City Park Ban in Oregon, is it legal?

[DavidGlennPDX]

If you feel you're in the right, fly it at the park. But if you get cited and plan to fight it, you're going to have to shell out for an attorney, and prep yourself for a long, expensive fight. Your decision on whether to push it or not.

Well, I have enough money to fight a thing like this if need be, that does not really bother me and as I work for myself I got the time. But I have no intent to go that route as such. To me the state law looks pretty clear. I wrote the cities parks director but the website says he will bo on vacation till after new years. I will get his reasoning why the ban holds water assuming that is his position and then I will take that reasoning to a lawyer and get an legal opinion. Hey, it may be that microlinux is right and I am misunderstanding the law and if so, I want to know that. It may be I am right.
We live in a nation of laws, honestly, I shouldn't have to shell out even a dime to get a clear answer from my Goverment about a law it insists I obey. I should not have to struggle to learn what my rights are under the state law and the cities should not be able to violate state law without consequence or even question. I am not ok with that myself, I am not a criminal or a ******* doing unsafe ****. I am a homeowner, father, grandfather and business owner who would like to enjoy his perfectly legal hobby in the state I pay taxes to while complying with the laws and regs of the FAA and my area. I shouldn't have to fight to know exactly what those laws are.
I know when the plain wording or one law contradicts another, the state law and the LO law to me are in conflict. Even if Microlinux is correct about the laws meaning, the reality that so many here and everywhere I talk to, the vast majority in fact agree with my reading of the laws means it is misleading at best. Clarity is reasonable to seek.

 

[beachcombing]

Well, I have enough money to fight a thing like this if need be, that does not really bother me and as I work for myself I got the time. But I have no intent to go that route as such. To me the state law looks pretty clear. I wrote the cities parks director but the website says he will bo on vacation till after new years. I will get his reasoning why the ban holds water assuming that is his position and then I will take that reasoning to a lawyer and get an legal opinion. Hey, it may be that microlinux is right and I am misunderstanding the law and if so, I want to know that. It may be I am right.
We live in a nation of laws, honestly, I shouldn't have to shell out even a dime to get a clear answer from my Goverment about a law it insists I obey. I should not have to struggle to learn what my rights are under the state law and the cities should not be able to violate state law without consequence or even question. I am not ok with that myself, I am not a criminal or a ******* doing unsafe ****. I am a homeowner, father, grandfather and business owner who would like to enjoy his perfectly legal hobby in the state I pay taxes to while complying with the laws and regs of the FAA and my area. I shouldn't have to fight to know exactly what those laws are.
I know when the plain wording or one law contradicts another, the state law and the LO law to me are in conflict. Even if Microlinux is correct about the laws meaning, the reality that so many here and everywhere I talk to, the vast majority in fact agree with my reading of the laws means it is misleading at best. Clarity is reasonable to seek.

I would send an email to the City/Town Attorney as well.

 

[DavidGlennPDX]

I would send an email to the City/Town Attorney as well.

I may, depending on what the parks director says. I think the LO ban pre-dated the Oregon state statute so it may just be a blue law they know is dead, that is my hope

 

[Dabrain]

OR, you could just NOT fly in the parks. There has to be 100 fold more places around you where can fly without pissing anyone off, than there are banned places. Unless you just enjoy conflict, like the law quoter types. Just dont fly there.

Not to sure that works for me. If they are wrong not going to just let them have their way and bully me. Kind of like switch and bait schemes, yeah just pay the price we have on the item now. Sure you can go somewhere else, but that isn't how our society should work, just go somewhere else, we don't like you here. Ugh, hate it.

 

[ac0j]

Oh, OK. I get it now. Its not about just flying the drone, taking pictures and having a good time.
Its about doing all that in a space where some people may not like it, but you know that by LAW it SHOULD be OK. Maybe for some its more about the rights to do it, than the doing it itself.
I prefer the no drama route... Mavics have more than a mile range so taking off from an
un-monitored area and flying over should be no problem.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Mavics have more than a mile range so taking off from an
un-monitored area and flying over should be no problem.

Therein lies the problem for many.

Here in Aus we are required to fly VLOS with our drones.
I think FAA is same in US ‘special rule’ ?
Not sure about part 107.

So we have local ‘councils’ here introducing no fly bylaws from ‘their’ land all over country too, and effectively limiting some great locations to fly under our CASA airspace rules.

If you do fly long to reach places you break the airspace authority rule for VLOS.

 

[DavidGlennPDX]

Oh, OK. I get it now. Its not about just flying the drone, taking pictures and having a good time.
Its about doing all that in a space where some people may not like it, but you know that by LAW it SHOULD be OK. Maybe for some its more about the rights to do it, than the doing it itself.
I prefer the no drama route... Mavics have more than a mile range so taking off from an
un-monitored area and flying over should be no problem.

Around oregon we are blessed with tons of great rivers, mountains, high desert ect. Many of the best places with the best line of sight are small city parks that typically have no one in them. I do not fly if I perceive anyone around me is likely to be disturbed. I think you feel some kind of slight or ill intention for me wanting to find out the actual legal standing in my state. not sure I get just why.

 

[DavidGlennPDX]

Therein lies the problem for many.

Here in Aus we are required to fly VLOS with our drones.
I think FAA is same in US ‘special rule’ ?
Not sure about part 107.

So we have local ‘councils’ here introducing no fly bylaws from ‘their’ land all over country too, and effectively limiting some great locations to fly under our CASA airspace rules.

If you do fly long to reach places you break the airspace authority rule for VLOS.

That is really the crux, the ability to use the safest place to launch as long as one is being respectful of others.

 

[Maxheadspace]

Actually, you cannot in Oregon without risking a civil lawsuit under Oregon's very tough drone trespass law:

837.380 Owners of real property; Attorney General.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this state may bring an action against any person or public body that operates an unmanned aircraft system that is flown over the property if:

(a) The operator of the unmanned aircraft system has flown the unmanned aircraft system over the property on at least one previous occasion; and

(b) The person notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aircraft system that the person did not want the unmanned aircraft system flown over the property.

(2) A person may not bring an action under this section if:

(a) The unmanned aircraft system is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway; and

(b) The unmanned aircraft system is in the process of taking off or landing.

(3) A person may not bring an action under this section if the unmanned aircraft system is operated for commercial purposes in compliance with authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. This subsection does not preclude a person from bringing another civil action, including but not limited to an action for invasion of privacy or an action for invasion of personal privacy under ORS 30.865.

(4) A prevailing plaintiff may recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the property by reason of a trespass by an unmanned aircraft system as described in this section, and may be awarded injunctive relief in the action.

(5) A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney fees under ORS 20.080 if the amount pleaded in an action under this section is $10,000 or less.

(6) The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Oregon, may bring an action or claim for relief alleging nuisance or trespass arising from the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in the airspace over this state. A court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the Attorney General if the Attorney General prevails in an action under this section.

Whoever wrote this doesn’t seem to have any grasp of National Airspace System regulation and management. According to this, a person could be in violation simply for flying. Similar statutes in other states tie their regulation to acts related to the ground, like taking photographs of someone in their house. This statute appears to directly control airspace usage, an area reserved to the FAA.

 

[DavidGlennPDX]

Whoever wrote this doesn’t seem to have any grasp of National Airspace System regulation and management. According to this, a person could be in violation simply for flying. Similar statutes in other states tie their regulation to acts related to the ground, like taking photographs of someone in their house. This statute appears to directly control airspace usage, an area reserved to the FAA.

Not really, it requires them to notify you they do not want you to fly over. I suspect only someone very close to your home or regular launch site would have this issue as I suspect most people like me rarely fly over the same area time again unless it is very close such as my home or the park I practice in. In that case, avoiding that one house is easy assuming it is not some vast property surrounding you

 

[Maxheadspace]

Not really, it requires them to notify you they do not want you to fly over. I suspect only someone very close to your home or regular launch site would have this issue as I suspect most people like me rarely fly over the same area time again unless it is very close such as my home or the park I practice in. In that case, avoiding that one house is easy assuming it is not some vast property surrounding you

You're reinforcing my point. If they notify you not to fly over their house they are in fact controlling airspace, something that is solely controlled by the FAA. But I agree with you that if they can't find you then there's no issue.

 

[DroningOn]

As soon as Apple and Google are successfully prosecuted I will start taking notice of these BS “laws”

 

[wytnyt]

As soon as Apple and Google are successfully prosecuted I will start taking notice of these BS “laws”

+1

 

[cherrymann]

I may, depending on what the parks director says. I think the LO ban pre-dated the Oregon state statute so it may just be a blue law they know is dead, that is my hope

I was wondering if you ever got a response. The reason I ask is because I too live in the Portland area and was recently prohibited from flying at Henry Hagg Lake out by Forrest Grove. I politely complied and asked for the ordinance that was his authority for prohibiting me from flying. He couldn't produce one but was very nice and gave me his card and said that I could email him for more information. When I did, this was his response:

Hey Kevin,

I’ve been told due to the times of modern technology, the Park Rules have not yet caught up to adding things like drone usage. From the way I understand it is that we’ve administratively decided to prohibit the use of drones without specific permission, for reasons such as: they can cause injury, get stuck in trees, hurt or bother wildlife or bother other park users etc. Until such a time when the rules are updated to display such rules, we just ask that you comply with direction from the park’s staff and officers.

Kevin, I really appreciate you following up with us and understand your frustration. Thanks for taking your time to check rules before heading out!

Please let me know if I can better answer any other questions you may have, and thanks for coming out to Scoggins Valley Park.

 

[DroningOn]

Hey Kevin,

I’ve been told due to the times of modern technology, the Park Rules have not yet caught up to adding things like drone usage. From the way I understand it is that we’ve administratively decided to prohibit the use of drones without specific permission, for reasons such as: they can cause injury, get stuck in trees, hurt or bother wildlife or bother other park users etc. Until such a time when the rules are updated to display such rules, we just ask that you comply with direction from the park’s staff and officers.

Kevin, I really appreciate you following up with us and understand your frustration. Thanks for taking your time to check rules before heading out!

Please let me know if I can better answer any other questions you may have, and thanks for coming out to Scoggins Valley Park.

So they’re prohibiting people from engaging in a benign recreational park activity for completey arbitrary and invalid “reasons” and everybody should just shut up and accept it. Nice

 

[DavidGlennPDX]

I never did get a response no. My understanding really is the parks are on the wrong side of the law here. I am considering flying from Tom McCall Waterfront park and letting them ticket me. Gotta get a sense of how expensive a ticket would be. If it is $300 or so I think I am willing to go for it. The statute seem to me solid, I would argue the law invalid, if I lose, oh well, I can survive $300. But I think the plain reading of the law makes the city ordinances illegal

 

[DroningOn]

I never did get a response no. My understanding really is the parks are on the wrong side of the law here. I am considering flying from Tom McCall Waterfront park and letting them ticket me. Gotta get a sense of how expensive a ticket would be. If it is $300 or so I think I am willing to go for it. The statute seem to me solid, I would argue the law invalid, if I lose, oh well, I can survive $300. But I think the plain reading of the law makes the city ordinances illegal

I will help cover $100 of any fine in this case. This is a serious commitment for all to see. Let us know how it comes out.

 

[cherrymann]

I also am considering going back and seeing how they plan to enforce the non existent ordinance. I did a little checking and it appears that Hagg Lake is actually owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation which would make this Federal property not even County or State. When I bought a parking permit it was issued by Washington County. I assume that Washington County manages it but it is actually owned by the feds. How can they enforce anything that isn't written? I am not very legal savvy, wondering if I could get any lawyers to possibly weigh in here. They could probably ban me from the park which I don't want. I don't have a lot of money to fight a legal battle but I feel like my basic rights as a taxpayer and a permit holder to be in the Park are being violated. I don't fly over people, in fact I only fly over the lake. I am not in violation of any rules or regulations that I can think of.

 

[Mossiback]

FYI: Right or wrong, enforceable or not, Seattle also has a ban on drones in city parks.
Drones and rockets prohibited at City parks - Parkways

 

[cherrymann]

FYI: Right or wrong, enforceable or not, Seattle also has a ban on drones in city parks.
Drones and rockets prohibited at City parks - Parkways

I think Seattle is backed by WA State law though. In this case OR state law specifically prohibits counties and cities from enacting local ordinances governing the ownership or operation of drones.