they got ahold of someone higher up who knew the law and they let me go and actually apologized. I was simply standing on a sidewalk taking pics of one of the carvings on the side of the building.

Yeah the public/private property distinction is a bright white line some people just don't get. No one has the right to go on privately owned property, period, even if they built a nice, inviting-looking parking lot or garage on it. Publicly owned property is an enitrely different buffalo.

[QUOTE=Urbanized;972790]Excuse me? Exactly which part was cocky, condescending or rude? The most "rude" thing I said was "I'm not sure why you continue to argue this point," which was hardly rude and only expressing genuine puzzlement over you continuing to argue a point that was repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect and which was super-easy to research on your own if you chose not to take my word for it.

If anything I think I'm owed an apology - especially after your most recent post - but I won't hold my breath. Peace out.[/QUOTE

I like you Urbanized you give some good insight on the OKC talks website. I just didn't like the other day the way I perceived your post to me it came across condescending it put me on the defensive. I don't like that tone. I've been treated by people with a condescending tone all my life. The past few years I have gotten to the point where I just had enough of it and pretty much say what is on my mind and how I feel. You could of responded the way ctchandler responded to the post. It wasn't being direct and putting someone on the defensive. I made the master post a few nights after my GF and I were ran off the Santa Fe parking garage after the Saturday Thunder game. My Girlfriend and I left and parked in Bricktown. We stopped by Hot Dog OKC and got a hot dog and went up to the top of the Bricktown parking garage like we have done a lot in the past. The last time we were up on the garage it was earlier in the spring. That Saturday night we were treated rudely by the security guard. The way the security guard spoke to me I was taking photos and he said " You can't be up here sight see I said sorry he saw my GF taking a bite of her hotdog and "he pointed to her and said or a picnic area". I said this is public property "he said no its trespassing". My GF said come on she knew I can be confrontational. she said come on and pulled me towards the elevator. After I saw ctc post then OK that Bricktown parking garage is indeed private property. I have no idea this coming spring how the Bedlam tailgaters will get away with partying on the garage if they are going to strictly enforce the rules. They have signs up which I didn't notice till I left so you can't argue with the security guards. All of the garages are now have those trespassing signs. I do understand why they have those signs. I have seen people in the past park it on the ledge and sit, I seen transients jump from one garage to another garage. Also see transients in the past sleeping in the garages. Skateboarding that was happening this past Saturday. So yes I can see where they now have to enforce rules of being on a garage unless you pay to park in a garage.