BURBANK FILM PERMIT ORDINANCE - HEARING Tuesday, Dec 9

E

EMC

Member
The Burbank City Council is considering revisions to the City’s Film Permit Ordinance that will allow the use of hand held cameras without a permit and waiver of fees for non-profit organizations and student productions, as well as other updates to address changes in technology. The City Council will be considering the proposed ordinance at its next meeting on Tuesday, December 9 @ 6pm.

LINKS:
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=34&meta_id=35431 (Staff Report)
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=34&meta_id=35433 (FAQ)
Burbank City Council Email Address for comments: BurbankCouncil@ci.burbank.ca.us

MY OPINION: This update is long overdue and I support these changes wholeheartedly, but in my opinion they don’t go far enough. It is still illegal for an individual to film on private property without a permit, whether that’s their own home or place of business, if they use ancillary lighting &/or audio equipment. This is ridiculous IMO! This whole matter came to head when then Mayor Marsha Ramos was told by the City Attorney’s Office that she could not film a time-sensitive endorsement for a Presidential Candidate she supported on her own property without a permit & insurance. The reason we have restrictions according to Staff is to “protect the public from the safety hazards and disruption which can be associated with filming activities”. I totally understand this with respect to major Film/TV production on public property, which is what the original ordinance was created to address, but to restrict individuals & freelancers from filming on private property that does not pose a threat to public safety is unreasonable and overbearing. An individual setting up a few lights poses no more a fire threat than someone using a 1000w Lowes work light in their home or garage. A small 1-3 person crew setting up a few lights for a low budget indie film, music video, commercial, wedding ceremony/reception or interview on private property is not going to negatively impact the public or create a nuisance re noise/traffic etc. I hope common sense will prevail and the necessary changes made to allow freelancers and semi-pro photographers, videographers and filmmakers to shoot in their own homes or other private property without a time consuming, bureaucratic and costly ($350) permit process, whether for private, educational, political, commercial or non-commercial purposes. Burbank is after all the “media capital of the world”!
 
FWIW: Here's a copy of an email I sent the entire Council this morning on this issue. If you live/work in the Burbank area and can make it out to speak in support of these changes, please come by. Meeting starts at 6pm. Cheers! EMC

Further to my previous correspondence on this matter; I’d like to share some additional final thoughts on the proposed ordinance before tonight’s vote. Let me begin by re-stating my support for these long overdue changes...it’s a great start! That being said, in my opinion the proposed amendments don’t go far enough as they do not allow an individual or small crew to film with ancillary lighting &/or audio equipment on private property without a $350 permit, even though in my professional opinion such filming does not pose a real threat to public safety. I believe these restrictions are unfair and unreasonable.

Accordingly, I would ask that you consider the following amendments and actions:

1. Allow such filming of small-scale productions on private property with a crew of 1-3 people without a permit and waiver the $350 fee.
2. Charge a reduced fee of no more than 50% of the current fee for medium-scale productions with a crew of 3-10 or 3-15 people. (Note: Pasadena & Beverly Hills have a reduced permit fee for small-scale productions with crews under 10-15 people, that’s about 50% of their normal permit fee. Glendale’s regular permit fee is only $150).
3. Require the regular permit and fee for large-scale productions with crews of more than 10 or 15 people.

Note: You could even stipulate a maximum power usage of say 2,000 Watts for lighting, which must be split on at least 2 circuits ($1k max/circuit) if your concerned about a premises electrical infrastructure. If this is really about safety and not revenue, then lets waiver or reduce the fees.

Finally, in 2006 the Council adopted a zone text amendment to allow Music Lessons as a Home Occupation and I think it’s time we amend that ordinance to allow home audio/video/web type “studio” usages also, given the advancements in current technology, the traffic gridlock in the media district and current economic crisis that’s resulted in hundreds of employees being laid off at NBC/Universal, Paramount-MTV-BET, Avid, Adobe, Yahoo etc. I would ask that the Council bring this back as a separate urgency agenda item to encourage & enable more people to work-at-home in arts/media related areas such as motion graphic design & animation, video editing, audio, catering, as well as other business professions (financial, legal, real estate, consulting etc.); to allow the types of home businesses that already exist to operate legally (Ebay, MLM); to allow those who’ve been laid-off or had their hours dramatically reduced to freelance from home in order to feed their families and pay their mortgages & bills. This shouldn’t take a year, we don’t need to form a blue-ribbon committee, we just need to borrow what’s applicable & appropriate from the Music Lesson ZTA re parking, noise etc., and apply it in a manner that allows a broader usage without all the red tape. You should be allowed to do whatever you want to in your own home (within reason), as long as it doesn’t disturb or present a nuisance to the neighborhood.

Given these challenging & tough economic times, I hope the Council will tackle this issue with a reasonable, flexible & common-sense approach, and make the necessary compromises to ensure a business-friendly climate and a win/win situation for everyone; media freelancers, business owners, residential neighborhoods and the City; that people can shoot whatever they want in their own homes or business without a time consuming, bureaucratic and costly permit process, whether for private, educational, political, news, commercial or entertainment purposes. Burbank is after all the “media capital of the world”! Let’s keep it that way. Cheers!
 
Yeah this issue really pisses me off. They have NO right to tell me or anyone else what I can and cannot do on my private property, or anyone else's private property where we have an agreement. Now if sound comes out of the shoot and disturbs neighbors, that's a different matter. If we clog up parking, that's a different matter. But if we're just shooting some little thing in my condo for instance, I'm not getting permits. This is MY property, I'll do what I want in my own place and there's nothing they can do about it. If I ever got any crap for that, I am not joking I would take the city to court and I would fix this matter, I don't care if it costs all the money I have. Nobody screws with the constitution that way -- they DO NOT have the right to do that. It's PRIVATE property for a reason.
 
Wow, an interesting issue. Let's say a three person crew films events (weddings, etc) on weekends, obviously without a permit. On the weekday the same three produce short film segments (webisodes) in their home/garage.

I wonder how the City would justify requiring a permit for the crew in their home and yet not require a permit to film events using public facilities...

Lotsa luck, Michael
 
I hear you Jonathan! The good news is the Burbank City Council did pass the proposed ordinance "as is" (5-0) with some minor language tweaks. That means you can now legally shoot on most private & public property (with some exceptions) with a hand-held camera, along with a tripod and on-camera light, as long as you're not taking over an area i.e. blocking pedestrian traffic etc.

Also, at least 2 Council members expressed support for updating our Home Occupation ordinance to be more flexible & accommodating to media freelancers working from home (studios) in areas such as video editing, audio post, web/graphic design etc. That's going to come back as a separate agenda item early next year and I'll keep everyone posted.

Unfortunately despite my best efforts the Council did not grant a permit/fee waiver for small-scale productions, either a single Videographer or small crew if they use external lights and audio gear. I am very disappointed but haven’t given up! I’ll be back to make one more appeal @ the 2nd reading this Tuesday night. If you and few more people can come down and speak in support, perhaps it'll make a difference...they do tend to be more responsive when there's an (angry) crowd.

Below is a link to some video of the Council discussions on this matter, as well as an article and letter that appeared in today's local newspaper (Burbank Leader). It's not too late to email the Council your thoughts @ <CityCouncil@ci.burbank.ca.us> Cheers!

<http://www.youtube.com/user/burbankhomebiz>

<http://www.burbankleader.com/articles/2008/12/13/politics/blr-film13.txt>

<http://www.goldstreet.net/press/Leader_FilmPermits.jpg>
 
Michael, I'm still not totally clear myself on the Wedding Videographer issue. It appears that they would require a permit, unless they're just using hand-held cameras with an on-camera light &/or wireless lav. receiver attached. Not sure how they'd enforce this. Are they going to cruise around the streets peeking into folks houses to see if anyone's filming? Are BPD/BFD going to raid Weddings or Events to make sure folks are filming legally? In 95% of the cases, unless you're causing a problem re right-of-way, making too much noise, or have a truck or bunch of cars parked out front of your place, you probably have nothing to worry about. Cheers! - ERIC
 
You guys can have cameras in any public event that allows, including weddings.
You need no permit for this and I'd surely not spend time getting one to shoot on the street.
I look back in my 25 years aof shooting to count the permits I have aquired. Unless ya count a press badge per event... absolutly none. I ask permission when I'm done. Works best for me.
 
Big government pisses me off when it comes to this stuff! Do working citizens really need this much oversight!? This is our work, why the hell should we pay government money to get permission to do it?- When is enough, enough!

Seriously, We as citzens need to speak up more about this and other dumb stuff- If we dont we might lose our chance.
 
Burbank film permit fees - revisited

Burbank film permit fees - revisited

A few months back I started this thread as Burbank updated it's Film Permit Ordinance to allow the use of hand-held cameras without a permit ($350 fee), providing no external lighting/audio gear was used.

Good News: I spoke again on this issue at Tuesday night's City Council meeting and this time I brought some help in the form of a fellow indie film/documentary maker who also happens to be a Burbank City Council candidate in our upcoming election (Barbara Sharp). I'm pleased to report the majority of the Council are now willing to revisit the Film Permit Fee issue for small-scale productions, and will soon be considering a more flexible Home Occupation Ordinance to allow low impact face-to-face client contact (2-3 trips/visits a day), for multimedia freelancers who choose to work from home. Below are links to video highlights for anyone interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-HcsfDhv90&feature=channel_page (Council responses)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN329AcizW8 (My talk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJrnt7KTIVU&feature=channel (Barbara Sharp)
 
Last edited:
hunter richards said:
Seriously, We as citzens need to speak up more about this and other dumb stuff- If we dont we might lose our chance.
Click to expand...
No matter how patriotic you are, government's very intent is to remove power from we, the people. I don't bother speaking up when it comes to government because I have found more power in being invisible where they are concerned. It's always been easier to ask forgiveness than permission and while I have never asked permission to shoot anywhere, man I also have never had to applogize for it. I sport the camera like I belong there and have found the best way to gain access at any event is to ask the biggest security to step aside. They simply do... never had it questioned.
 
EMC said:
I hear you Jonathan! The good news is the Burbank City Council did pass the proposed ordinance "as is" (5-0) with some minor language tweaks. That means you can now legally shoot on most private & public property (with some exceptions) with a hand-held camera, along with a tripod and on-camera light, as long as you're not taking over an area i.e. blocking pedestrian traffic etc.
Click to expand...

This is how it is in Chicago. As long as you don't block the streets you're fine.

grinner said:
I sport the camera like I belong there and have found the best way to gain access at any event is to ask the biggest security to step aside. They simply do... never had it questioned.
Click to expand...

Dude, I so got on to the ER set like this when they were shooting here. Walked up to security like "Where's the set." Opened my bag, showed the DVX (as if), dude was like, "They're around the corner, but on break now. Just go down a block." LOL.

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
This is how it is in Chicago. As long as you don't block the streets you're fine.



Dude, I so got on to the ER set like this when they were shooting here. Walked up to security like "Where's the set." Opened my bag, showed the DVX (as if), dude was like, "They're around the corner, but on break now. Just go down a block." LOL.

-Nate
Click to expand...

HAHAHA, that's so awesome! I love that, DVX, as if. I bet anything if you showed up with just a belt full of grip equipment, you know your various colored tapes, maybe a fancy light meter (as if you'd even have need for this as a grip), some crap like that, the guy would just be like, "Uhh ok whatever this guy must be a filmmaker," haha. They are first off not paid enough to care. And second they would rather risk letting you on by accident than getting yelled at because they held up an important member of the crew, haha. It's easier to say, "Uhh I didn't see that guy come in, honestly" and absolve themselves of blame than if they really stopped an actual grip, and got told they held up the shoot and cost the show money. ;)

I have to say that when I hear of people dotting all of their I's and crossing all of their T's in the film industry, I can't help but think, "Must be n00bs." I mean, honestly, when I started out I was so paranoid about all this, I didn't want to shoot anywhere without a permit, I wanted to do absolutely everything by the book, pay everyone as an employee so I didn't get in trouble, then the more I talked to people the more I realized nobody actually does this stuff. Also it's totally rigged against indie filmmakers. It's easy for Warner Bros. to pay $685 for a permit, what the hell do they care?! That's nothing! But for my shoots that's going to be probably 5-10% of the budget, maybe more, just for a piece of paper saying I can do something I was going to do anyway? Ha-ha forget that!

To me it's all a cost-benefit analysis. If the odds of getting in trouble are 1 in 100, then the permit needs to cost 1% of the budget or less to be worthwhile. If the odds of getting caught are 1 in 100 but the permit costs 10% of the budget, I'd be far better off over the course of 100 shoots not having a permit, since I'm only going to get caught ONE time and the money saved the other 99 times easily pays to reshoot the ENTIRE project if it came down to that (which I doubt it would, because no footage, no post production expenses, shortened shoot, you may be able to pay crew a small fee to come back next weekend and try again, lol). So when someone says you need to get a permit, I just ask or what? I mean yeah if I'm filming on the streets and asking for roads to be closed and parking 6 semitrucks, sure, of course I will get a permit, because it doesn't cost ANYTHING compared to what I just spent on all of that disruption. But if I'm filming on private property, no noise, one single U-Haul truck or van full of equipment, crew of 10 people or so, heck no I'm not paying for a permit. I don't see where they get off even acting like they have that right. You can't even pass laws that aren't enforceable.

Exhibit A: I'm filming in someone's condo, their private property, not at all visible from the street and the van is inside the parking garage. First off, how are they going to know we're filming there? Neighbor's complain about the noise? What noise? It's dialogue, talking, no more than any other noise, plus you can't hear through the walls anyway, 2 feet of concrete in this building. Next, let's say somehow that -- I don't know, they got a vision -- they felt maybe there was filming going on that day in this particular condo unit. Then what? They better have a pretty AMAZING judge to get a search warrant approved for FILMING (hahaha) within the one day we're filming there. Otherwise, guess who is completely out of luck? Because if they busted down your door and said you were filming, you'd sue the city, the police department, and pretty much everyone involved for illegal search and seizure, violation of private property without a search warrant, and you'd be looking at a fat paycheck to vacation in Hawaii. So really, you tell me, how can you pass a law that you cannot by any means possibly hope to enforce?! It's hard enough just to enforce the "no talking on a cell phone if you're under 18" law, which by the way they have in Oregon. You'd have to pull people over who look like they may, possibly, be under 18. Boy if they're 20 they are going to be PISSED, and probably file suit against the city for harassment (this has already been discussed), so that leaves the officers only able to cite someone if they happen to pull them over for something unrelated. Basically, a completely unenforceable law by itself. It's like saying, "Well if they had a search warrant to look in your condo because they had proof you were growing marijuana, AND they found out you were filming there, they could bust you for filming without a permit!" Sure, they could, but trust me my friend that's the LEAST of your worries! ;)

Grinner is right -- you just do what you gotta do, only n00bs go get permits for little stuff that nobody cares about. It's just overly paranoid behavior that never pays off financially, it just feeds the coffers of an organization pretty much designed to make it a pain for the little guys. No thanks!
 
Let me reword part of this for you:

EMC said:
to allow those who’ve been laid-off or had their hours dramatically reduced to freelance from home in order to feed their families and pay their mortgages, TAXES & bills.
Click to expand...

:)

Really, it is rediculous that you can't work in your own home. I dealt with that problem here in CT too. Zoning doesn't permit home-based businesses, so many of us small-timers work as freelancers for hire under our own names, rather than registering a business name. Why can't we have laissez-faire capitalism in America?
 
JonathanLB said:
This is MY property, I'll do what I want in my own place and there's nothing they can do about it.
Click to expand...

Do you pay property taxes? If you refuse, will you be removed from "YOUR" property by "authorities" with uniforms and guns? If the answer to either is 'yes' then you are a custodian of the property, not an owner. ;)
 
basspig said:
Do you pay property taxes? If you refuse, will you be removed from "YOUR" property by "authorities" with uniforms and guns? If the answer to either is 'yes' then you are a custodian of the property, not an owner. ;)
Click to expand...

Ha-ha, well that's true, but property taxes are an unfortunate annoyance of reality. I do pay my property taxes, yes.

I disagree with property taxes, but then again I disagree with every tax essentially. I think we should have a fair tax, incurred only from buying goods and services. There should be no income tax and no property tax -- inhabiting your own property or making money should NOT incur expenses, that's ridiculous. You shouldn't be punished for owning property or for making money. Taxes have to come from somewhere, though, so I support the Fair Tax and wouldn't mind paying 30% on whatever I bought, because at least then I'd be paying money only when I DID something, instead of having to pay taxes for doing nothing whatsoever, just breathing.

The founding fathers would turn in their graves, honestly. Anyone who isn't either a radical liberal or a neo conservative knows two things neither of those sides wants to admit: The Founding Fathers were mostly NOT religious, in fact most of them detested religion and thought it was ridiculous (thus the strong separation of church and state they intended that someone like Bush completely ignored, and Obama too frankly), and they would never have supported income taxes for all of these stupid social programs that have been hoisted upon us.

We need another revolution, start over again, the country has become fat and weak, and fat not only literally but figuratively. Any country that has the tolerance and patience to support people who are lazy and don't work, and makes up excuses to take care of the weak is a society in decline. Strong societies do what the Spartans did -- throw the weak off a cliff, better for everyone. There's no excuse for this sympathy and compassion that weakens the entire society and causes people to leech off us. I don't want my money going to people who are too pathetic to support themselves, their families can support them, or a private organization (church, etc.) can support them, or they can die. But it's not my job to support those useless oxygen thieves.
 
You sound like a Libertarian who's read Ayn Rand. :)
I have been afflicted with that sense of morality for half a century (Atlas Shrugged in 1957) and life has been very difficult to live in an irrational world ever since. Ignorance IS bliss, I tell ya'!

The reality here is you're living in the most Communist state in the union (isn't California the state that sent goon squads out to confiscate equipment from home recording studios on orders from the big recording studios back in the late 1980s? )
All-out war erupted in California between the owners of professional studios and those with professional-quality home studios. THE DISPUTE CENTERED ON THE ISSUE OF LOST REVENUE: The professional studio owners, in short, felt that the home-studio users were stealing part of their pie. At the same time, the professional studios' overhead costs—commercial rents and mortgages, business taxes, client parking, equipment and maintenance—were soaring.

Sound familiar? It's a double-edged sword.

Getting back to my original point, in a Fascist society such as modern America, where all property is owned by the government, with the illusion of ownership by the people, the government makes all the rules about how you can use the property. That's why you'll never win an argument in court against a muni agency. The rules are stacked in favor of the muni and any 'victory' for the people is symbolic and loudly trumpeted to keep the rest of the sheeple from revolting by making them believe they still have some influence in government.

By paying taxes faithfully all of these decades, we the people have written our own epitaph--built our own guillotine--through our aquiescence to allow money to be appropriated from us without resistance. So we hardly have a leg to stand on when we complain that we can't shoot video in our own private homes. We let them hoodwink us and now we are shocked that the government we financed through taxation, has taken away all of our freedom.
 
Yup, there's really no power about it, I mean there's not enough public outrage over anything, big or small. If people were angry and outraged about smaller issues, it would prevent the bigger ones from developing, but instead it reminds me of that long saying, I don't recall exactly what it was, but it goes something like, "When the government came for the blacks, I wasn't black, so I didn't speak up. When the government came for the Jews, I was not Jewish, so I didn't speak up. When the government came for the Muslims, I was not Muslim, so I didn't speak up. When the government came for me, there was nobody left to speak up." Essentially, that too many people think, "Eh, I'm not a filmmaker, not my problem," or "Eh, I'm not a property owner, not my problem," "Eh, I don't make over $250,000 a year, not my problem." Then when it IS their problem, they're angry there isn't more outrage over it.

I'm a libertarian who happens to be a big Nietzsche fan, and considering Ayn Rand pretty much copied all of the best parts from Nietzsche, then it's very similar. I like Ayn Rand, not sure why she felt the need to distance herself from Nietzsche, considering her philosophy of Objectivism was pretty much identical to Nietzsche's version of existentialism, but oh well.
 
Martin Niemoller wrote that. In the original German:


Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.


Translated to English:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


WRT Rand and Nietzsche, in her early life, Rand admired the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, and did share "Nietzsche's reverence for human potential and his loathing of Christianity and the philosophy of Immanuel Kant," but eventually became critical, seeing his philosophy as emphasizing emotion over reason and a subjective interpretation of reality rather than reality existing independently from the self. There were other philosophical reasons, as she learned more about Nietzsche's premises. One thing about Rand--she adjusts her appraisals as she learns more facts, rather than stubbornly stick to a view, regardless of new information.
 
Taxation without representation. We have representation but now we need taxes to pay for the representation. LOL.

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top