City Park Ban in Oregon, is it legal?

[DavidGlennPDX]

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

Seattle wouldn't be covered by Oregon state law, I know of no similar law in WA

 

[swooshdave]

A couple thoughts:

Lake Oswego would ban breathing air by non-residents if they could. Perhaps they have tried this in the past. They have an endless supply of funds so any legal challenge would end up a battle of attrition, regardless of the rules, bylaws or laws were right or not.

In regards to Hagg Lake, if you decided to go against the "recommendation" of the park staff or officers they may decide to cite you for several other real or unreal regulations having nothing to do with the flying. Perhaps they saw you litter...

People are inherently afraid of anything they don't understand, currently drones fit that category. Right or wrong that is the environment.

 

[bushie]

An interesting discussion. Much the same applies in Australia where CASA own the airspace but local councils prohibit taking of or landing in parks. My local city was going to make such a law but was advised it did not have the power to do so by its legal advisers. Will be interesting where it ends up.

 

[DavidGlennPDX]

A couple thoughts:

Lake Oswego would ban breathing air by non-residents if they could. Perhaps they have tried this in the past. They have an endless supply of funds so any legal challenge would end up a battle of attrition, regardless of the rules, bylaws or laws were right or not.

In regards to Hagg Lake, if you decided to go against the "recommendation" of the park staff or officers they may decide to cite you for several other real or unreal regulations having nothing to do with the flying. Perhaps they saw you litter...

People are inherently afraid of anything they don't understand, currently drones fit that category. Right or wrong that is the environment.

You may indeed prove out correctly. But with the law so clearly stated, I think LO may possibly be in a quick lose situation.
There is competing thinking on the matter for me.
One is exactly as you state, if they have a thread to hang onto they will and the fight would be untenable for me quickly.
The other is an understanding that many ordinance a city may enact never survive first contact with someone challenging it. Cities enact things contrary to plain law I think less in malice than in being unaware the State Ordinance even existed. We think everyone is on the same page and aware of the state laws they can and cannot cross but reality shows us cities are often either ignorant of state restrictions or at times willfully so. The plain text and intent here make me wonder if this is not one of those cases. If I am wrong I can live paying the fine, just wanna know how much i is going in,

 

[BIGDAVE]

They can prevent you from taking off or landing on park property.

Technically (and this is a sticky-wicket to some degree) they cannot prevent you from flying in the park's airspace were you to launch/land off park property.

At the end of the day, the government can do anything they want until a private citizen(s) ponies up the money to fight them in court.

lol and they do don't they.

 

[Lapeer20m]

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.

I’ll help cover $50 of any fine

 

[WAXMAN]

They can prevent you from taking off or landing on park property.

Technically (and this is a sticky-wicket to some degree) they cannot prevent you from flying in the park's airspace were you to launch/land off park property.

At the end of the day, the government can do anything they want until a private citizen(s) ponies up the money to fight them in court.

I also heard that you could take off and land on park property if you hand launch and hand catch. How true????? Interesting idea. What does everyone think about this?

 

[microlinux]

I also heard that you could take off and land on park property if you hand launch and hand catch. How true????? Interesting idea. What does everyone think about this?

I think that's a semantics argument you won't win.

If they don't want you launching from the park, your best option is to go to your city council or whatever and try to get that changed. If they don't want you launching in the park, you aren't going to argue your way out of it, period.

 

[swooshdave]

You may indeed prove out correctly. But with the law so clearly stated, I think LO may possibly be in a quick lose situation.
There is competing thinking on the matter for me.
One is exactly as you state, if they have a thread to hang onto they will and the fight would be untenable for me quickly.
The other is an understanding that many ordinance a city may enact never survive first contact with someone challenging it. Cities enact things contrary to plain law I think less in malice than in being unaware the State Ordinance even existed. We think everyone is on the same page and aware of the state laws they can and cannot cross but reality shows us cities are often either ignorant of state restrictions or at times willfully so. The plain text and intent here make me wonder if this is not one of those cases. If I am wrong I can live paying the fine, just wanna know how much i is going in,

Laws are never clearly stated for a reason, so they can get you on a "technicality" and "interpretation".

The reality is that LO doesn't want drones flying around (much how they want to control their lake) and it doesn't matter how they get away with it. By the time you have poked holes in their rules they will just tighten the rules even more.

 

[rangemaster728]

As far as the FAA is concerned, Hagg Lake is in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace, with overlying Class E airspace starting at 700’ AGL.

 

[Adman21]

This is most excellent! Michigan has a similiar law. Unless the park can find a law that expressly allows them to regulate drones, I would
Say that you are good to go.

If I lived near there, I would even help with this project.

I was an activist in my younger years. Here is how the process should work, assuming the park has an unlawful/unenforceable regulation.

Reach out to the director or board of directors by email and or phone.

If that doesn't work, send a certified letter asking them to amend their regulation.

When that doesn't work, go to their public meeting and address your concern during public comment time.

When that doesn't work, go
Fly your drone in the park, maybe even have a picnic and invite all your friends to fly too. This forces their hand and will almost always end up with them changing the regulation to comply with state law.

I love your response and suggested course of action. I grew up in Lake Oswego and currently live just north of there in an area called South Portland. So much I could say but is pointless to even start in on the depth of what could be talked about.

 

[Sensii Fly]

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.

As I read it, the plaintiff would need to prove the defendant flew over the property on one occasion, for which the defendant gets a proper warning from plaintiff, and which the plaintiff would need to prove was delivered. The plaintiff would then need to prove another subsequent flyover.

To satisfy both of those conditions, a drone pilot would have to go AGAIN after an explicit warning. And too, judges won't just allow any old case. There has to be actual damages of some sort—actual injury and not just hurt feelings. But as a practical matter, this just says once you are warned, best move on. Always the best advice.