SassyBlonde

did you know that the city of birmingham is almost exactly the same? its private owners are why corporate interests have always dictated the direction of the 'magic city.' in fact, i think you'd find that is the case of most cities, with the exception of the federal areas of washington, d.c.

the world is a haven for private corporate ownership.

Actually, from the research I've done it's extremely uncommon. The exceptions usually exist in case of security risk (say, taking pictures of a building in order to perpetrate some threat like a bomb) for large structures like the high-rises in downtown Birmingham or for bridges and highway overpasses, and for large privately owned business parks and office complexes due to corporate espionage and access security concerns (the same reason why you're not allowed to photograph the TSA area in airports or the security area in casinos). It's also a common clause when it pertains to taking pictures *inside* a privately owned building, but in this case the open-air/open-access public space nature of the site largely negates the "private property" claim, especially since the infrastructure was built with county resources paid for by public money. Not to mention the area is billed as community space and regulated by the county.

Simply put, if it occurs outside in a public space without restricted access, it's really hard for the holding company to make a legal claim that they have the right to prohibit photos unless it causes a specific security risk, which I imagine is why they've backpedaled the restriction under such a relatively small amount of public pressure.