pdmike
Extremely Popular Member
I shot this off to city attorney guy this morning:
"On further reading of Section 7.80.040, I have no objection to subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d). I initially did object to (d), but whether it is in conflict of FAA regs or not, the insertion of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard saves it as far as I am concerned. No one should be able to intentionally invade another person's reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of the means used, so I'm OK with (d). As I read (d), it does require intentional action on the part of the drone pilot.
I have problems with (e). I am OK with flights which are "designed" or "intended" to bother people on the ground. I think you can do that under the city's police power, which is recognized by FAA. I have trouble, however, with the third manner of flight, which "serves to" bother people on the ground. What does that mean? As I read it, if I am merely flying my drone over an area with people in it, and someone is"vexed or annoyed" then, by definition, my flight has "served to" vex or annoy someone, regardless of my intention. That, I don't think you can do with this ordinance. Criminal activity is based on intent. This latter "serves to" portion of (e) removes the requirement of criminal intent.
Also, (e) may be void for vagueness. "Vex" or "annoy"? What does that mean? One person's vexation or annoyance could easily be another person's "Wow, look at that! A drone! How neat!"
(f) is improper because certain types of hobby drones do not have to be
FAA registered yet the city is requiring an FAA registration on all types of drones, whether FAA registration is required or not.
(g) is clearly improper because it purports to regulate drone flight in airspace over the city and the city has no jurisdiction over airspace over its land, regardless of the type of structure may be on the land.
No objection to any of the remaining subsections of the ordinance.
I guess my main objection to anti-drone legislation by cities is that it is a mindless response to a hysterical (and incorrect) public reaction to drone flights. In other words, such legislation is not supported by fact or reason. It is based on the (false) assumption that drone operators are, by definition, lecherous voyeurs whose only aim is to film naked women. In attempting to assuage public fears in this regard, cities go overboard and enact ordinances that go beyond invasion of privacy, as with this ordinance.
As I said, no reasonable drone owner can object to an ordinance that prohibits intentional invasions of privacy where the citizen on the ground has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place.
In closing (for now), let me confirm one thing. I am assuming that if a drone operator checks in with the city and shows them his FAA registration, he can then take his drone to a city beach, launch it, and fly it over the beach, the surf, and the ocean itself, he so chooses, so long as he is flying it at a reasonable height so as not to frighten people on the beach or interfere with their activities. Is this correct?
If so, I would suggest that you change the wording of your flash sign at the entrance to LB which says that drone flying over beaches and parks is (flat) prohibited. It is misleading and, frankly, was the sole factor that prompted me to begin pursuing this issue in the first place.
I look forward to your comments regarding my thoughts about sections (e), (f) and (g) as well as confirmation that my assumption about beach flights is correct.
Best,
MRC"
"On further reading of Section 7.80.040, I have no objection to subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d). I initially did object to (d), but whether it is in conflict of FAA regs or not, the insertion of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard saves it as far as I am concerned. No one should be able to intentionally invade another person's reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of the means used, so I'm OK with (d). As I read (d), it does require intentional action on the part of the drone pilot.
I have problems with (e). I am OK with flights which are "designed" or "intended" to bother people on the ground. I think you can do that under the city's police power, which is recognized by FAA. I have trouble, however, with the third manner of flight, which "serves to" bother people on the ground. What does that mean? As I read it, if I am merely flying my drone over an area with people in it, and someone is"vexed or annoyed" then, by definition, my flight has "served to" vex or annoy someone, regardless of my intention. That, I don't think you can do with this ordinance. Criminal activity is based on intent. This latter "serves to" portion of (e) removes the requirement of criminal intent.
Also, (e) may be void for vagueness. "Vex" or "annoy"? What does that mean? One person's vexation or annoyance could easily be another person's "Wow, look at that! A drone! How neat!"
(f) is improper because certain types of hobby drones do not have to be
FAA registered yet the city is requiring an FAA registration on all types of drones, whether FAA registration is required or not.
(g) is clearly improper because it purports to regulate drone flight in airspace over the city and the city has no jurisdiction over airspace over its land, regardless of the type of structure may be on the land.
No objection to any of the remaining subsections of the ordinance.
I guess my main objection to anti-drone legislation by cities is that it is a mindless response to a hysterical (and incorrect) public reaction to drone flights. In other words, such legislation is not supported by fact or reason. It is based on the (false) assumption that drone operators are, by definition, lecherous voyeurs whose only aim is to film naked women. In attempting to assuage public fears in this regard, cities go overboard and enact ordinances that go beyond invasion of privacy, as with this ordinance.
As I said, no reasonable drone owner can object to an ordinance that prohibits intentional invasions of privacy where the citizen on the ground has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place.
In closing (for now), let me confirm one thing. I am assuming that if a drone operator checks in with the city and shows them his FAA registration, he can then take his drone to a city beach, launch it, and fly it over the beach, the surf, and the ocean itself, he so chooses, so long as he is flying it at a reasonable height so as not to frighten people on the beach or interfere with their activities. Is this correct?
If so, I would suggest that you change the wording of your flash sign at the entrance to LB which says that drone flying over beaches and parks is (flat) prohibited. It is misleading and, frankly, was the sole factor that prompted me to begin pursuing this issue in the first place.
I look forward to your comments regarding my thoughts about sections (e), (f) and (g) as well as confirmation that my assumption about beach flights is correct.
Best,
MRC"
Last edited: