Papa Pineapples grounded

[jsa]

Anyone know why the Youtuber Papa Pineapples was grounded? Assume it is something by The Villages?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NO42bj2Vxc

[charlie1]

Don't know the reason but ONLY the FAA has the authority to ground him. He is a licensed remote pilot so they do have that authority. This is usually done when pilots fly in restricted zones or do not follow the Remote Pilot rules. Example, you can not fly over people/cars/etc, you must keep the drone in your site at all times, etc. I know the Villages could have their legal team stop him from giving "false" information (Papa Pineapple speculates quite often with limited facts) or maybe even trespassing if he takes off or lands in a "no Trespassing" area but they do not have the authority to stop him from flying over the area! The Villages does not and can not control the sky!

[PersonOfInterest]

Don't know the reason but ONLY the FAA has the authority to ground him. He is a licensed remote pilot so they do have that authority. This is usually done when pilots fly in restricted zones or do not follow the Remote Pilot rules. Example, you can not fly over people/cars/etc, you must keep the drone in your site at all times, etc. I know the Villages could have their legal team stop him from giving "false" information (Papa Pineapple speculates quite often with limited facts) or maybe even trespassing if he takes off or lands in a "no Trespassing" area but they do not have the authority to stop him from flying over the area! The Villages does not and can not control the sky!

In the Video he states that it is NOT the FAA.

[Ignatz]

Dang, crushed pineapple!

Hopefully it gets cleared up. I don’t watch his videos regularly anymore but it’s a shame that a seemingly harmless activity is being clamped down on.

[charlie1]

In the Video he states that it is NOT the FAA.

I do know that the Villages a couple of years ago tried to stop Don Wiley. They did this by filing a complaint with the FAA listing all the "violations" to the drone rules they "thought" he had done. Don responded to the FAA and after some time was cleared of any wrongdoing. Had he been found in violation, he could have been grounded. The FAA is the only organization that has the power to control the sky. The Village Developer could have file a lawsuit stopping his videos but not to "ground" him.

[charlie1]

First hand proof, or just the gossip at your barbershop. If one spends a little time, it’s Not the first time, long time Drone operators have been hit with legal issues from the developer.

Maybe the developers have decided to control wild guessing, rumors, or information is so inaccurate, it becomes almost comical.

I agree! I also think that Papas Pineapple is AGAIN stretching it a little when he says "He is Grounded" unless the FAA has something against him. I have seen more than once misinformation on his videos. He should not be guessing in his commentary! I would not be surprised if there was a Cease and Desist order from the developer for putting out videos about The Villages that were not totally accurate. However, the Villages cannot "GROUND" him. He has the right to FLY in any non-restricted area until the FAA pulls his unmanned aircraft license.

[HellToupee]

I did notice in a Villages construction update video a couple of weeks ago they had a sign with “construction site , no trespassing , violators may be prosecuted. drones, cameras or filming prohibited in this area”

[ElDiabloJoe]

I did notice in a Villages construction update video a couple of weeks ago they had a sign with “construction site , no trespassing , violators may be prosecuted. drones, cameras or filming prohibited in this area”
Yeah, but a sign is just that. A sign. I have a neighbor up north that doesn't like boats and jet skis near his dock and boat. He put out an official looking "No Wake Zone" buoy about 100 feet off his property. Guess what? Not a real or enforceable buoy. I do donuts on the Jetski between the buoy and his house all summer just to let him know I know it can't be enforced.

Now there are others that have a "Please No Wake within 100 feet" on their docks. I respect the request and give their property a wide berth. Why? Because they play by the rules and made a reasonable request. No Wake Zone buoy guy is just a loud mouthed bully well known in the community as a PIP. That's a retired CEO or some other "Previously Important Person." They're so used to employees or staff jumping at their every demand, they just carry that over into retired life and realize no one really cares about their previous professional status.

You can put a "No parking" sign on your lawn to try to keep people from parking along the curb in front of you house. In fact, more than once I have seen news articles or in-person people that painted the curb in front of their house red. Guess what? Totally unenforceable. If my neighbor did that, I would park there all day every day.

Now, I'm not going to go onto Villages property until they open it up to the public. If their signs are requests or put up on their private property, that is totally reasonable and I will absolutely respect them. If they are put up by people trying to privatize public lands or waters as their own, I will ignore them every time.

As for the Villages sign quoted above, they have the right to demand and seek prosecution for trespassing on their privately owned lands. They do not, however, have the legal authority to restrict filming or drone flights. I would obey the first part of the sign and totally ignore the second part of the sign if I were to have a hankering to videotape or fly a drone from a place I have a legal right to be, such as the parking lot of an open neighborhood rec center or public street.

[Marathon Man]

I agree! I also think that Papas Pineapple is AGAIN stretching it a little when he says "He is Grounded" unless the FAA has something against him. I have seen more than once misinformation on his videos. He should not be guessing in his commentary! I would not be surprised if there was a Cease and Desist order from the developer for putting out videos about The Villages that were not totally accurate. However, the Villages cannot "GROUND" him. He has the right to FLY in any non-restricted area until the FAA pulls his unmanned aircraft license.

Agree. I stopped watching him for that reason.

[Altavia]

According to several comments on YT, this is not the only drone videographer getting letters.

[Goldwingnut]

I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. If there was merit a complaint would have been filed with the FAA or FDLE, but since it hasn't been (I am assuming) then this is little more that an attempt to intimidate. A common tactic.

The first time this happened to me I was hit with a fine for $7,100 from the FAA. It nearly put me out of business. But as had been previously said in this thread, I beat them and the charges were dropped by the FAA and the fine rescinded. They wasted a lot of money on having a lawyer file a 130+ page complaint with the FAA.

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

[jimkerr]

Don't know the reason but ONLY the FAA has the authority to ground him. He is a licensed remote pilot so they do have that authority. This is usually done when pilots fly in restricted zones or do not follow the Remote Pilot rules. Example, you can not fly over people/cars/etc, you must keep the drone in your site at all times, etc. I know the Villages could have their legal team stop him from giving "false" information (Papa Pineapple speculates quite often with limited facts) or maybe even trespassing if he takes off or lands in a "no Trespassing" area but they do not have the authority to stop him from flying over the area! The Villages does not and can not control the sky!

True but he clearly said it wasn’t the FAA.

[Indydealmaker]

True but he clearly said it wasn’t the FAA.

Wives DO have the power to ground anyone anytime!

[azcindy]

I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. If there was merit a complaint would have been filed with the FAA or FDLE, but since it hasn't been (I am assuming) then this is little more that an attempt to intimidate. A common tactic.

The first time this happened to me I was hit with a fine for $7,100 from the FAA. It nearly put me out of business. But as had been previously said in this thread, I beat them and the charges were dropped by the FAA and the fine rescinded. They wasted a lot of money on having a lawyer file a 130+ page complaint with the FAA.

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

Keep fighting the good fight Don! The information and videos you provide go above and beyond and are tremondously helpful.

Cindy

[ElDiabloJoe]

...

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

Despite my lengthy post regarding signage and enforceability being completely deleted and the thread posts re-numbered, I agree with Don here - until FAA says something, nothing matters. Polite requests not to trespass will be heeded. Unlawful demands will not. This has everything to do with PR. In fact, with the longterm rumors regarding loofahs and STDs, etc., I am surprised that The Family hasn't engaged a very high powered PR firm to run counter-marketing a long time ago. Expensive? Yes! But so is the value of their investment and the value of protecting it.

By the way, for those interested, the crime of trespassing generally has three elements - all of which MUST be met for it to actually be a crime:

Firstly, a person must be in a place they do not have the legal right to be;
Secondly, a person in authority of said place must request/demand they leave;
Thirdly, the offending person must refuse to do so.

If I'm inside your house and, having taken nothing, you demand I leave and I do so, you have NO crime. None. Not trespassing, not burglary, not breaking and entering (same thing as burglary under Florida law), nothing. Unless you can develop evidence to indicate reasonably that I intended to take something or commit a felony inside, I cannot be arrested.

Since it is a misdemeanor, it generally has to be committed in the presence of a police officer. A private person (like the owner) can pursue a private person's arrest but be VERY careful of going down this road. The liability attached to false arrest is very high and can cost you a lot of money. Plus, do not show up for a single one of the many hearings (oft rescheduled) and the entire case is dropped.

So if I go walking down the middle of Eastport today, and no one demands I leave, there is no crime. If someone does demand it, and I leave, there is no crime. If someone does demand it, and I do not leave but eventually do so before law enforcement arrives, there is no crime (absent you signing a private person's arrest form and opening yourself up to gads of civil liability).

I would never do so - and I certainly won't advocate anyone else do so either, but the law is what the law is regardless of scare tactics and threats.

[EdFNJ]

We know T.V. doesn’t own and/or control the airspace above anything here so doesn’t this then become a matter of “free speech”? Oh wait. Nevermind. :censored: Maybe they are simply trying to “legal cost” the h3ll out of you which seems to be the trend nowadays.


I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. .

[Papa_lecki]

We know T.V. doesn’t own and/or control the airspace above anything here so doesn’t this then become a matter of “free speech”? Oh wait. Nevermind. :censored: Maybe they are simply trying to “legal cost” the h3ll out of you which seems to be the trend nowadays.

I don’t know, the Developer has to know many of Don’s viewers are people who haven’t moved down yet, who are learning about the Villages and will buy. He is the best marketing they have.
How many owners have shared Don’s vide with a friend.

[indianahurricane]

Here's another trying to be channel shut down.


https://youtu.be/10fPHd38JN8

[bmcgowan13]

Not so sure about claims you can trespass on a building site without consequences.

c) The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed is a construction site that is:
1. Greater than 1 acre in area and is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: “THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY.”; or

If you don't have the right to be on the posted building site you can be arrested. Technically, all the owners visiting their homes on the weekends are trespassing on a building site unless the Builder gave them permission to be on the site. Florida law is pretty clear (and strict) on this.

The Builder usually doesn't mind but if somebody is going into homes under construction and taking photos and publishing online examples of perceived "bad" building practices I bet the Builder is going to get involved pretty quickly. Keep in mind--until the building is sold to you it is somebody else's private property.

Private property owners make the rules--even when the business is open to the public. That is why Disney can deny you entry to Magic Kingdom if you have a drone, knife, can of beer or even a bluetooth speaker. Those are all legal items--but Disney owns the property and does not allow them.

If you are someplace you are not authorized to be you can be charged with trespass. If cops catch you inside the Home Depot at 2AM when the business is closed they are not going to wait for a manager to drive down to tell you to leave (and then afford you the opportunity to do so) before they arrest you.

When the cops chase a burglar, and he jumps fences into someone's backyard they can also stack charges of trespass for every fenced yard he/she jumped into. There is no "you have to be told to leave" defense. If the property owner wants to press the issue the culprit can be charged.

But the FAA has no dog in the building site fight. So long as you have permission to be on the private property (for launch and recovery), maintain line-of-sight of your UAV and abide by the rules you are legal to fly.

[EdFNJ]

I don’t know, the Developer has to know many of Don’s viewers are people who haven’t moved down yet, who are learning about the Villages and will buy. He is the best marketing they have.
How many owners have shared Don’s vide with a friend.

They are simply using the power of the dollar knowing that this will cost all these folks big bucks to fight it and hope they will crawl away. Lawyers ain’t cheap even if you are in the right. This is how the big guys fight the little guys when they do or say or write something they don’t like. They lawyer them to death. It’s the trend nowadays especially within the “upper echelons”. I wonder if the drone club got the same C&D.

[jimkerr]

Years ago when we considered moving to the Villages we didn’t know if we wanted to live nearby, move to the villages, or what part of the villages we wanted to move to.

We came across Don Wiley and his Gold Wingnut channel and started watching it every time he released a video as well as his previous videos so we could better understand The Villages.

Because of Don and his great information, we chose The Villages. If it wasn’t for his video we would likely not have purchased here.

I think The Villages is doing a huge disservice to potential homeowners, business owners as well as to themselves by bullying Don and the other people making these videos.

I think it’s wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves. It’s not a good look for them.

[Rainger99]

I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. If there was merit a complaint would have been filed with the FAA or FDLE, but since it hasn't been (I am assuming) then this is little more that an attempt to intimidate. A common tactic.

The first time this happened to me I was hit with a fine for $7,100 from the FAA. It nearly put me out of business. But as had been previously said in this thread, I beat them and the charges were dropped by the FAA and the fine rescinded. They wasted a lot of money on having a lawyer file a 130+ page complaint with the FAA.

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

Can you provide more information?
Who is objecting?
What is their objection?
What are the grounds for their objections?

[Aces4]

Why not take this situation it to the public via a news story in Orlando media and broadcast the restrictions that are being threatened? If all the drone operators got together and approached WESH or another channel, perhaps they could have this conundrum clarified and relief may be provided. Just my humble opinion.

[FFlank]

They are simply using the power of the dollar knowing that this will cost all these folks big bucks to fight it and hope they will crawl away. Lawyers ain’t cheap even if you are in the right. This is how the big guys fight the little guys when they do or say or write something they don’t like. They lawyer them to death. It’s the trend nowadays especially within the “upper echelons”. I wonder if the drone club got the same C&D.

This would be the correct answer. It's a variation of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

[Altavia]

Years ago when we considered moving to the Villages we didn’t know if we wanted to live nearby, move to the villages, or what part of the villages we wanted to move to.

We came across Don Wiley and his Gold Wingnut channel and started watching it every time he released a video as well as his previous videos so we could better understand The Villages.

Because of Don and his great information, we chose The Villages. If it wasn’t for his video we would likely not have purchased here.

I think The Villages is doing a huge disservice to potential homeowners, business owners as well as to themselves by bullying Don and the other people making these videos.

I think it’s wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves. It’s not a good look for them.

Agree - very sad to see these veterans who have given back to the community and our country treated this way.

[Rainger99]

Florida drone laws.

Drone Laws in Florida (2025) - UAV Coach (https://uavcoach.com/drone-laws-florida/)

[Skip]

Can you provide more information?
Who is objecting?
What is their objection?
What are the grounds for their objections?

Who is objecting? Answer: Mark Morse has numerous times complained about drones flying over The Villages.
What is their objection? Answer: When flyers say things like "The restaurant looks like it has a roof-top bar, first in The Villages..." when he hasn't announced it yet in the Daily Sun or on YouTube.
What are the grounds for their objections? Answer: None. You can't stop drone pilots from using the airspace over anything. No one owns the airspace except the government over specified areas.

Skip

[Goldwingnut]

Florida drone laws.

Drone Laws in Florida (2025) - UAV Coach (https://uavcoach.com/drone-laws-florida/)

A bit out of date, most current laws are:
Florida Statutes & Constitution FS330.41 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0330/Sections/0330.41.html)
Florida Statutes & Constitution FS330.411 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=330.411&URL=0300-0399/0330/Sections/0330.411.html)
Florida Statutes & Constitution FS935.50 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=934.50&URL=0900-0999/0934/Sections/0934.50.html)
eCFR :: 14 CFR Part 107 -- Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (FAR Part 107) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107)

There are a couple of other minor administrative codes and local (non-Sumter county) code but none relevant to the issue at hand. 330.41(3)(b) prohibits most local interventions.

In the letters they pick and choose select sections and fail to notice the others that of course void any validity of their comments.

[HellToupee]

Looks like I picked a bad month to buy a drone

[GoRedSox!]

I know nothing about drones or the applicable laws other than the fact that I love watching drone videos. Since I can’t comment on this with any real knowledge, I will just offer my opinion that these YouTube videos are very positive and informative for this development. I knew nothing about this place until YouTube started placing videos in my feed. I suspect their algorithm knew how old I was. Skip Smith was the first YouTuber I watched and then came Jerry and Linda. The reason we came down here to check it out was 100% because of these videos. Jerry and Linda in particular because they produced a show that reliably posted every Monday and Thursday.

Two years after buying, I still watch virtually every YouTuber. I enjoy not only Papa’s drone videos, but the ones with driveway parties and interviews with residents.

Good luck to all.

[NatureBoy]

This is 100% about controlling a message. You don't tell people to remove all existing content from YouTube if you only care about drones flying around.

What is the basis of demanding the channels be removed? Copyright infringement? Has The Developer tried complaining to YouTube?

Maybe The Developer will go after Skip Smith (https://www.youtube.com/@TheVillagesSkipSmith) next for saying things they don't like.

I hope a GoFundMe is set up for legal expenses and the parties involved can counter sue for legal costs & damages. Maybe everyone who contributes to GoFundMe could get a piece of the settlement.

[mraines]

Who is objecting? Answer: Mark Morse has numerous times complained about drones flying over The Villages.
What is their objection? Answer: When flyers say things like "The restaurant looks like it has a roof-top bar, first in The Villages..." when he hasn't announced it yet in the Daily Sun or on YouTube.
What are the grounds for their objections? Answer: None. You can't stop drone pilots from using the airspace over anything. No one owns the airspace except the government over specified areas.

Skip
This would not surprise me. There was a very good band who used to play here. I heard that after the pandemic he announced they were coming back before TV did and they have not been back at all.

[Skip]

Some years back, the head of golf in The Villages wrote to all the ("Lighter Than Air") Hot Air Balloon pilots in the 3 counties and demanded that they not fly over the golf courses in The Villages. The reaction of these guys was LOL. They wondered if he also wrote to American, United, Delta, etc. and told them the same thing. Any Balloon Pilots out there remember that?
[Veterans discussion: Please stay on topic, TU.]

Skip

[ElDiabloJoe]

The Villages is unhappy because they have lost control of the narrative. They slipped and fell behind because they were not proactive enough (i.e. investing in, hiring, for, budgeting for, etc.) in their P.R. and marketing. They probably figured since they owned the media (trademarked name, the radio station WVLG, the daily newspaper, all the glossy quarterly updates, etc.) that they controlled the message.

Nope, not any longer. In this day and age, they needed a young, savvy marketing team and give them free rein to run the message - no micromanaging. If you want to control the timing, release, and content of information then YOU need to make that happen. The best (social) media marketing team is arguably that of Wendy's fast food restaurants. Their rapid, playful, humorous jabs at competitors and their marketing savvy is renown and often viral. They do not run things up the slow and cumbersome flag pole for approval before posting. In this instant-media age, timing is everything. Or at least it is a lot of it.

So what typically happens when there exists both a demand for information and a vacuum of information? The niche gets filled. Someone else who is more responsive and motivated steps in. In our case, several someones.

If The Villages were truly interested in beneficial damage control of this narrative loss, they would either go full force investment on P.R. and marketing (they already lost the loofah and STD messaging years ago) OR less expensively, get behind and support / promote the very active contributions their active lifestyle residents are making to their sales and positive image. Residents like Don and Mario and Papa are demonstrably living the active and involved lifestyle The Villages strives to promote and sell. They are the epitome of actual residents doing the things The Villages hires actors to do in their commercials.

Don is always objective (except when he says he doesn't care for activity X or restaurant chain Y). More often than not he does break the news of developments. These "YouTubers" help stir-up and build excitement and interest for The Villages. I'm not so sure that without this free and timely marketing that The Villages would have enough potential buyers to sell 10 homes a day.

Don also is quick to share that as an educated and experienced construction management observer, The Villages does amazing work and high quality work. He doesn't bad mouth the cookie-cutter shotgun nature of the floor plans, or the predictable nature of the neighborhoods or the construction methodologies and materials used. He is usually quick to point out and admire The Villages and their remarkable achievements.

Me thinks The Morse Family may be biting the hand that helps feed.

[Papa_lecki]

The Villages is unhappy because they have lost control of the narrative. They slipped and fell behind because they were not proactive enough (i.e. investing in, hiring, for, budgeting for, etc.) in their P.R. and marketing. They probably figured since they owned the media (trademarked name, the radio station WVLG, the daily newspaper, all the glossy quarterly updates, etc.) that they controlled the message.


There’s something to this.
Messaging has changed and speed at which messaging is delivered has changed - and it has changed fast in the last 5 years.
TikTok, YouTube, drones, Insta, etc - the potential customers of Villages homes are all using them (the buyer isn’t someone watching the 12:00 news in Illinois waiting for The Villages commercial to come on) and want information on their schedule, not on the schedule of the developer.

[Catfishjeff]

The Villages just made a huge PR mistake. Not only are they dead wrong legally but they have created a backlash that will spread throughout the world through social media. The potential damages to future sales could be huge. And they will lose in court. Gary Morse must be rolling in his grave.

[jsa]

Update here (https://www.**************.com/2025/03/22/the-villages-orders-drone-pilots-to-cease-flights-over-construction-sites/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJM151leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZbW6KaCXAkP gD9bzzhCgwDL8G96DLtKbw3vxqV-dHNs52h14-NxbQYHwQ_aem_e0NkFRQQt71eBImxJ9AxJA#google_vignett e)

[Bill14564]

Update

https://www.**************.com/2025/03/22/the-villages-orders-drone-pilots-to-cease-flights-over-construction-sites

NOTE (for newer users): There is an online news source which shall not be named on ToTV. Apparently, filters are active which immediately replace the name of the news source with the "*****" you see in the link above. It's not you, it's the filters.

[Papa_lecki]

I think there were 2 or 3 big developments that came out of the drone group recently that pi$$ed off the developer - losing control of the narrative
1) the piping under the turnpike
2) the drone video of the brownwood theatre getting cleaned out
3) the most recent information about the work being done on the turnpike bridge.

[dhdallas]

I received word today, my letter is also in the mail. As a "repeat offender" I guess mine took a little longer. One the bright side, the letters are coming from a lawyer not the FAA. If there was merit a complaint would have been filed with the FAA or FDLE, but since it hasn't been (I am assuming) then this is little more that an attempt to intimidate. A common tactic.

The first time this happened to me I was hit with a fine for $7,100 from the FAA. It nearly put me out of business. But as had been previously said in this thread, I beat them and the charges were dropped by the FAA and the fine rescinded. They wasted a lot of money on having a lawyer file a 130+ page complaint with the FAA.

Until the FAA or FDLE is involved it is little more than saber rattling by a bunch of out of town lawyers in my opinion. This has little to do with drones and everything to do with controlling the flow of information.

“It’s an attempt to control the narrative and flow of information in the community,” said Wiley. No it isn't! It is a legal & invasion-of-privacy issue, not some evil conspiracy concocted by the developer. Aside from a legal standpoint, the drones are just plain annoying & intrusive. I don't want them flying over my property. "Boys & their toys"...grow up already!

[shut the front door]

Considering the social media post that Don Wiley made yesterday, I'm going to assume that the Developer will not be financing his next election!

[Bilyclub]

“It’s an attempt to control the narrative and flow of information in the community,” said Wiley. No it isn't! It is a legal & invasion-of-privacy issue, not some evil conspiracy concocted by the developer. Aside from a legal standpoint, the drones are just plain annoying & intrusive. I don't want them flying over my property. "Boys & their toys"...grow up already!

Guess what, you don’t own the airspace above your property. You of all people should be happy to see electric vehicles flying around.

[Tvflguy]

The 4 small video production guys that take drone videos above TV and new areas being developed received Cease & Desist letters from TV attorneys. Telling them to STOP flying above TV and gave them 2 weeks to delete all their videos on sites etc.

????? We love Don Wiley and his Goldwingnut videos on YouTube etc. so enjoyable getting updates on construction and new retail in TV. Always promoted TV. Always.

Why are they taking this action ? Perhaps to begin their own video production and push out private folks? Don’t they make enough $$$$. Disgusting IMO

[Dond1959]

Yea, I think the developer really stepped in it this time. Wiley has provided them with incredible free marketing and they seem to want to shut it down just because they don’t control it. Kind of crazy, hopefully they will reconsider and stop the blunder before it gets worse for them.

[JMintzer]

The 4 small video production guys that take drone videos above TV and new areas being developed received Cease & Desist letters from TV attorneys. Telling them to STOP flying above TV and gave them 2 weeks to delete all their videos on sites etc.

????? We love Don Wiley and his Goldwingnut videos on YouTube etc. so enjoyable getting updates on construction and new retail in TV. Always promoted TV. Always.

Why are they taking this action ? Perhaps to begin their own video production and push out private folks? Don’t they make enough $$$$. Disgusting IMO

Well, starting their own video production would actually COST them $$$, so there's that...

That said, I think it's dumb of them to try to stop the other drone fliers... Unless of course, they are publishing incorrect information...

[Rainger99]

That said, I think it's dumb of them to try to stop the other drone fliers... Unless of course, they are publishing incorrect information...

I don’t think there is a requirement to publish correct information. Newspapers, television, and the internet publish incorrect information all the time.

And if publishing incorrect information were grounds for shutting down a website, this website would have been shut down years ago.

[TCRSO]

See the following link from the FAA
FAA publishes new fact sheet on areas where local authorities can rule on drone operations - Unmanned airspace (https://www.unmannedairspace.info/emerging-regulations/faa-publishes-new-fact-sheet-on-areas-where-local-authorities-can-rule-on-drone-operations/)

[charlie1]

The 4 small video production guys that take drone videos above TV and new areas being developed received Cease & Desist letters from TV attorneys. Telling them to STOP flying above TV and gave them 2 weeks to delete all their videos on sites etc.

????? We love Don Wiley and his Goldwingnut videos on YouTube etc. so enjoyable getting updates on construction and new retail in TV. Always promoted TV. Always.

Why are they taking this action ? Perhaps to begin their own video production and push out private folks? Don’t they make enough $$$$. Disgusting IMO

They already have their own production facility with drones that are competing with the four private drone pilots. Their videos are short, focused, and not near as informative.

[Normal]

There was a time when information was controlled, but this isn’t a pragmatic concept in today’s world. The Developer is trying to plug holes in the sieve with thousands of holes left unaddressed. Curving information in today’s world? Good luck with that. Their old school concepts could push them down river with the past if they don’t adapt.

The marketing strategy of today’s society is today, not 20 years ago or even 5 years back. They need to get with the times. Think about it, a newspaper, for real? Ya, and it is delivered to people who already own homes and live here….lol. The marketing strategy stinks.

The drone operators could be harnessed for positive use. Instead the builder appears to be Barney with his one bullet. Move to the information highway of the internet already. If they want to sell houses, move into today’s mindset, dawdling in the past just leaves you there. Drone footage exposes marketing secrets…hilarious. Heck, drones will be in the past in 5-10 years then where will they be? Still peddling news papers I’ll bet.

[tophcfa]

The Villages just made a huge PR mistake. Not only are they dead wrong legally but they have created a backlash that will spread throughout the world through social media. The potential damages to future sales could be huge. And they will lose in court. Gary Morse must be rolling in his grave.

It’s not the first time something like this has happened. Anyone getting in the way of total control is dragged through the mud and back, or worse. Just ask Oren Miller.

[Babubhat]

Cancelled my newspaper subscription and let them know why.

[Papa_lecki]

Here’s the dirty little secret - they can ground the drones….. But they can’t silence the message. Drone video in intriguing, but the important thing is the information.
Drones were creative, 5/6/7 years ago. It’s the information channels that are valuable. As an example, Don has almost 22,000 YouTube followers. He will get information out to them, just maybe not using drone video.
There was that guy who did bike videos, Don’s done motorcycle video. I would be interested in Don’s infomration, even if he used maps.
Note I didn’t say Don’s drone videos, I am interested in his INFORMATION

I actually like his 5 minutes videos better than the long ones.
Remember, it’s about the information and the access channel, not the drones.

[Normal]

Is the legal representation/counsel even educated to the abilities of the latest drone capabilities. How about that Mavic 4? One doesn’t even need to fly into new development airspace to get a Birds Eye view of construction. The latest camera technology has some fairly good focus abilities that aren’t necessarily able to be hampered to get the shots a drone pilot can take. So why even bother these guys? They can just fly straight up in uncontrollable airspace and photograph as much as they like. Is Google Earth or Brian McClendon getting sued too for the ability to take a picture of you in your own backyard? Asking for a friend….

[Tvflguy]

Other than wanting control over “competition”, wonder what the actual reason is for this legal maneuver by TV Developer? Seems as if Control is the key reason. They want to control the upcoming and new information re construction areas, entertainment, and retail in new and existing areas. Via their newspaper, video releases, and photos. Demanding no other sources to contribute information other than THEM.

We only followed Goldwingnut and his video reports on YouTube over the last few years. Found them extremely informative and supportive of TV/Developer.

So now with the legal actions TV wants to strangle and shut down these independent people. Perhaps the basis of their legal demands are weak or not lawful. Don is indicating so. And now these folks must get legal counsel to fight back. $$$$. Exactly what the Developer wants. Force the little guys out.

Personally I hope that this backfires. A pushback by the public supporting these independents and their work. I’m one of them. And if a GoFundMe opens for them I will support. I’m typically for the underdog, and this certainly applies here…

[JMintzer]

I don’t think there is a requirement to publish correct information. Newspapers, television, and the internet publish incorrect information all the time.

And if publishing incorrect information were grounds for shutting down a website, this website would have been shut down years ago.

True, true...

[DrMack]

I know how I would feel if I was the builder. Why should others get to enjoy my accomplishments before I was even done working on my project. It would be like the worker I hired to pave my sidewalk and me looking over his shoulder. It could even cost me money if I was in the middle of project and changed direction. I appreciate all the drone operators, but also a businesses right to privacy.

[ElDiabloJoe]

While this may be semantics, it should be pointed out that there is NO right to privacy. What exists is a legal justification for a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The devil in the details comes down to what is and what is not reasonable. Dancing nude in the square? No. Sunbathing nude in your walled backyard? Likely. Other variables exist: within view of neighbor's upstairs windows? Does an office building or hotel look down into your yard (like the Brownwood hotel looms over the old Lifestyle villas).

[Catfishjeff]

I am a drone pilot. I also ran my own businesses for over half a century. I have now seen three horrible PR mistakes - Bud Light then Disney and now The Villages. The FAA has the major control of the airspace. States can make additional laws and regulations. Municipalities cannot create laws that affect drones flying other than peeping tom laws that apply to everybody. If this C&D demand applies to the release of information then it should apply to everybody who creates videos in and about The Villages. And then there’s the first amendment which should provide the ultimate authority about individuals or companies and their free speech rights. If The Villages doesn’t figure out a way to undue this quickly, the social media responses will soon be going around the world and reaching hundreds of millions of people. And the media will pick up the story and many more millions will read about it. Not only will The Villages be losing new home sales but the residents selling their houses will discover their potential market is collapsing as well. At that point it will be wild to see who sues whom.

[kingofbeer]

I know how I would feel if I was the builder. Why should others get to enjoy my accomplishments before I was even done working on my project. It would be like the worker I hired to pave my sidewalk and me looking over his shoulder. It could even cost me money if I was in the middle of project and changed direction. I appreciate all the drone operators, but also a businesses right to privacy.
These guys will be shut down. Only a fool would try to battle the big guys in court. The Villages does not want these drone operators talking about when the supermarket is going to be built in Eastport because this causes potential buyers to not want to buy in the Eastport area. The drone operators are harming the developer and this could result in damages.

[Bill14564]

...

If The Villages doesn’t figure out a way to undue this quickly, the social media responses will soon be going around the world and reaching hundreds of millions of people. And the media will pick up the story and many more millions will read about it. Not only will The Villages be losing new home sales but the residents selling their houses will discover their potential market is collapsing as well. At that point it will be wild to see who sues whom.

Are there really that many buyers who will be concerned that the Developer does not want drone operators broadcasting their projects under development? It would not have impacted my decision one bit.

These guys will be shut down. Only a fool would try to battle the big guys in court. The Villages does not want these drone operators talking about when the supermarket is going to be built in Eastport because this causes potential buyers to not want to buy in the Eastport area. The drone operators are harming the developer and this could result in damages.

Really? Are you suggesting buyers will avoid the area because there will be a grocery store, will avoid the area because it looks like it will be a Publix and not an Aldi's, or will avoid the area because they had not noticed that there was no grocery store until they saw the video?

If anything, the drone operators are helping the Developer, but stealing his thunder, which could explain why it appears the Developer may be creating a drone channel of his own.

[Altavia]

These guys will be shut down. Only a fool would try to battle the big guys in court. The Villages does not want these drone operators talking about when the supermarket is going to be built in Eastport because this causes potential buyers to not want to buy in the Eastport area. The drone operators are harming the developer and this could result in damages.

I can't disagree the battle will be lopsided likely unfair, and maybe risky...

But you don't need a drone given information can be found in public records (e.g. permits) and most everything is now visible from public roads. The skill is knowing how to piece together the puzzle.

For example, easy to know what the next Village be will be - they start the mail station first.

The Villages has its own internal leaks via employees, contractors, suppliers, sales staff, etc. For example, The Middleton and Eastport grocery store info was first disclosed in the Villages map app. Of course that info was removed when someone pointed it out.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/groceries-middleton-eastport-348268/

So seems hard to claim these drone guys are disclosing much of anything not already publically available and/or visible to those willing to do the research and put the story together. The drone guys are just telling the story with beautiful videos.

[Papa_lecki]

Are there really that many buyers who will be concerned that the Developer does not want drone operators broadcasting their projects under development? It would not have impacted my decision one bit.

No one will NOT buy because they read the developer is trying to ground drones.

The point everyone is making, is potential new buyers use the drone videos to learn about the villages and get excited about buying.
the developers videos don’t generate excitement.

[Tvflguy]

Does anyone believe that IF the Developer saw a loophole to block outside Real Estate firms from listing/selling used homes with TV… that they would jump on that???

You bet…. CONTROL and $$$$.

[Altavia]

The Villages Issues Cease And Desist To Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight (https://dronexl.co/2025/03/23/the-villages-cease-and-desist-drone-pilots/)

Summary of the situation so far from DroneXL.co, an Amazon Associate.

[ElDiabloJoe]

The Villages Issues Cease And Desist To Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight (https://dronexl.co/2025/03/23/the-villages-cease-and-desist-drone-pilots/)

Summary of the situation so far from DroneXL.co, an Amazon Associate.

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

[Arlington2]

The Villages Issues Cease And Desist To Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight (https://dronexl.co/2025/03/23/the-villages-cease-and-desist-drone-pilots/)

Summary of the situation so far from DroneXL.co, an Amazon Associate.

The article highlights this is in a legal grey area. Regardless of sympathies, I would not bet against the developers with their near unlimited money pockets, deep political connections and ruthless treatment of opposition. Good luck Don Wiley and friends. I assume he has set up a GoFundMe account.

[Tvflguy]

One picture worth.,,

[tophcfa]

I would not bet against the developers with their near unlimited money pockets, deep political connections and ruthless treatment of opposition.
Very sound advice. Regardless of right or wrong, that’s a war of financial attrition that simply can’t be won by the common person.

[Tvflguy]

Anyone know when the next “Night out with the Developer”, or whatever it’s called is???

Or will they now cancel these meetings?

I would have to believe that this would be a hot topic…,

[justjim]

I’m always for the underdog and have little love for a bully. It seems to me that the “drone flyers” do much good by marketing The Villages through their videos. They provide information on what is new and exciting being developed for future residents of this place known as “Florida friendliest hometown”. Maybe not so friendly anymore…

[Catfishjeff]

The article highlights this is in a legal grey area. Regardless of sympathies, I would not bet against the developers with their near unlimited money pockets, deep political connections and ruthless treatment of opposition. Good luck Don Wiley and friends. I assume he has set up a GoFundMe account.

Well here we go. This PR disaster has hit the media. First it’s local TV then it will be national media. And before The Villages know it, it will be all over the world and their market will collapse. Whoever made this decision should be fired instantly. And they better get some damage control PR professionals on board quickly or they are looking at their billions of dollars disappearing. This is another Bud Light. Another Disney “Don’t Say Gay” disaster. Let’s put a few hundred drones (legally) over the construction areas and make sure the media knows we are doing it.

[asianthree]

Well here we go. This PR disaster has hit the media. First it’s local TV then it will be national media. And before The Villages know it, it will be all over the world and their market will collapse. Whoever made this decision should be fired instantly. And they better get some damage control PR professionals on board quickly or they are looking at their billions of dollars disappearing. This is another Bud Light. Another Disney “Don’t Say Gay” disaster. Let’s put a few hundred drones (legally) over the construction areas and make sure the media knows we are doing it.

I agree with you on some things, but national TV or all over the world coverage, probably not. Will this local news cause TV to collapse? I doubt it. Maybe water issues, ground collapse, or closure of all golf courses, but drone war, I doubt will change residents running and screaming into the night. Much less no houses will ever be sold. Now the Mortgage rate, that definitely makes one pause, on a house that could be for investment, or vaca home.

We enjoy Don’s videos, sometimes it’s just hard to figure out where all that vacant land is, and come up with an imaginary town, or village. Both our boys have visited TV multiple years, one gets Vmail because of lifestyle visit.
They don’t watch drone videos. Didn’t realize they existed except for Vmail.

Will they still buy, yes, one actively looking. But their thought process, no point in knowing what’s coming, because it will be gone, before you want it.

As far as bud light, disaster, no idea because we drink craft beer.

But Disney “don’t “ may have some Older gens angry. But also there are those parents and grandparents with alternative lifestyle family, who may not totally agree with their lifestyle, Still Love their children and grandchildren, no matter what they choose.

Have you been to Disney lately? It’s as crowded as always. Some days I hope for thunderstorms just to curb the crowds.
Universal on the other hand, on some days you can walk 6 across and never interfere, with someone. New Epic will bring in crowds to that park, leaving their other two parks even less crowded.

[VAtoFLA]

One picture worth.,,

That picture isn't worth much in this case. That sign covers the ground, not the air space. They can put anything they want on a sign. The problem is they have the deep pockets to try and bully residents into voluntary compliance using threats and influence.

That drone and its camera is no more in the Eastport construction site than a traffic helicopter is on the freeway or a plane that flies over my house in my yard.

[Altavia]

From the local news.

Drone pilots ordered to stop flying over The Villages – WFTV (https://www.wftv.com/news/local/drone-pilots-ordered-stop-flying-over-villages/KLAAC6OYLZGUNDAZQXCEEBNMGA/?outputType=amp)

[BrianL99]

From the local news.

Drone pilots ordered to stop flying over The Villages – WFTV (https://www.wftv.com/news/local/drone-pilots-ordered-stop-flying-over-villages/KLAAC6OYLZGUNDAZQXCEEBNMGA/?outputType=amp)

What’s being discussed, is a fundamental change in the people’s expectation of privacy and I don’t see that the 1st Amendment gives anyone more than the right to “speak”, but not “peep”.

How about if you enjoy having a nude pool parties? You build a 9’ wall around your pool, so no one can see. Your nosy neighbor rents a “boom truck” to trim some trees in his yard, but also snaps some photos of your nude pool party. Fair & reasonable?

You’re Disney World and you come up with an idea for an attraction, that no one’s ever thought of. You start to build it and Universal Studios sends its drones up, to see what you’re building. Fair?

You’re a Mall owner and want to make a big splash, when a new store opens in your mail, so you “black out” all the windows, while construction/fitup of the new store is going on. We see it every day and no one bats an eyelash at such attempts at privacy.

You’re giving a birthday party for your 17 year old daughter and pay $1,000,000 for Taylor Swift to perform at the party. It’s ok if the local TV station parks their drone overhead, to film and records her performance and shows it on their 11 pm news?

How many events have you been to in your life, where there’s a sign at the gate that says: No Cameras allowed? We may not like it, but we expect it. It’s only fair.

Everyone expects “privacy” behind closed doors & windows, but we shouldn’t have the same privacy from above? Lateral privacy is expected, but vertical is not?

The Developer (for whatever reasons) is pursuing a course of action, that will only serve to protect everyone’s personal rights. You may not like his motivation, but his motive serves to protects our own best interests and expectations.

Just because there’s a “business interest" involved, doesn't make the cause any less noble.

If the Developer wants to control the narrative about his business and plans, that should be his right. The erosion of personal rights and perogatives, is something we should all abhor.

Personally, I think Don Wiley’s motivations are legitimate. He simply wants to provide accurate information. I don’t think the Developer has any interest in torturing him (although his recent social media posts seem inflammatory).

The others, I’m not so sure about. Mr. Wiley runs a business, the majority of drone “operators” are nothing more than voyeurs of some sort or another and may be in for a rude awakening. I support the Developer's position, 1000% and it's about time someone with deep pockets, took on this threat to our privacy and life as we knew it.

[Maker]

The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace. No entity can ban drones in the air space over their property. There are exceptions to flying for surveillance purposes, but think of that as a detective (or group of them) following someone as they drive around in their car. Seeing what is happening at some random point in time, over a wide swath of land, is not even remotely classified as surveillance.

Courts have decided that incidental encounters from the air do not violate right to privacy. If that was the case, no planes could fly. No helicopters could fly. Satellite maps could not be produced.

The letters from TV lawyers allege violation of drone regulations were committed. If they cannot legally prove that is true, they have damaged the drone operator's reputation. That IS a crime, for which punitive damages can be awarded.

The letters from TV lawyers are demanding C&D plus removal of past videos. That is backed up with threats of legal action (and the related costs for damages). Since those drone activities are 100% legal, those demands amount to an attempt to restrict the operators constitutional rights. That IS a BIG crime, for which HUGE punitive damages are often awarded.

For the Swift hypothetical - yes that is legal. Been affirmed by many courts. But not if flying over people. But not if the airspace is restricted by the FAA (highly unlikely).

For the "No Cameras allowed" hypothetical - that restriction is also legal since it applies to things happening on the ground. It is irrelevant to drones since airspace is not subject to the venue's rules.
Very different for signs that might say "no drones". That has no legal authority because airspace is governed by the FAA, not property owner.
I wonder what would happen if the developer arrested a drone operator. The big lawyer firms would fight for a piece of that civil rights lawsuit.

The developer's actions do NOT "protect everyone’s personal rights". Those rights are defined by law. If they are really trying to change the laws, going after a few drone operators is not going to change anything for "everyone". The law is not being changed by those actions, and the drone operators are following the law. It can be viewed as harassment, and punitive damages can be awarded.
If they wanted to "protect privacy" the developer needs to change the law. Even a freshman law student knows that.

If the developer wants to control the narrative, and deploy their own drones, they need to follow the exact same laws as the other drone operators have to follow. Perhaps they should have hired the people that were already doing videos. Partner with them. Use their experience and skills to enhance the narrative. Maybe even provide private information to control the release of fresh information. With a good relationship in place, if there is something speculative, errors could be prevented. Imagine the hype that could be built up as "see how this new XYZ is coming along" this week. Instead of "how can we threaten them", it should have been "how can we leverage them for a huge PR advantage".


What’s being discussed, is a fundamental change in the people’s expectation of privacy and I don’t see that the 1st Amendment gives anyone more than the right to “speak”, but not “peep”.

How about if you enjoy having a nude pool parties? You build a 9’ wall around your pool, so no one can see. Your nosy neighbor rents a “boom truck” to trim some trees in his yard, but also snaps some photos of your nude pool party. Fair & reasonable?

You’re Disney World and you come up with an idea for an attraction, that no one’s ever thought of. You start to build it and Universal Studios sends its drones up, to see what you’re building. Fair?

You’re a Mall owner and want to make a big splash, when a new store opens in your mail, so you “black out” all the windows, while construction/fitup of the new store is going on. We see it every day and no one bats an eyelash at such attempts at privacy.

You’re giving a birthday party for your 17 year old daughter and pay $1,000,000 for Taylor Swift to perform at the party. It’s ok if the local TV station parks their drone overhead, to film and records her performance and shows it on their 11 pm news?

How many events have you been to in your life, where there’s a sign at the gate that says: No Cameras allowed? We may not like it, but we expect it. It’s only fair.

Everyone expects “privacy” behind closed doors & windows, but we shouldn’t have the same privacy from above? Lateral privacy is expected, but vertical is not?

The Developer (for whatever reasons) is pursuing a course of action, that will only serve to protect everyone’s personal rights. You may not like his motivation, but his motive serves to protects our own best interests and expectations.

Just because there’s a “business interest" involved, doesn't make the cause any less noble.

If the Developer wants to control the narrative about his business and plans, that should be his right. The erosion of personal rights and perogatives, is something we should all abhor.

Personally, I think Don Wiley’s motivations are legitimate. He simply wants to provide accurate information. I don’t think the Developer has any interest in torturing him (although his recent social media posts seem inflammatory).

The others, I’m not so sure about. Mr. Wiley runs a business, the majority of drone “operators” are nothing more than voyeurs of some sort or another and may be in for a rude awakening. I support the Developer's position, 1000% and it's about time someone with deep pockets, took on this threat to our privacy and life as we knew it.

[BrianL99]

The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace. No entity can ban drones in the air space over their property. ...

Very different for signs that might say "no drones". That has no legal authority because airspace is governed by the FAA, not property owner.

.


The FAA does not control the "Airspace".

The FAA controls where devices that qualify as "Aircraft" may fly and under what circumstances.

Class G Airspace (in which drones operate) are by definition, "uncontrolled airspace".

Everyone seems to be fixated on the FAA. It is not in their jurisdiction at this point. They regulate "flying devices" and that portion of the sky, that is regulated ("controlled airspace").

Incidental invasion of privacy, because an airplane is flying over your home, is a giant leap from a drone taking photos of you, in your underwear.

I wonder how enthralled the natives would be, if the Developer decided to use drone over-flights, to search for Deed Restriction Violations? Call me shocked, but I doubt he'd be getting much sympathy from the residents.

Or even better, what if the Developer/Sheriff's Office, decided to enforced Golf Cart Speed regulations, by drone oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

BTW, if you're still convinced the FAA rules the skies, call around and see how many buildings got FAA Permits for their flagpoles. You're generally not even required to notify the FAA for any structure below 200'

[VAtoFLA]

...

I wonder how enthralled the natives would be, if the Developer decided to use drone over-flights, to search for Deed Restriction Violations? Call me shocked, but I doubt he'd be getting much sympathy from the residents.

...


Insurance companies do it today. They regularly fly drones over and look at roofs they believe to be in disrepair and notify the homeowner that they will not renew unless it is replaced.

Insurance Companies Are Using Drones To Monitor Homes — 4 Things They’re Looking For That Could End Up Costing You (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurance-companies-using-drones-monitor-123810322.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABS4rSibnFQ9PiPlpUGoZL4Y2T8f iPzlibNkUd5Qeh7OH7ihALPyn2ZC97V5YPeiLhlzv4nXSGeScq YfvF3CKOPBZlEX4O3Y329ydvkwox6w_6WuSmlT28ihQzNMrKAC Doj0kH6xr8f8oZJ0hQJcdnx8LFxnSxMzeJRakfNcQ9w2)

[asianthree]

I wonder how enthralled the natives would be, if the Developer decided to use drone over-flights, to search for Deed Restriction Violations? Call me shocked, but I doubt he'd be getting much sympathy from the residents.


Or even better, what if the Developer/Sheriff's Office, decided to enforced Golf Cart Speed regulations, by drone oversight. Be careful what you wish for.
'

Residents who abide by deed restrictions would be very Happy that the developer is taking charge of compliance issues

As far as Golf Cart speeds, there are residents, who would pay to see not only cart speeds, but actually write tickets for speeding autos.

I believe some have been wishing for awhile

[BrianL99]

Insurance companies do it today. They regularly fly drones over and look at roofs they believe to be in disrepair and notify the homeowner that they will not renew unless it is replaced.

Insurance Companies Are Using Drones To Monitor Homes — 4 Things They’re Looking For That Could End Up Costing You (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurance-companies-using-drones-monitor-123810322.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABS4rSibnFQ9PiPlpUGoZL4Y2T8f iPzlibNkUd5Qeh7OH7ihALPyn2ZC97V5YPeiLhlzv4nXSGeScq YfvF3CKOPBZlEX4O3Y329ydvkwox6w_6WuSmlT28ihQzNMrKAC Doj0kH6xr8f8oZJ0hQJcdnx8LFxnSxMzeJRakfNcQ9w2)

You're 100% right and this is where the discussion gets interesting.

People are fond of saying, an "The Assessor has no right to come into your home". That's usually an accurate characterization. So instead, folks want to make aerial observation, acceptable?

In many states, Environmental agencies are not allowed to "trespass". As I've been told by various Environmental agencies, "we can take aerial photos of your property", if we can't see an area from your property lines.

So my question remains. Are all the folks supporting the drone operators, going to be similarly supportive of the Developer/CDD's, using aerial photography to enforce Deed Restrictions? I think not.

What about if the so-called "trolls" who wander neighborhoods, looking for non-compliant homes, decide to implement drone searches? Are you all good with that?

What about using aerial photography & face recognition, to insure only residents are using the swimming pools? Does everyone agree with that approach?

How about drone surveillance, to insure compliance with the dress code at golf courses?

When VA & AL started using air surveillance to catch speeders, people were up in arms. It died down through the years, because the goal was public safety. There are few, in any, "public safety" reasons to photograph rooftops, swimming pools or the Developer's construction.

Orwell's Big Brother of 1984. The camel's nose is under the tent, folks.

[BPRICE1234]

Anyone know why the Youtuber Papa Pineapples was grounded? Assume it is something by The Villages?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NO42bj2Vxc
I hope that our money/fees are not going to this drone BS. The Villages better be paying for this crap out of their own pockets. These videos helped us to decide to move here. People deserve an unbiased opinion.

[Bill14564]

I hope that our money/fees are not going to this drone BS. The Villages better be paying for this crap out of their own pockets. These videos helped us to decide to move here. People deserve an unbiased opinion.

For most of us, NONE of our money/fees go to the Developer. For those of us in an area where the amenities have not yet been sold to the District, the Developer does collect amenity fees but that goes towards the amenities and not towards drone BS.

[Bill14564]

You're 100% right and this is where the discussion gets interesting.

People are fond of saying, an "The Assessor has no right to come into your home". That's usually an accurate characterization. So instead, folks want to make aerial observation, acceptable?
Fine with me; I expect that is happening already.

In many states, Environmental agencies are not allowed to "trespass". As I've been told by various Environmental agencies, "we can take aerial photos of your property", if we can't see an area from your property lines.

So my question remains. Are all the folks supporting the drone operators, going to be similarly supportive of the Developer/CDD's, using aerial photography to enforce Deed Restrictions? I think not.
Fine with me too. However, the Developer and CDDs do not file the complaints or investigate the complaints.

What about if the so-called "trolls" who wander neighborhoods, looking for non-compliant homes, decide to implement drone searches? Are you all good with that?
Yep, still fine with me. Disagree with the actions of the mythical trolls but similarly disagree with the actions of werewolves and leprechauns.

As we are not allowed to have privacy fences I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a drone would be needed to find a violation.

What about using aerial photography & face recognition, to insure only residents are using the swimming pools? Does everyone agree with that approach?
The technology is not mature enough and using a drone rather than a fixed camera would be wasteful.

How about drone surveillance, to insure compliance with the dress code at golf courses?
There aren't enough dress police already??

...
Orwell's Big Brother of 1984. The nose is under the camel's tent, folks.

Feels like a bit of a stretch.

[VAtoFLA]

You're 100% right and this is where the discussion gets interesting.

People are fond of saying, an "The Assessor has no right to come into your home". That's usually an accurate characterization. So instead, folks want to make aerial observation, acceptable?

In many states, Environmental agencies are not allowed to "trespass". As I've been told by various Environmental agencies, "we can take aerial photos of your property", if we can't see an area from your property lines.

So my question remains. Are all the folks supporting the drone operators, going to be similarly supportive of the Developer/CDD's, using aerial photography to enforce Deed Restrictions? I think not.

What about if the so-called "trolls" who wander neighborhoods, looking for non-compliant homes, decide to implement drone searches? Are you all good with that?

What about using aerial photography & face recognition, to insure only residents are using the swimming pools? Does everyone agree with that approach?

How about drone surveillance, to insure compliance with the dress code at golf courses?

When VA & AL started using air surveillance to catch speeders, people were up in arms. It died down through the years, because the goal was public safety. There are few, in any, "public safety" reasons to photograph rooftops, swimming pools or the Developer's construction.

Orwell's Big Brother of 1984. The camel's nose is under the tent, folks.

I think conceptually, you and I are in agreement on what we might want it to be as the technology becomes cheaper, better and more invasive. For now though, we have to deal with how it is and most of the things you mention I think are legal under current laws.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, TV should use their considerable influence to advocate for modifying the laws for the good of all vs using it to try and find the pocket depth of a few independent journalists to chill their activities.

[BrianL99]

I think conceptually, you and I are in agreement on what we might want it to be as the technology becomes cheaper, better and more invasive. For now though, we have to deal with how it is and most of the things you mention I think are legal under current laws.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, TV should use their considerable influence to advocate for modifying the laws for the good of all vs using it to try and find the pocket depth of a few independent journalists to chill their activities.

We all grew up in a world where cameras were novelties and video equipment, almost non-existent. Both of which, were reasonably obvious when in use.

For the last 20+ years, we've lived in a world where everyone is carrying a an audio/visual recording device. Any time we're in "public", we have to be aware that we might be photographed or video'd.

Since drone technology became prevalent, we now have to be aware that we could be video'd at anytime, whether in a "public" place, or (what was formerly) a "private" place.

Why are people focused on protecting the rights of the surveillant and not protecting the rights of the subject of the surveillance?

[Whatnext]

So Amazons trials of robot or drone delivery, wheeled or airborne, will not include The Villages.
Privacy concerns?

[BrianL99]

So Amazons trials of robot or drone delivery, wheeled or airborne, will not include The Villages.
Privacy concerns?

The issue is video surveillance, not drone deliveries.

[Altavia]

There are numerous examples where similar efforts to suppress information have induced the "Streisand effect" - where an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information increases public awareness of the information.

The consequences are now being discussed far wider than just The Villages.

Streisand effect - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

https://sketchplanations.com/the-streisand-effect

[VAtoFLA]

We all grew up in a world where cameras were novelties and video equipment, almost non-existent. Both of which, were reasonably obvious when in use.

For the last 20+ years, we've lived in a world where everyone is carrying a an audio/visual recording device. Any time we're in "public", we have to be aware that we might be photographed or video'd.

Since drone technology became prevalent, we now have to be aware that we could be video'd at anytime, whether in a "public" place, or (what was formerly) a "private" place.

Why are people focused on protecting the rights of the surveillant and not protecting the rights of the subject of the surveillance?

And the additional technology that already allows drones nowhere near your property to zoom in on it with advanced camera technology.

I'm not sure this thread is about protecting the rights of surveillants as much as it is about a large developer with deep pockets using lawyers to bully small business men with laws that they likely already know don't mean what they are trying to indicate they mean. That makes the real message essentially "You're right, but can you afford to fight me".

If instead of this, if the news was the Villages advocating for changing drone and aerial picture and video capture laws to protect privacy, you would find many more in favor of that. It's just not what they are doing and what they are doing will only protect them and not you and I.

[Altavia]

The issue is video surveillance, not drone deliveries.

An issue is restricting information previously available that allowed buyers to perform due diligence prior to purchasing a property.

The Developer does not voluntarily disclosed information known to impact the future value of a property.

For a recent example, ask home buyers who bought property near a power distribution facility but were not informed of the planned expansion of that facility.

[tophcfa]

How can the government say that drones encroach on privacy when they already use satellites for surveillance?

[Snakster66]

People deserve an unbiased opinion.

Would it be wrong to point out that this is an oxymoron?

[Normal]

The videographer’s have their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. The Developer has no rights regarding building in privacy. All builders do is a matter of public record anyway, papers are filed, meetings are held, courthouses have anecdotal paper trails for review so nothing really is done in secrecy anyway.

Hands down this is an easy victory for YouTubers and their work. Perhaps it may even be worthwhile to seek YouTube for legal funds like Airbnb has supported some landlords in anti rental situations?

[BrianL99]

The videographer’s have their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

Can you please point out where the constitution provides the "Right to Video" ?

So let's take this a step farther. Mr. Videographer is flying his drone and taking video. Mr. Smith is behind his home, hidden from all his neighbors and drinking beer. No one can see him from the street or the abutting homes, so he opts for the quick & easy solution ... he pees in his pool ...

... just when the drone happens to silently fly over his home, taking video. The videographer doesn't happen to notice what his camera inadvertently captured and he posts it on You Tube for the neighbors and law enforcement to see.

Unintended consequences can be an issue.

[Normal]

Can you please point out where the constitution provides the "Right to Video" ?

... just when the drone happens to silently fly over his home, taking video. The videographer doesn't happen to notice what his camera inadvertently captured and he posts it on You Tube for the neighbors and law enforcement to see.

Unintended consequences can be an issue.
Go with spirit and intent. Whether it’s speech or a video. There has long since been case law established where there are different forms of speech.
Hypotheticals happen in real life all the time. So what? Google takes a picture of your backyard every 6 months too, it happens and there is nothing that can be done. Why, because there is nothing expectation of privacy.

[ElDiabloJoe]

The videographer’s have their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. ...
It should be noted that the Constitution's Right to Freedom of Speech ONLY regulates that a government cannot restrain or punish an individual's right to say what they wish.

It does NOT regulate anything anyone wants to say at any time in any forum. Any non-governmental entity CAN restrict free speech.

The right to free speech is not a blanket allowance for anyone to say what they wish without consequences, only that the Government may not exact consequences based on something someone says or expresses.

Just ask those who have been in TOTV jail if they have been permitted to say whatever they wish on the privately owned TOTV forum.

[VAtoFLA]

I think @Normal's point was that because they are not on The Villages property, they are not subject to the Villages rules (their sign). TV is seeking then to control what would be a protected activity in filming while not trespassing.

TV hasn't done anything but threaten civil litigation. They know they don't have authority over the sky.

[Normal]

I think @Normal's point was that because they are not on The Villages property, they are not subject to the Villages rules (their sign). TV is seeking then to control what would be a protected activity in filming while not trespassing.

TV hasn't done anything but threaten civil litigation. They know they don't have authority over the sky.

Another valid point is the developer doesn’t own all the property they want restrictions of filming on. Often they are in “joint ownership” with a depositor who may have already purchased the land they are building on. I know that the lot has to be paid for before a design appointment is even accomplished. I believe also that there are circumstances where co-owners actually ask people like Goldwingnut to film and follow construction on their property.

[Altavia]

Another valid point is the developer doesn’t own all the property they want restrictions of filming on. Often they are in “joint ownership” with a depositor who may have already purchased the land they are building on. I know that the lot has to be paid for before a design appointment is even accomplished. I believe also that there are circumstances where co-owners actually ask people like Goldwingnut to film and follow construction on their property.

Don't know the scope of th order. But so far, it appears the signage is only on the fencing around Eastport commercial space?

[Normal]

Don't know the scope of th order. But so far, it appears the signage is only on the fencing around Eastport commercial space?

I believe the scope is much wider and includes not only co owned properties but videos of property not even owned by the developer currently. I think all the videos were requested to be removed from You Tube.

[Altavia]

I believe the scope is much wider and includes not only co owned properties but videos not even owned by the developer currently. I think all the videos were requested to be removed from You Tube.

Anything that wide in scope and applying demands retrospectively seems like fantasy.

If the C&D implies "trespassing", signage and/or fencing are usually required.

[Tvflguy]

OK.

Per my edict you must obey this sign. If it works for The Villages, should work here on TOTV

[BrianL99]

Another valid point is the developer doesn’t own all the property they want restrictions of filming on. Often they are in “joint ownership” with a depositor who may have already purchased the land they are building on. I know that the lot has to be paid for before a design appointment is even accomplished. I believe also that there are circumstances where co-owners actually ask people like Goldwingnut to film and follow construction on their property.

Because someone makes a "deposit" on a piece of land, that doesn't give them "co-ownership". At best and depending on the specific language of the contract, they may have an equitable interest, but that would be the extent of it. Knowing The Villages and how they operate their sales operation, I doubt "depositors" even have an equitable interest.

This entire discussion is much larger than folks are making it out to be. Not surprisingly, it was in front of the Supreme Court in 1946 (U.S. v. Causby, 1946). The ruling went in favor of the Petitioner and against the United States government.

Per U.S. v. Causby, 1946, we own the airspace over our homes, to the extent it's necessary for our use and enjoyment.

The FAA is really out of the discussion, as they don't regulate Class G Air Space. They also have the authority to regulate "airplanes" or flying devices. They have no jurisdiction over what the flying devices are doing (filming).

I noticed some other drone operator started a thread and included a video. He spent most of the video, claiming he's following FAA Guidelines. Big Deal. That's really a non-issue in this case. His argument is akin to someone saying, I was legally flying my airplane per FAA regulations, when I dropped that bomb, so I'm innocent. Apples & oranges. You can operate your automobile legally, but if you have stolen goods in it, you're still subject to prosecution.

Legally flying a drone, doesn't make what you're doing with your drone, inherently legal.

We are looking the fundamental principals of the 1st, 4th & 14th Amendments.

Consider this:

Police are not allowed to search your home or curtilage (areas around your home), using a drone. If they don't have a warrant, they can only search from "navigable air space" (above 500' for airplanes, 400' for drones). (California v. Ciraolo, 1986 & Florida v. Riley, 1989)

In (Florida v. Jardines, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that curtilage is part of the home, which means it has the same privacy protections as the interior of a home. Using a drone below 400' to search curtilage, is an unconstitutional search.

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

[Bill14564]

Because someone makes a "deposit" on a piece of land, that doesn't give them "co-ownership". At best and depending on the specific language of the contract, they may have an equitable interest, but that would be the extent of it. Know The Villages and how they operated their sales operation, I doubt "depositors" even have an equitable interest.

This entire discussion is much larger than folks are making it out to be. Not surprisingly, it was in front of the Supreme Court in 1946 (U.S. v. Causby, 1946). The ruling went in favor of the Petitioner and against the United States government.

Per U.S. v. Causby, 1946, we own the airspace over our homes, to the extent it's necessary for our use and enjoyment.

The FAA is really out of the discussion, as they don't regulate Class G Air Space. They also have the authority to regulate "airplanes" or flying devices. They have no jurisdiction over what the flying devices are doing (filming).

I noticed some other drone operator started a thread and included a video. He spent most of the video, claiming he's following FAA Guidelines. Big Deal. That's really a non-issue in this case. His argument is akin to someone saying, I was legally flying my airplane per FAA regulations, when I dropped that bomb, so I'm innocent. Apples & oranges. You can operate your automobile legally, but if you have stolen goods in it, you're still subject to prosecution.

Legally flying a drone, doesn't make what you're doing with your drone, inherently legal.

We are looking the fundamental principals of the 1st, 4th & 14th Amendments.

Consider this:

Police are not allowed to search your home or curtilage (areas around your home), using a drone. If they don't have a warrant, they can only search from "navigable air space" (above 500' for airplanes, 400' for drones). (California v. Ciraolo, 1986 & Florida v. Riley, 1989)

In (Florida v. Jardines, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that curtilage is part of the home, which means it has the same privacy protections as the interior of a home. Using a drone below 400' to search curtilage, is an unconstitutional search.

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

Will read the citations later.

It will be difficult to argue for a reasonable expectation of privacy when performing activities readily visible from public spaces. And sure, we all think of privacy in two dimensions but we live in a three-dimensional world. Don’t want people seeing you from the street? Put up a wall. Didn’t expect anyone to be looking from the sky? Bad assumption.

[Maker]

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

When the government fails to respect constitutional rights, any evidence they collect is not admissible in court.
Flying a drone, as you described, is surveillance.
That is not what the drone pilots are doing here.

The "deep pockets" need to spend their money on changing the law. The actions they have already taken (C&D, demands, allegations of breaking the law, and financial threats) may get the developer in serious legal trouble.
Until the law changes, all the "what if" examples you raise are moot. What the drone pilots here have been doing are all 100% legal activities. Some may not like it, but that is the reality.

Lets also add some other places aerial photography is used, showing close up details, far more detailed than any of the videos our drone posters perform. And these are also all 100% legal activities.
Real estate sales people post photos of the neighborhoods around houses for sale.
Sumter County property tax web page show sky photos of every home, often including neighboring houses.
Newspaper photos of events and activities often captures nearby homes.
Surveying activities happen all the time. Used to document existing neighborhoods, and plan new.
Television stations cover news events, traffic congestion, vehicle accidents... using drones and helicopters. Often remaining over the scenes showing continuous live video. Nearby properties, not involved, are also often shown.
Utility companies fly over infrastructure and land to inspect existing lines, to determine routing for new areas, and troubleshoot problems. Commonly seen are helicopters recording power transmission lines, and the homes next to them.
All the satellite based imaging companies continuously record the ground. Some have resolution that is highly detailed.

So if the developer "pushes this to the limits" then how do the lawmakers address the big picture? How do they allow one type of aerial photography, but not another; and not make it discriminatory? This is just a tiny list, there are plenty of others.

So show me one example of someone in their home where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera into the inside of their house? Good luck - because they don't do that.
Show me one example of someone naked in their pool where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera on them for a close up? Good luck - because they don't do that.
Making up "what if" for things that simply do not happen is irresponsible. The sky is not falling.

[Snakster66]

The Villages Issues Cease And Desist To Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight (https://dronexl.co/2025/03/23/the-villages-cease-and-desist-drone-pilots/)

Summary of the situation so far from DroneXL.co, an Amazon Associate.

Reading this, it makes me wonder why they haven't (I assume) sent the same letter to David is in Florida . He posts videos every week that includes extensive drone video footage of streets and neighborhoods and houses (i.e., 'private property') in his opening. So their problem isn't with all, just some, drone videos. Call me a stickler, but if they're not ALL a problem, then it's difficult to cherry pick and say SOME are a problem.

Disclaimer: I don't know if he received a similar letter. If he has, then....nevermind. If he hasn't, the 'privacy' argument is a red herring.

[BrianL99]

When the government fails to respect constitutional rights, any evidence they collect is not admissible in court.


So show me one example of someone in their home where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera into the inside of their house? Good luck - because they don't do that.
Show me one example of someone naked in their pool where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera on them for a close up? Good luck - because they don't do that.



So in other words, it's ok to have the capability to do it, as long as the drone flyers are honest, good citizens, who would never do such a thing?

[Arlington2]

So let's take this a step farther. Mr. Videographer is flying his drone and taking video. Mr. Smith is behind his home, hidden from all his neighbors and drinking beer. No one can see him from the street or the abutting homes, so he opts for the quick & easy solution ... he pees in his pool ...
.

Or the drone may see an intruder breaking into a home and raping and/or murdering occupants. Pick your priorities capture the bad guys or avoid embarrassing a guy caught peeing in the pool. Some of your similies are absurd.

[Bill14564]

So in other words, it's ok to have the capability to do it, as long as the drone flyers are honest, good citizens, who would never do such a thing?

Like possessing an automobile with the capability of exceeding 90mph or sound systems with the capability of exceeding the noise ordinance limitations or guns?

[DrMack]

There are cameras everywhere today. You are being filmed constantly. In a store, at the airport, in a parking lot, on the street, even when you drive through a Villages gate on your way home. We even had cameras hand out tickets in Maryland. There is zero expectation of privacy. You shouldn’t even expect your internet browsing to be a secret, because it is not, period! After reading all the posts, the approach the Villages has is laughable. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t like it if I were them, but nothing can be done. They will have to eat this one.

[LoriAnn]

When a billionaire goes after a fixed income retiree or young working father, everyone feels threatened. I'm sure the villages know they will never succeed in controlling airspace. They also know the little guy can't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from a billionaire. They are counting on winning by threatening the little guy with the ability to outspend him. This whole thing is disgraceful and very bad optics for them. They need to bring peace to the situation before they lose the goodwill of their customers.

[Bill14564]

Because someone makes a "deposit" on a piece of land, that doesn't give them "co-ownership". At best and depending on the specific language of the contract, they may have an equitable interest, but that would be the extent of it. Knowing The Villages and how they operate their sales operation, I doubt "depositors" even have an equitable interest.

This entire discussion is much larger than folks are making it out to be. Not surprisingly, it was in front of the Supreme Court in 1946 (U.S. v. Causby, 1946). The ruling went in favor of the Petitioner and against the United States government.

Per U.S. v. Causby, 1946, we own the airspace over our homes, to the extent it's necessary for our use and enjoyment.

The FAA is really out of the discussion, as they don't regulate Class G Air Space. They also have the authority to regulate "airplanes" or flying devices. They have no jurisdiction over what the flying devices are doing (filming).

I noticed some other drone operator started a thread and included a video. He spent most of the video, claiming he's following FAA Guidelines. Big Deal. That's really a non-issue in this case. His argument is akin to someone saying, I was legally flying my airplane per FAA regulations, when I dropped that bomb, so I'm innocent. Apples & oranges. You can operate your automobile legally, but if you have stolen goods in it, you're still subject to prosecution.

Legally flying a drone, doesn't make what you're doing with your drone, inherently legal.

We are looking the fundamental principals of the 1st, 4th & 14th Amendments.

Consider this:

Police are not allowed to search your home or curtilage (areas around your home), using a drone. If they don't have a warrant, they can only search from "navigable air space" (above 500' for airplanes, 400' for drones). (California v. Ciraolo, 1986 & Florida v. Riley, 1989)

In (Florida v. Jardines, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that curtilage is part of the home, which means it has the same privacy protections as the interior of a home. Using a drone below 400' to search curtilage, is an unconstitutional search.

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

You seem to have misinterpreted each of those cases.

Causby: The case acknowledged that the property owner DOES NOT own the airspace above his home. The case involved the question of a plane flying so low as to interfere with the ability to enjoy his property. The Developer is not asserting that the drone was interfering with anything, the complaint is about the videos.

Riley: The ruling went AGAINST the property owner. It was determined that the police DID NOT act improperly when they observed private property from public airspace.

Jardines: The issue was the police presence ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. Since the drones the Developer is complaining about are flying in public airspace, Jardines does not apply.

[tophcfa]

When a billionaire goes after a fixed income retiree or young working father, everyone feels threatened. I'm sure the villages know they will never succeed in controlling airspace. They also know the little guy can't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from a billionaire. They are counting on winning by threatening the little guy with the ability to outspend him. This whole thing is disgraceful and very bad optics for them. They need to bring peace to the situation before they lose the goodwill of their customers.

Nobody seemed to discredit their goodwill after what they did to Oren Miller. Why should going after drone operators be any different?

[BrianL99]

... After reading all the posts, the approach the Villages has is laughable. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t like it if I were them, but nothing can be done. They will have to eat this one.


A family worth +/- $4,000,000,000 threatening to sue a few guys, working out of their extra room and posting YouTube videos, is anything but laughable.

The brains behind The Villages, have proven for 40+ years, they're way smarter than the average bloke. They will win this battle. Perhaps not 100%, but they'll come out on the right side of it, as they almost always do.

[Normal]

A family worth +/- $4,000,000,000 threatening to sue a few guys, working out of their extra room and posting YouTube videos, is anything but laughable.

The brains behind The Villages, have proven for 40+ years, they're way smarter than the average bloke. They will win this battle. Perhaps not 100%, but they'll come out on the right side of it, as they almost always do.

Guess someone forgot about freedom of the press and how with long standing videos have applied to that right.