Mike Padgett Loc: Arizona

Be prepared for similar proposals at other parks.

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/11/sign-requiring-permit-for-photo-shoots-in-st-louis-city-park-put-up-by-mistake/

Frapha Loc: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Same thing applies in City Parks in Tulsa, OK. $25 permit for a day, or $250 for year. Unfortunately the ordinance is pretty vague and enforced inconsistently. It apparently was originally intended for "professional" or "commercial" photographers, but if you show up with a tripod, you're automatically "professional" or "commercial" and will be told to leave if you don't have the permit. Another problem is that it's not well posted and a lot of folks don't know about it until they're asked to leave by the PD or parks security.

Ruthiel Loc: Las Vegas

A State park in the Las Vegas area charges $250 a shoot. The museum that is privately owned and has the old neon signs charges the same.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

The signs have been removed...County officials also discovered they had no ordinances to enforce the sign. One of the biggest gripes was that the rule also mandated a Million Dollar Liability Policy to do the shoots.

Steve_Williams Loc: Southern Illinois

I just returned from a visit to the Heritage Village in Sharonville, OH. I was requested to pay $25 for two hours for personal photography or $200 prepay for "commercial" photography. I declined and left. Later on their websites it states you may buy photographs from the listed local photographers. This historical site is highly rated on all of the travel sites and several hundred photos are posted.
I asked the man who sells the tickets what they mean by "commercial" he said anyone taking pictures will be charged. I cannot believe that those photos published on a travel rating site each paid $25 in addition to the admission.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The Dallas Arboretum started doing something like this about 6 or 7 years ago, along with prohibiting all photography inside the historical mansion which was the home of the family who previously owned the property. I was a volunteer there at that time and was in on a few of the discussions around the change in rules. What it boiled down to was a handful of "professional" photographers who made a major nuisance of themselves by treating the property as if it were their own personal studio...blocking traffic, interfering with official tours, etc. I never liked the changes, but as a tour guide, I had several personal experiences that caused me to understand exactly why the rules were put in place.