DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Question on a local city's drone ordinance.

jaja6009

Well-Known Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
233
Reactions
193
I just read that a city near me has a drone ordinance in effect and after reading it I still have questions.

I am just looking at input into what other more knowledgeable people may think the following means.

§107-2. Regulations A. Except as otherwise provided in §107-3, drones and unmanned aircraft are prohibited from being launched from, or landing on, any government or public buildings, property, or parks within the City unless prior written permission has been granted by the Ventnor City Chief of Police for a special event or City sponsored event. B. Except as otherwise provided in §107-3, drones and unmanned aircraft are prohibited from operating or flying in any airspace under 400 feet over any government or public buildings, property, or parks within the City unless prior written permission has been granted by the Ventnor City Chief of Police for a special event or City sponsored event. C. Except as otherwise provided in §107-3, drones and unmanned aircraft are prohibited from operating or flying in any airspace under 400 feet over the Ventnor City Beaches from May 31st through September 1 st in any given year unless prior written permission has been granted by the Ventnor City Chief of Police for a special event or City sponsored event.

Is this banning just the flight of drones over government buildings, parks and the beach or is this stating that you can only fly over your own private property?

I have flown in this city as part of Public Safety but have not done so in other Part 107 covered missions.

I also was part of a home inspection in this city where the home inspector did use a drone to obtain roof images.

I will be calling someone on the city fire department for further elaboration but am interested in other's take on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hermey
My take on that drone ordinance... It seems to me they want to prohibit any launching or landing from any public property whatsoever in the city, which would result in you only being able to launch/land from PRIVATE property, such as your own private property ,or others' private property where you have permission to launch/land. I haven't seen how an ordinance like that fares in court, but would be curious if such a complete prohibition over basically all space in the entire city, other than your own lot, would be lawful.

The second part of the ordinance, where they say that it's prohibited to operate or fly unmanned aircraft in airspace under 400 ft over government buildings or property --- that part is likely invalid, as other cities have tried to pass drone ordinances like this, which have been struck down, on the basis that while they can prohibit launching/landing in certain zones, only the FAA has jurisdiction over operation or flight in the air.

This is why, for instance, various parks that prohibit drones, will phrase their regulations in such a way as clarifies that they prohibit drone launching or landing within the park. They can't prohibit anyone flying OVER the park, if the person launches and lands OUTSIDE the park, because while the park district has jurisdiction over what takes place on the land, only the FAA has jurisdiction over what takes place in the air.

However, if the city is claiming authority over all public space in the entire city, such as the sidewalks....parking lots...then it would be difficult to find anywhere to launch or land that they are not claiming jurisdiction over and banning launching/landing from or on. Again, I'd be interested to see how such a blanket prohibition fares in a legal challenge.
 
I found this video today which has some helpful info...that applies to some areas....
provides info on this law:
So some states have laws that prohibit counties or cities from developing their own laws on drone flying. You might look into this and see if there's anything like this for your area.
 
I just read that a city near me has a drone ordinance in effect and after reading it I still have questions.

B. Except as otherwise provided in §107-3, drones and unmanned aircraft are prohibited from operating or flying in any airspace under 400 feet over any government or public buildings, property, or parks within the City unless prior written permission has been granted by the Ventnor City Chief of Police for a special event or City sponsored event. C. Except as otherwise provided in §107-3, drones and unmanned aircraft are prohibited from operating or flying in any airspace under 400 feet over the Ventnor City Beaches from May 31st through September 1 st in any given year unless prior written permission has been granted by the Ventnor City Chief of Police for a special event or City sponsored event.

Is this banning just the flight of drones over government buildings, parks and the beach or is this stating that you can only fly over your own private property?
§107-3 is the part where Federal Preemption comes into play.

When you talk to them, mention Singer v. Newton (MA). That town tried to prohibit drone flights under 400', and the Massachusetts Federal District found that violated Federal Preemption, and was therefore illegal. It was a de facto ban on UAS since we can't fly over 400'.

Send them this link: Local Drone Law Struck Down by Federal Preemption | Insights | Holland & Knight. This is one of the best summaries of the case.
 
New Jersey state law also precludes counties, townships, etc. from these silly under 400ft laws but a few places around the state still haven't written them back out. (edit) they also cannot say what you are allowed to fly above per the FAA(end edit)

"The bill provides that, except as prohibited by the provisions of the bill, a person who is authorized by federal law to operate a drone may do so, provided that operation is in a manner consistent with federal law and regulations. "

Note this is a link to the bill but it does state

Last Action​

Passed Assembly (Passed Both Houses) (65-0-0) (on 01/08/2018)

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ScottTX and Hermey
My city has no language about 400 feet....they just state that it's illegal to fly a drone from or above any public property - streets, sidewalks, parks, buildings, vacant lots, anyplace in the city except private property where you have explicit permission.
 
My city has no language about 400 feet....they just state that it's illegal to fly a drone from or above any public property - streets, sidewalks, parks, buildings, vacant lots, anyplace in the city except private property where you have explicit permission.
The "above" language in that ordinance violates Federal Preemption. That's technically unenforceable. But that doesn't mean they won't try.

Reach out to the city attorney and let them know that only the FAA controls the airspace, and they can't forbid people from flying over anything. They need to reach out to [email protected] if they have any concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottTX
Thanks for the great responses.

I never knew this ordinance was on the books until last night. Like I said I only flew there as part of Mutual Aid for a fire since our sUAS program was called.

I was part of a home inspection where the inspector flew an older Mavic Air to grab some roof images. But, this complex was a HOA area so he was not on public or government property. But I am pretty sure he did not know this ordinance or at least he did not mention it.

I do know someone that lives here an has flown a drone recreationally and they never mentioned any police interactions. The ordinance seems like it is still active as I found it through their website.

Another item, I know a member of their Beach Patrol and he says they make all drones land and leave, but couldn't articulate if there was an ordinance in place authorizing them to do so. This is what made me search their ordinances to see if they did have anything on the books.
 
Another item, I know a member of their Beach Patrol and he says they make all drones land and leave, but couldn't articulate if there was an ordinance in place authorizing them to do so. This is what made me search their ordinances to see if they did have anything on the books.
Interesting. I'd love to know if they only tell people who are flying from property under the control of the Beach Patrol (which I'm assuming is the beach areas and associated parking lots), or if they try and do that for anyone they see flying.

Because they don't have the authority to stop some flying from off their property, or from a boat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: db4476
§107-3 is the part where Federal Preemption comes into play.

When you talk to them, mention Singer v. Newton (MA). That town tried to prohibit drone flights under 400', and the Massachusetts Federal District found that violated Federal Preemption, and was therefore illegal. It was a de facto ban on UAS since we can't fly over 400'.

Send them this link: Local Drone Law Struck Down by Federal Preemption | Insights | Holland & Knight. This is one of the best summaries of the case.
I've used the Singer vs Newton case to persuade a small city nearby that they do not have jurisdiction over airspace. Eventually, over several months, they dropped the citywide ban on drones and ended with just no launching/landing from city property and parks. As a side note, they also have a ban of flying kites still in the city codes. Go figure!?!

Cheers!
 
The "above" language in that ordinance violates Federal Preemption. That's technically unenforceable. But that doesn't mean they won't try.

Reach out to the city attorney and let them know that only the FAA controls the airspace, and they can't forbid people from flying over anything. They need to reach out to [email protected] if they have any concerns.
Oh, I'm very well aware that the city has no jurisdiction over airspace (I'm a licensed fixed-wing airplane pilot, very familiar with the ways of the FAA for a long time).

The city does not care about the FAA or airspace jurisdiction, and they see no need and have no interest in reaching out to anyone for help, guidance or legal advice that might conflict with what they want. They don't like drones and want none of them flying from, on, over, or near their city. End of discussion. That's how they roll.

For that to change, someone (someone else, with a lot more dedication than me -- and I'm plenty stubborn) will need to take this to the supreme court. Good luck with that.
 
Oh, I'm very well aware that the city has no jurisdiction over airspace (I'm a licensed fixed-wing airplane pilot, very familiar with the ways of the FAA for a long time).

The city does not care about the FAA or airspace jurisdiction, and they see no need and have no interest in reaching out to anyone for help, guidance or legal advice that might conflict with what they want. They don't like drones and want none of them flying from, on, over, or near their city. End of discussion. That's how they roll.

For that to change, someone (someone else, with a lot more dedication than me -- and I'm plenty stubborn) will need to take this to the supreme court. Good luck with that.
I've run across city councils with that attitude. I tell them that they can change it for free, or face a federal district court challenge if they ever cite someone with it.

If I was closer, I'd be that person to challenge it. But I'm not. I have used it successfully in Colorado though.
 
Vic, would you mind elaborating on what transpired in Colorado? I'm currently living in Texas but I spent the 1st 42 years of my life in Colorado. :)
 
Vic, would you mind elaborating on what transpired in Colorado? I'm currently living in Texas but I spent the 1st 42 years of my life in Colorado. :)
I should have elaborated.

Basically I work with local towns (& the State of Colorado) when it comes to crafting drone regulations. We try and convince them that if they pass ordinances or laws with preempted language, it will be successfully challenged. Its best to work with us and craft non-preemptive language.

It's worked in all cases but Telluride. And when Telluride charged someone, they lost. They "over" language is still on the books, but they use it to attempt to control drone owners who don't know that actual laws. They Mayor actually laughed at us during the city council meeting where they passed the law.

They're not laughing now.
 
One does wonder how often these "laws" are enforced by governments? After all, there are other laws on the books in many governmental jurisdictions that aren't enforced except very selectively - maybe even as a form of harassment toward people LE or the govt. entity doesn't like for some reason. (then there's the issue of penalties...)

Any thoughts or comments?
 
One does wonder how often these "laws" are enforced by governments? After all, there are other laws on the books in many governmental jurisdictions that aren't enforced except very selectively - maybe even as a form of harassment toward people LE or the govt. entity doesn't like for some reason. (then there's the issue of penalties...)

Any thoughts or comments?
Some are enforced (at least until challenged), and some are on the books simply to keep those unfamiliar with the actual laws out of the sky.

Telluride is a good example.
 
Some are enforced (at least until challenged), and some are on the books simply to keep those unfamiliar with the actual laws out of the sky.

Telluride is a good example.
Telluride is a good example....

How about Gunnison. Spent my youth trout fishing on the Gunnison river. :)
 
Telluride is a good example....

How about Gunnison. Spent my youth trout fishing on the Gunnison river. :)
Except for the Black Canyon Of The Gunnison National Park, you're good to go.
 
I should have elaborated.

Basically I work with local towns (& the State of Colorado) when it comes to crafting drone regulations. We try and convince them that if they pass ordinances or laws with preempted language, it will be successfully challenged. Its best to work with us and craft non-preemptive language.

It's worked in all cases but Telluride. And when Telluride charged someone, they lost. They "over" language is still on the books, but they use it to attempt to control drone owners who don't know that actual laws. They Mayor actually laughed at us during the city council meeting where they passed the law.

They're not laughing now.
What say you on an ordinance like this?


They didn't consult the federal regulations or the authority the best I can tell. And there are federal regulations for this situation on the books for the activity involved that caused it. So I think this one could be challenged with federal preemption as well. Even though there is this land/zoning ordinance thing, but this is probably beyond a city to be able to pull something like this imo.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,587
Messages
1,554,124
Members
159,591
Latest member
Albrecht0803