Bradenton Beach Drone, FL - Please Proofread My Letter To City Council

[BeticusMagnus]

Please proofread my letter to the city council of Bradenton Beach, FL. They have cited three references for not allowing drone operations, when no specific language exists in the cited references prohibiting UAS operations: Bradenton Beach Ordinance 94-141B (does not exist), Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 and Florida Statues 162.

Here is the letter to the council:

Re: UNLAWFUL RESTRICTION ON OPERATION OF UAS VEHICLES OVER BEACH AND PARK AREA

Dear Members of the Bradenton Beach City Council,
I am writing to address the current policy on drone operations within the confines of the beach and park area at Bradenton Beach. It has come to my attention that there is a policy being enforced which restricts the flying of drones. However, upon thorough review, I have found that this policy is not codified in any existing law or ordinance, either locally or at the county/state level.

Specifically, the ordinance reference 94-141B, which is cited as the basis for this policy, does not exist in the Bradenton Beach Code of Ordinances. Additionally, Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 makes no mention of prohibiting drone flights. Furthermore, Florida Statute 162, which deals with code enforcement, does not cover the regulation of drone operations over beaches or park areas.

As a responsible drone operator, I adhere to all applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and safety protocols. There is no FAA requirement to seek LAANC authorization to fly in that specific airspace. Drone operations that are not sustained over people or moving vehicles are not prohibited either. It is important for local policies to align with state and federal laws to avoid confusion and ensure that all regulations are clear and enforceable. It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.
I respectfully request that the City Council review the current policy on drone operations and provide clarification on the legal basis for any restrictions. I also demand that you remove the no drone advisory of your bulletin boards posted at the beach at Bradenton Beach as well as Coquina Beach. If no such legal basis exists, I urge the Council to reconsider the enforcement of this policy to ensure it is in compliance with existing laws and regulations.

I wish to inform Bradenton Beach City Council that any interference with a drone operator during the course of their duties constitutes a federal crime. Such interference not only disrupts aircraft operations but also poses a significant risk to public safety due to potential distractions. It is crucial that all actions taken by the Council align with federal regulations to ensure the safety and legality of drone operations.

Furthermore, potential legal consequences of denying a citizen their Constitutional rights while conducting drone operations exists in this matter. Interfering with a drone operator may infringe upon their First Amendment right to free expression and their Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Such actions could expose the City Council to lawsuits for violating these Constitutional protections. It is imperative that the Council ensures its policies and actions are in full compliance with federal and Constitutional law to avoid legal repercussions and uphold the rights of its citizens.

 

[AeroJ]

Absolutely bloody superb mate. Knocked it out of the park, or should I say - off the beach ! Extra points for no typos or grammatical errors too !

If I could find a GIF of a cat clapping, it would be here, specially for this bit...

''It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.''

I suspect a lot of officials could do with that reminder, or perhaps it is merely us being naive to imagine that this remit is something they pay the slightest bit of attention to at all in our current troubled times !

 

[Droning on and on...]

I would remove these portions:

...It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.

Adds nothing to your legal argument, and is insulting. They know this.

I wish to inform Bradenton Beach City Council that any interference with a drone operator during the course of their duties constitutes a federal crime. Such interference not only disrupts aircraft operations but also poses a significant risk to public safety due to potential distractions. It is crucial that all actions taken by the Council align with federal regulations to ensure the safety and legality of drone operations.

Furthermore, potential legal consequences of denying a citizen their Constitutional rights while conducting drone operations exists in this matter. Interfering with a drone operator may infringe upon their First Amendment right to free expression and their Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Such actions could expose the City Council to lawsuits for violating these Constitutional protections. It is imperative that the Council ensures its policies and actions are in full compliance with federal and Constitutional law to avoid legal repercussions and uphold the rights of its citizens.

Sounds like a threat, and again doesn't further your legal argument. They have an attorney, who will be given your letter, and doesn't need to be informed of this.

Unless you mean to imply, "do what I want or I'm going to sue you", which is a bad way to start your first inquiry into this, I'd keep it just to the facts of existing law, and rest your case on that. Keep it otherwise business-like and professional.

 

[mavic3usa]

I read your title and read your first sentence and starting thinking "ok another letter asking your government for permission" and then I read the rest of your letter....the important pieces. Love it! It is important to mention, in no uncertain terms, that you will take legal action should this not get resolved quickly. Sometimes it make sense to ask for clarification first but I think the intent of the sign (please post a pic of that sign), the abundant references to non-applicable ordinances, and the overall attitude about drones by the local governments means it is no longer necessary to play nice at first. Those letters get trashed, your name added to a list, and they keep an extra lookout for you on the beach.

They will know you are serious and they will know if there is a confrontation, you will fight back. In fact, if you don't hear back from them shortly, I think it is appropriate to prepare yourself and go "auditor" style and make this an issue. Just know you will only have half of the drone community backing you and maybe less of the local community backing you but that's the way these efforts start out.

I think the letter is perfect, well said, and sets the correct tone. It's important to know this is just the beginning as thousands of local communities gear up to fill the vacuum left by the FAA and take advantage of the current overwhelming sentiment against [Chinese] drones and we can either go thru normal methods and hope this works out in one or two decades or we can take a page from the other [unpopular] causes in this free country and make a stand now. Thanks for tackling this in your community so if I or someone like me happen to fly a drone on that beach, we don't told flying a drone recreationally for fun is a crime and have to face legal action.

 

[FLDave]

Please proofread my letter to the city council of Bradenton Beach, FL. They have cited three references for not allowing drone operations, when no specific language exists in the cited references prohibiting UAS operations: Bradenton Beach Ordinance 94-141B (does not exist), Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 and Florida Statues 162.

Here is the letter to the council:

Re: UNLAWFUL RESTRICTION ON OPERATION OF UAS VEHICLES OVER BEACH AND PARK AREA

Dear Members of the Bradenton Beach City Council,
I am writing to address the current policy on drone operations within the confines of the beach and park area at Bradenton Beach. It has come to my attention that there is a policy being enforced which restricts the flying of drones. However, upon thorough review, I have found that this policy is not codified in any existing law or ordinance, either locally or at the county/state level.

Specifically, the ordinance reference 94-141B, which is cited as the basis for this policy, does not exist in the Bradenton Beach Code of Ordinances. Additionally, Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 makes no mention of prohibiting drone flights. Furthermore, Florida Statute 162, which deals with code enforcement, does not cover the regulation of drone operations over beaches or park areas.

As a responsible drone operator, I adhere to all applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and safety protocols. There is no FAA requirement to seek LAANC authorization to fly in that specific airspace. Drone operations that are not sustained over people or moving vehicles are not prohibited either. It is important for local policies to align with state and federal laws to avoid confusion and ensure that all regulations are clear and enforceable. It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.
I respectfully request that the City Council review the current policy on drone operations and provide clarification on the legal basis for any restrictions. I also demand that you remove the no drone advisory of your bulletin boards posted at the beach at Bradenton Beach as well as Coquina Beach. If no such legal basis exists, I urge the Council to reconsider the enforcement of this policy to ensure it is in compliance with existing laws and regulations.

I wish to inform Bradenton Beach City Council that any interference with a drone operator during the course of their duties constitutes a federal crime. Such interference not only disrupts aircraft operations but also poses a significant risk to public safety due to potential distractions. It is crucial that all actions taken by the Council align with federal regulations to ensure the safety and legality of drone operations.

Furthermore, potential legal consequences of denying a citizen their Constitutional rights while conducting drone operations exists in this matter. Interfering with a drone operator may infringe upon their First Amendment right to free expression and their Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Such actions could expose the City Council to lawsuits for violating these Constitutional protections. It is imperative that the Council ensures its policies and actions are in full compliance with federal and Constitutional law to avoid legal repercussions and uphold the rights of its citizens.

My suggestion is to get to the point and reduce this to a single well-intended paragraph. As written, it's hard to figure out what you regally want.

Furthermore, you are making a lot of legal, sort of, arguments. If you are going the legal route I suggest you have your attorney write the letter. I assume you already have an attorney retained.

 

[Mike52]

I agree with what you’re trying to do here but I also agree with the comments suggesting that you leave out the threats and rhetoric about the will of the people, etc. I also think you’ve left out your most effective legal argument, namely that the Florida Legislature has preempted regulation of drones to the state. This is from an email I wrote to another local government in Florida a while back.
[The following is a long quote from my email. I didn’t feel like going through it and changing the quote marks to indicate quotes within quotes, etc.]

Also, I’d like to point out that the State of Florida has preempted regulation of drones by local governments, with certain narrow exceptions. See section 330.41, Florida Statutes. (2020). Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Subsection (3)(b) of that statute states:

“(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, or operation of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements; the purpose of operations; and pilot, operator, or observer qualifications, training, and certification.”

Subsection (2)(c) of the statute defines “unmanned aircraft system” as
follows:
“Unmanned aircraft system” means a drone and its associated elements, including communication links and the components used to control the drone which are required for the pilot in command to operate the drone safely and efficiently.”

Thus, a political subdivision may not regulate the “operation“ of an “unmanned aircraft system,“ including the “components used to control the drone,” (i.e., the remote control.)

Now, there are some exceptions to this prohibition. (3)(c) provides:

“(c) This subsection does not limit the authority of a local government to enact or enforce local ordinances relating to nuisances, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, property damage, or other illegal acts arising from the use of unmanned aircraft systems if such laws or ordinances are not specifically related to the use of an unmanned aircraft system for those illegal acts.”

In other words, a city can prohibit doing something with a drone that would be illegal without a drone. However, [unnamed local government’s] blanket prohibition on the use of drones on beaches is clearly invalid under section 330.41, Florida Statutes.
In light of the foregoing, I respectfully request that the [unnamed local government]amend its ordinance to clarify that it does not apply to drones and pending such amendment instruct its agents to suspend enforcement of it.

 

[sportsphotos]

As a Faa certified drone operator following FAA part 017 regulations please don’t lump those trained with those not trained in the proper operations of a drone. Don’t lump the non certified hobbyist into the same category of a Part 107 pilot that has taken the time to learn. Your sign is a blanket restriction on drone operations. While I do understand that hobbyists have no clue of the FAA rules. So I would suggest a language change be made with your notice. Different approach because they have no clue either.

 

[chadCO]

Don't remove any of the threats, I would make it even more threatening to them, talk about suing them personally as they deserve. Only defects punish all for the sins of the few. So we already know what we are dealing with don't we.

 

[hank970]

Have you made any attempt to contact local officials to determine what motivated their decision to ban the use of drones over the beach? Have there been incidents you aren't aware of where people were hurt, or felt threatened by a near miss, or recurring complaints from beachgoers about what they perceived to be intrusions on their enjoyment? Sometimes, sitting down with a public servant over a cup of coffee to get some background information can be a good thing.

Beyond that, what is it about Bradenton Beach in particular that you find so attractive? Would another nearby and less crowded beach serve your purposes?

After sending the letter, will you be perceived as a person with a legitimate concern or just as someone who wants his own way? Contrary to your opinion, elected officials (public servants, in your parlance) are empowered by voters to establish regulations and enact ordinances. The authority goes with the office, so that's not an issue. The issues are whether or not their decrees are justified, and whether or not you agree and are willing to abide by them. If they are not just, then a recall, subsequent election, or court case may solve your problem. If they are just, then you, like everyone else, should be obliged to obey them.

 

[Army Vet]

I would remove these portions:



Adds nothing to your legal argument, and is insulting. They know this.



Sounds like a threat, and again doesn't further your legal argument. They have an attorney, who will be given your letter, and doesn't need to be informed of this.

Unless you mean to imply, "do what I want or I'm going to sue you", which is a bad way to start your first inquiry into this, I'd keep it just to the facts of existing law, and rest your case on that. Keep it otherwise business-like and professional.

Do not lecture them. Big mistake. Also

I would remove these portions:



Adds nothing to your legal argument, and is insulting. They know this.



Sounds like a threat, and again doesn't further your legal argument. They have an attorney, who will be given your letter, and doesn't need to be informed of this.

Unless you mean to imply, "do what I want or I'm going to sue you", which is a bad way to start your first inquiry into this, I'd kee

p it just to the facts of existing law, and rest your case on that. Keep it otherwise business-like and professional.

Do not lecture them. Puts a bad taste in their mouth. Also, avoid Acronyms, LAANC, will mean nothing to them.
Good luck

 

[gundersonjim]

Consider this change.

Old Paragraph:

“It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.”

New Paragraph:

“It is essential that local policies and actions align with the legal framework established at the state and federal levels. As representatives of the public, the Council’s role includes ensuring that regulations reflect the law and respect the rights of citizens.”

 

[ProPhotog]

I would remove these portions:



Adds nothing to your legal argument, and is insulting. They know this.



Sounds like a threat, and again doesn't further your legal argument. They have an attorney, who will be given your letter, and doesn't need to be informed of this.

Unless you mean to imply, "do what I want or I'm going to sue you", which is a bad way to start your first inquiry into this, I'd keep it just to the facts of existing law, and rest your case on that. Keep it otherwise business-like and professiona

Please proofread my letter to the city council of Bradenton Beach, FL. They have cited three references for not allowing drone operations, when no specific language exists in the cited references prohibiting UAS operations: Bradenton Beach Ordinance 94-141B (does not exist), Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 and Florida Statues 162.

Here is the letter to the council:

Re: UNLAWFUL RESTRICTION ON OPERATION OF UAS VEHICLES OVER BEACH AND PARK AREA

Dear Members of the Bradenton Beach City Council,
I am writing to address the current policy on drone operations within the confines of the beach and park area at Bradenton Beach. It has come to my attention that there is a policy being enforced which restricts the flying of drones. However, upon thorough review, I have found that this policy is not codified in any existing law or ordinance, either locally or at the county/state level.

Specifically, the ordinance reference 94-141B, which is cited as the basis for this policy, does not exist in the Bradenton Beach Code of Ordinances. Additionally, Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 makes no mention of prohibiting drone flights. Furthermore, Florida Statute 162, which deals with code enforcement, does not cover the regulation of drone operations over beaches or park areas.

As a responsible drone operator, I adhere to all applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and safety protocols. There is no FAA requirement to seek LAANC authorization to fly in that specific airspace. Drone operations that are not sustained over people or moving vehicles are not prohibited either. It is important for local policies to align with state and federal laws to avoid confusion and ensure that all regulations are clear and enforceable. It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.
I respectfully request that the City Council review the current policy on drone operations and provide clarification on the legal basis for any restrictions. I also demand that you remove the no drone advisory of your bulletin boards posted at the beach at Bradenton Beach as well as Coquina Beach. If no such legal basis exists, I urge the Council to reconsider the enforcement of this policy to ensure it is in compliance with existing laws and regulations.

I wish to inform Bradenton Beach City Council that any interference with a drone operator during the course of their duties constitutes a federal crime. Such interference not only disrupts aircraft operations but also poses a significant risk to public safety due to potential distractions. It is crucial that all actions taken by the Council align with federal regulations to ensure the safety and legality of drone operations.

Furthermore, potential legal consequences of denying a citizen their Constitutional rights while conducting drone operations exists in this matter. Interfering with a drone operator may infringe upon their First Amendment right to free expression and their Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Such actions could expose the City Council to lawsuits for violating these Constitutional protections. It is imperative that the Council ensures its policies and actions are in full compliance with federal and Constitutional law to avoid legal repercussions and uphold the rights of its citizens.

Ask questions. No threats. No demands. For instance, "I am unable to find the ordinances referenced in your policy that prohibit drone operation. They are not in the copies I have available. Could you point me to those?" Perhaps they have been passed after the list of ordinances you have available and you will look foolish and unprepared. Bottom line is this: If you seriously want to challenge this then fly anyway, get cited, hire a lawyer and settle it. But better have deep pockets; they do (with tax payer money) and will try to bankrupt you in the process.

 

[Paulomatic]

Please proofread my letter to the city council of Bradenton Beach, FL. They have cited three references for not allowing drone operations, when no specific language exists in the cited references prohibiting UAS operations: Bradenton Beach Ordinance 94-141B (does not exist), Manatee County Parks Code 2-24 and Florida Statues 162.

If you send this letter as written the result will be that authorities will immediately codify the drone ban and probably extend it and make it more strict. Your letter is extremely hostile and confrontative. Don't you see that?

 

[Droning on and on...]

If you send this letter as written the result will be that authorities will immediately codify the drone ban and probably extend it and make it more strict. Your letter is extremely hostile and confrontative. Don't you see that?

Well, your anticipated reaction by the authorities is as extreme as the letter. I would expect them to behave far more professionally, and simply ignore it.

That is the usual result of angry, lecturing correspondence... the round file.

Want results? Treat those in power with respect, assuming they want to serve their community faithfully and ethically. They're simply human beings, and will react exactly the same way you do when a complete stranger confronts you in a way that says you're a bad, stupid individual, corrupt and only looking out for your own advantage.

Religious or atheist, probably the greatest wisdom across time, space, planets and galaxies is the good ol' "treat others as you would have them treat you".

 

[Dmcvey]

1) be to the point, was bored with it by third paragraph.
2) they can make a rule prohibiting landing or takeoff within city limits. Or where one can stand while flying, ie you can fly anywhere in town but you have to stand at corner of Main and 1st street.

 

[David Metcalf]

I would agree with the tone of the letter needing to be less threatening, more professional and cite the legal precedent stated by others.
There is Jonathan at Rupprecht Law that you can contact who might like to get into a tussle with the council.

 

[mavictk]

Florida Statute 330.41 seemingly prevents cities and counties from regulation drones:
(3) REGULATION.—
(a) The authority to regulate the operation of unmanned aircraft systems is vested in the state except as provided in federal regulations, authorizations, or exemptions.
(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, or operation of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements; the purpose of operations; and pilot, operator, or observer qualifications, training, and certification.

Note that cities and counties are political subdivisions.

Here is a link to the statute and note that there are other parts, like critical infrastructure that are prohibited: Chapter 330 Section 41 - 2024 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

I am not a lawyer and, therefore this is not legal advice but in my personal opinion the city cannot regulate drone operations except for harassment and stalking reason.

What is your assessment of 330.41?

P.S. Local law enforcement is likely to lack any understanding of the restrictions on political subdivision with regard to drones and may try to coerce with vague threats. I am not anti cop but when they don't know the law some will make it up on the spot.

 

[Mike52]

Florida Statute 330.41 seemingly prevents cities and counties from regulation drones:
(3) REGULATION.—
(a) The authority to regulate the operation of unmanned aircraft systems is vested in the state except as provided in federal regulations, authorizations, or exemptions.
(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, or operation of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements; the purpose of operations; and pilot, operator, or observer qualifications, training, and certification.

Note that cities and counties are political subdivisions.

Here is a link to the statute and note that there are other parts, like critical infrastructure that are prohibited: Chapter 330 Section 41 - 2024 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

I am not a lawyer and, therefore this is not legal advice but in my personal opinion the city cannot regulate drone operations except for harassment and stalking reason.

What is your assessment of 330.41?

P.S. Local law enforcement is likely to lack any understanding of the restrictions on political subdivision with regard to drones and may try to coerce with vague threats. I am not anti cop but when they don't know the law some will make it up on the spot.

You are correct! The state of Florida has indeed preempted local governments from regulating drones.

 

[wdfly]

curious as to how this turned out, I'm going to be in Bradenton FL later this week and want to fly my drone there.

Edit: I've looked at Florida law, and it does have a provision for local ordinances against drones.

 

[Actech]

Consider this change.

Old Paragraph:

“It is important to understand that as Public Servants, you do not make decrees – you must obey the will of the People at all times as well as the laws and other instruments that constrain your actions while in the performance of your duties.”

New Paragraph:

“It is essential that local policies and actions align with the legal framework established at the state and federal levels. As representatives of the public, the Council’s role includes ensuring that regulations reflect the law and respect the rights of citizens.”

Perfect!!