Thursday, June 13, 2024
78.6 F
HomeLarchmontPhotography Prohibited at Iconic Larchmont Manor Park?

Photography Prohibited at Iconic Larchmont Manor Park?

Larchmont Manor Park – June Marie Sobrito


As you may have seen on our Instagram feed recently, Larchmont Manor Park, arguably one of the most photographed and iconic locations in the Village, is not allowing any photography.


View this post on Instagram


A post shared by larchmont loop (@larchmontloop)

This rule is posted on a small sign in the Park, ostensibly to prevent any commercial activity, such as movie shoots, without a permit.

But several readers, including many who contribute to our Photo of the Day page, were rather surprised to be asked to put down their cameras or cellphones, and leave.

“I am a longtime photographer of local areas, especially Manor Park, wrote one reader.  “I was taking photos about 3 weeks ago and a “security” person approached me and advised me that photography was no longer legal at Manor Park, because people may sell photos commercially and it was hard to determine who is taking personal or professional photos, so then all photography is now deemed illegal.  He said there were posted signs, but I was so upset I just walked away from the park.  My camera was obvious, but I also wonder how do you stop people from taking cell phone photos?”

A representative of a law firm responded to our inquiries on Instagram: “Manor Park is private property. Many people do not know this or do not care. Just as you have the right to set rules for your private property so does The Larchmont Manor Park Society. You can take pictures with the permission of those that are entrusted to perseverance of the park for the public good.” He or she further explained that money raised from photo permits helps maintain the park.

We will continue to try and get more information about this policy.

What do you think?

Polly Kreisman
Polly Kreisman
Polly Kreisman founded and began publishing theLoop in 2007. She is a 15-time Emmy Award winning former television reporter. In New York she worked at WPIX TV, WWOR TV, WNBC TV and NY1. She covered politics on Capitol Hill in Washington DC earlier in her career. For the past several years she has pursued professional acting roles in film, television and commercials. She is the mother of twins and two baldly behaved dogs, and lives in Larchmont.


Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Beverly Ross
Beverly Ross
November 30, 2022 1:01 PM

Is it still true that each property owner in the Manor actually “owns” a piece of the Manor Park, also paying yearly fees for upkeeping the park? My family told me this years ago, and I know that they were paying a fee for it since they moved in during first decade of the 20th century. As I understand, payment is built into whatever you pay the Village per year. If you’re a resident and you “own” part of it then it looks like you also don’t have any Rights at all to take a picture of the most beautiful scenery in Larchmont besides Pryor Lane pond.

It’s ironic how the bureaucratic claim is that laws/ordinances like this stop commercial (or criminal entities) from not paying fees to use something- therefore abusing free access to it. Perhaps it does- but it sure increases village government revenues making the Village the biggest beneficiary of the ordinance. As it’s enforced, or excessively or inconsistently enforced, this looks like it most often directed at Manor property owners, or residents of Larchmont, themselves, keeping them from doing something. The property taxes are strangling families here, yet we’re ultimately controlled by things like this as though we don’t even belong here and have no reason to enter a nice park to fully enjoy it and retain memories of it.

OT: I was pretty shocked a couple of years ago, driving by someone’s small Winnebago which had driven over the curb and parked for quite a while on the grass of the Park proper- I considered that peraps no one had tried to make them move. I called the police and checked back to see that it had been moved out. That seems to be a more realistic way of handling things rather than punishing homeowners for non-resident behaviors.

Last edited 1 year ago by Beverly Ross
October 11, 2022 9:37 AM

Real Estate agents should NOT be allowed to even attempt to sell homes while profiting by showing pictures of the park, or driving around, which we all know they do.

Adam Storick
Adam Storick
October 6, 2022 4:54 PM

(Sitting in the cell at the Larchmont Police Station)
Drunk Guy: “Hey….whadda ya in for?”
Me: “Taking pictures”
Drunk Guy: “You some kinda perv?”
Me: “Depends…is taking pictures of a Gazeebo perverted?”

Bob T
Bob T
October 6, 2022 1:55 PM

It’s private property. Get over it. It’ a beautiful park, and for the most part, anyone can go there to enjoy it. If wedding parties were showing up constantly, and the association didn’t like it, so be it. I can’t go on a homeowner’s property and take pictures. They’re referring to commercial photography. Some of the more ridiculous comments I’ve read: Censorship, um, no it’s not. It’s a privately run park setting rules. It should be public since it’s the only access to the shore without belonging to a club. That’s not how it work. Should your home become public property because a homeless guy needs a place to live? The reason people want to go to the park is because it’s beautiful and clean. We all know the people complaining here would be the first to complain if a couple from Mount Vernon was taking wedding photos. You should all be grateful you don’t have to show proof of residency. Go to Shore Park in Pelham Manor. They don’t strictly enforce residency rules, and it’s a mess.

October 6, 2022 2:32 PM
Reply to  Bob T

Thank you for your comment. No one is disputing that. Readers are reporting excessive and inconsistent enforcement of non commercial photography and other seemingly benign activity.

Last edited 1 year ago by theLoop
October 6, 2022 12:58 PM

Censorship clearly. Public or private, it doesn’t matter.This insane idea needs to stop.

October 6, 2022 10:33 AM

I think that’s all the more reason to leave New York.

October 17, 2022 3:43 PM
Reply to  Leave

Left 11 years ago. Never looked back.
this photo issue is disgraceful.

Amy Peters
Amy Peters
October 5, 2022 10:08 PM

I agree that permits should be required for certain types of photo shoots (Ie, weddings, engagements, family portraits, fashion, movie production, etc.) But I do not agree with a zero photography without a permit policy, even if the park is private property. It is open to the public, fee or no fee. Personal photography should be permitted, whether by cell phone or 35 mm Leica.

Cheryl Barrett
Cheryl Barrett
October 5, 2022 9:37 PM

If it’s privately owned they have a right to set the rules.

Gordon Silverman
Gordon Silverman
October 5, 2022 4:52 PM

Foolish. It only invites resentment

Beverly Ross
Beverly Ross
November 30, 2022 1:08 PM

It even applies to residents of the Manor, apparently. This is bureaucratic government, more likely, wanting to make money from the scenery.

October 5, 2022 4:30 PM

It’s time for this park to be returned to the public. Basically the only place in Larchmont where the public can access the shore in any way without paying through the nose for access via an elitist club. Clearly NIMBYism has gotten out of control here, with a handful of extremely affluent folks, under the guise of generosity, using their wealth to write a rulebook so that the front row of houses don’t have to see assembled riff-raff on what they consider to be their lawn.

Beverly Ross
Beverly Ross
November 30, 2022 1:10 PM
Reply to  CITY BLOW-IN

It is open free to the public every day. It’s crowded with many, many more people during the summer. Don’t know WHICH city you come from, but it ain’t from around Larchmont. People from all over the area, including boroughs of NY City, go there.

• C O M M U N I T Y • C A L E N D A R •

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x