Drones and New Construction In The Villages

[MarioNappa]

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaI

[graciegirl]

I believe that I read that The Villages has recently disallowed drones over their new construction areas.

That is fine with me. That makes sense. There is a lot of theft these days of both equipment and supplies.

Someone who most of us respect is apparently upset because his drone pictures are very interesting and not at all in any way doing anything wrong.

I still agree with The Villages. They have a right to protect areas that could be harmed and that is a cost spread to everyone eventually.

[Bill14564]

I believe that I read that The Villages has recently disallowed drones over their new construction areas.

That is fine with me. That makes sense. There is a lot of theft these days of both equipment and supplies.

Someone who most of us respect is apparently upset because his drone pictures are very interesting and not at all in any way doing anything wrong.

I still agree with The Villages. They have a right to protect areas that could be harmed and that is a cost spread to everyone eventually.

Not a lot of theft by way of drones.

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

If you can see it, you can film it.

[Stu from NYC]

The developer does not own the air over the Villages

[firefighter4u]

I believe that I read that The Villages has recently disallowed drones over their new construction areas.

That is fine with me. That makes sense. There is a lot of theft these days of both equipment and supplies.

Someone who most of us respect is apparently upset because his drone pictures are very interesting and not at all in any way doing anything wrong.

I still agree with The Villages. They have a right to protect areas that could be harmed and that is a cost spread to everyone eventually.

But the law says differently.

[countrycomfort1]

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaIwell if they can fly drones over air bases why can’t you fly them over a construction site

[indianahurricane]

But the law says differently.


Law states if you can see it from a public place, it's legal to photograph

[Veracity]

I believe that I read that The Villages has recently disallowed drones over their new construction areas.

That is fine with me. That makes sense. There is a lot of theft these days of both equipment and supplies.

Someone who most of us respect is apparently upset because his drone pictures are very interesting and not at all in any way doing anything wrong.

I still agree with The Villages. They have a right to protect areas that could be harmed and that is a cost spread to everyone eventually.

I agree with whoever is legally correct.

[MollyJo]

The developer does not own the air over the Villages
Intimidation to scare away people that don’t have pockets as deep as the developer. Seems this would backfire, nobody likes a bully…

[Normal]

The developer does not own the air over the Villages

And in many cases the Villages doesn’t even have complete ownership of the property. What if there is a county road involved? What about the conversion of County road 470:to Central Parkway? This is a huge grey area and road systems are generally owned by the county or state. Just ask the people who want their roads fixed at Lake Sumter Landing with bricks….lol. Or ask the people who have already purchased their homes that are still being built? What if they don’t object, or better yet what if the want someone to film construction ? Like another poster has said, “If you can see it, you can film it.”

[jsa]

If the drone operators comply with the laws, they should be free to produce the videos—period. If you don't like it, work to change the law.

We recently built in the villages and will be moving in next week. Our decision to do so was influenced in no small part by the drone videos on YouTube, which provided another favorable input on our decision-making process.

We used Don Wiley's Gold Wingnut drone and photography services (https://www.goldwingnut.com/) to get updates on our home construction process. This was well worth it. Highly recommended.

This episode shows a shocking lack of social media awareness from the developers. I can't think of a single YouTube drone video from any of the producers that has a negative tone toward the villages. Instead, these videos should be viewed as another marketing channel for them (a free one at that). Many people use Amazon to obtain independent product reviews, and I think these videos provide a similar benefit. I look for many objective inputs when making serious decisions, such as where to live. I don't want to rely solely on state-run media.

Finally, this is an incredibly bad look for the developers - it puts off David and Goliath vibes. I am rooting for David.

[elle123]

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaI
Maybe, the developers don't want the public to see the poor quality of new construction.

[Rocksnap]

But the law says differently.

Ok. You post that. What does the law say differently? Time to back up that statement.
Pretty please

[Stu from NYC]

Hopefully Don will post here

[RoseyRed]

good point!

well if they can fly drones over air bases why can’t you fly them over a construction site

[RoseyRed]

Agree 200%!!! There is a lot about TV that seems like a monopoly! :bigbow:


Intimidation to scare away people that don’t have pockets as deep as the developer. Seems this would backfire, nobody likes a bully…

[BlackHarley]

I used Goldwingnut's video and photo service when we had our home built in 2020. I often refer to the photo's to show me what type of materials are used within the walls for plumbing or simply picture hanging purposes.
The video content is invaluable to see different stages of build-out. Archived arial snapshots of slab processes and plumbing can only be done once.
Don Wiley is an asset to the community, and for him to be pushed around and harmed financially is a disgrace. The Morse family should be ashamed of their actions. They know they have 'deeper legal pockets' than most around here, and will bankrupt people that attempt to fight them in court. As another poster stated, the federal airspace is free to fly in (certain airspace restrictions apply). Don, being a commercial licensed drone operator has ALWAYS adhered to those regulations and even mentions them during video editing. The the 'developer' absolutely hates bad word of mouth and social media posts, so GAME ON GOLIATH!

[jimbomaybe]

I believe that I read that The Villages has recently disallowed drones over their new construction areas.

That is fine with me. That makes sense. There is a lot of theft these days of both equipment and supplies.

Someone who most of us respect is apparently upset because his drone pictures are very interesting and not at all in any way doing anything wrong.

I still agree with The Villages. They have a right to protect areas that could be harmed and that is a cost spread to everyone eventually.
To the best of my knowledge "The Villages" is not a charitable organization but a business, the bottom line is always the bottom line. One cardinal rule of any business is Lower cost,, Not price , they have right to protect them selves, and will do so to protect those costs and profits . From what little I know of recording of conversations and video laws in Florida it seems to me that it is some what restrictive, I would like to hear from someone who went shopping for a new car and tried to record the discussion with the sales person, LOL as you would need approval of all parties

[Rocksnap]

The developer does not own the air over the Villages
Developer not WANTING drones over their construction is just that. They can not want all day long.
According to an FAA approved drone airspace go/no go live website, to check the airspace for any flight restrictions, ALL OF TV IS IN CLEAR/NO RESTRICTIONS AIRSPACE. The ONLY NO GO ZONE is the large prison property, in its entirety. There are not even any temporary flight restrictions above ANY of TV. The law is the law, last I checked.
The developers have no legal say who can legally fly anywhere in TV. Construction or not. If they desire a temporary flight restriction, apply for one. Hopefully my 2 screenshots clearly show clean, legal airspace to fly ANYWHERE over TV. The small magenta dot near my blue dot is just a pin marker. Nothing more.

[mikemalloy]

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaI
I had the opportunity to see Don's well reasoned and knowledgible response to the letter he received. In a nutshell, a lawyer (from CA) wrote to him on behalf of the owner and told him that he had no proper license and no legal right to do what he has been doing. It's Don's position, which he backed up with authority, that he does.
In my experience, some junior lawyer in the mailing firm was assigned the job of getting rid of Don's videos. He may have done a little research, but it's clear from his letter than he had no legal authority to cite to back him up. So he just used the threat of expensive legal costs to engage in what we now call lawfare. I thihk Don is going to fight and from what I can gather, he'll eventually win.

[Normal]

Developer not WANTING drones over their construction is just that. They can not want all day long.
According to an FAA approved drone airspace go/no go live website, to check the airspace for any flight restrictions, ALL OF TV IS IN CLEAR/NO RESTRICTIONS AIRSPACE. The ONLY NO GO ZONE is the large prison property, in its entirety. There are not even any temporary flight restrictions above ANY of TV. The law is the law, last I checked.
The developers have no legal say who can legally fly anywhere in TV. Construction or not. If they desire a temporary flight restriction, apply for one. Hopefully my 2 screenshots clearly show clean, legal airspace to fly ANYWHERE over TV.

It’s kind of like the police don’t care for it if you film them, but the bottom line is you are protected under first amendment rights (as long as you don’t interfere with law enforcement applications).

There are also easements of land applications to law that The Villages won’t be able to clear.

[Maineguides]

We are here in the villiages right now and we’re meeting with a villages agent today to tour the street of dreams and most likely buying a new home while we’re down here. This is all taking place mostly due to all the you tube channels especially the drone footage buy gold wingnut and papa pineapple. The villiages marketing materiel is aweful. I can’t believe any company would fire employees that are doing a great job and willing to work for free. If they only knew how many houses these channels have sold for them….,,,,,,,

[BrianL99]

Developer not WANTING drones over their construction is just that. They can not want all day long.
According to an FAA approved drone airspace go/no go live website, to check the airspace for any flight restrictions, ALL OF TV IS IN CLEAR/NO RESTRICTIONS AIRSPACE. The ONLY NO GO ZONE is the large prison property, in its entirety. There are not even any temporary flight restrictions above ANY of TV. The law is the law, last I checked.
The developers have no legal say who can legally fly anywhere in TV. Construction or not. If they desire a temporary flight restriction, apply for one. Hopefully my 2 screenshots clearly show clean, legal airspace to fly ANYWHERE over TV. The small magenta dot near my blue dot is just a pin marker. Nothing more.

Can you please point out where in FAA Regulations, the FAA has the authority to allow or not allow, "taking video of private property" and using such vidoe, commercially?

[Ptmcbriz]

The developer wants to protect its reputation, thereby protect the future values of your home. I think what is happening is misinformation is being put out by these drone video creators (except for maybe 1 or 2 that do get it right) and the developer receives phone calls all around the world (literally) with people wanting to confirm if X area” is opening in 3 months as the drone video states, when it’s really not scheduled to open for 6 months. The ones that don’t get it right are creating added work and diminishing reputations by being wrong. I’m sure there are also liability issues, along with showing assets at construction sites.

My suggestion is the developer needs to issue special permits for drones and limiting how many are out there. Then it can be controlled and managed.

[NoMo50]

I believe that I read that The Villages has recently disallowed drones over their new construction areas.

That is fine with me. That makes sense. There is a lot of theft these days of both equipment and supplies.

Someone who most of us respect is apparently upset because his drone pictures are very interesting and not at all in any way doing anything wrong.

I still agree with The Villages. They have a right to protect areas that could be harmed and that is a cost spread to everyone eventually.

Not sure where you may have read that, but the Developer has ZERO authority to ban anything in the airspace above their construction areas. Only the FAA can dictate how the federal airspace is used. The Developer CAN certainly prohibit drone pilots, and anyone else for that matter, from trespassing on their private property. This would prevent drone pilots from using Villages private property for takeoff and landings. But, once that drone is in the air, the Developer has no control over where it flies.

[JRcorvette]

The Developer is overreacting their authority and trying to intimidate Don. His videos are very informative and he has always been supportive of the Villages. Nothing negative. I am not sure how this all came about???

[rockyhyder]

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaI

Bet you would feel differently if you were the one building houses and trying to market your product nationwide and some guys with no skin in the game were taking drone videos of product you don’t have ready for the market yet and posting it on you tube for their own profit.

[midiwiz]

Intimidation to scare away people that don’t have pockets as deep as the developer. Seems this would backfire, nobody likes a bully…

Very much correct, the developer pretty much "owns" the local courts, HOWEVER they are scared of the Federal Courts, which is exactly where I would take this case. They'll lose in a heartbeat.

I think the real reason is sales are down and they don't want anyone to know how crappy they are building down there.

[LonnyP]

Excellent.

[CybrSage]

I am not a legal expert, but reading Florida SB 767, which was signed into law, it appears there must be an expectation of privacy in order to ban the drone flights. Line 82 forward defines what that is. The drone also has to stay in a line of sight and he greater than 50 feet. I believe that part is from federal law

"72 (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
73 (a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather
74 evidence or other information.
75 (b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as
76 defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging
77 device to record an image of privately owned real property or of
78 the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such
79 property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the
80 individual or property captured in the image in violation of
81 such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or
82 her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is
83 presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or
84 her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable
85 by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a
86 legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable
87 from the air with the use of a drone."

[midiwiz]

Not sure where you may have read that, but the Developer has ZERO authority to ban anything in the airspace above their construction areas. Only the FAA can dictate how the federal airspace is used. The Developer CAN certainly prohibit drone pilots, and anyone else for that matter, from trespassing on their private property. This would prevent drone pilots from using Villages private property for takeoff and landings. But, once that drone is in the air, the Developer has no control over where it flies.

Almost, here's the rub

"Private Property" this is a grey area, yes they own the property, however building on it so it's technically not so private. This can and probably will be argued.

Tresspassing, the legal definition of a piece of land also includes air space above it. They would have to be outside that air space, which if the drone is traveling the streets (so to say) then it's 100% legal as that is considered public property. It is unlike a HOA, as the county is responsible for road maintenence here not TV

[CybrSage]

well if they can fly drones over air bases why can’t you fly them over a construction site

You cannot fly drones over airbases. They are restricted airspace.

[airstreamingypsy]

I hope the drone flyers win, but am worried at what cost. They will need deep pockets.

[midiwiz]

I am not a legal expert, but reading Florida SB 767, which was signed into law, it appears there must be an expectation of privacy in order to ban the drone flights. Line 82 forward defines what that is. The drone also has to stay in a line of sight and he greater than 50 feet. I believe that part is from federal law

"72 (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
73 (a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather
74 evidence or other information.
75 (b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as
76 defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging
77 device to record an image of privately owned real property or of
78 the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such
79 property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the
80 individual or property captured in the image in violation of
81 such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or
82 her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is
83 presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or
84 her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable
85 by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a
86 legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable
87 from the air with the use of a drone."

Yes but here's the phrase that will be of debate in court -

"with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property"

From a legal perspective the word surveillance has to be determined in this context, these guys aren't actually performing surveillance, now if they are hired to monitor the build of a home, then yes they COULD lose this battle, however the fly overs for what is going on and where it's headed is not considered surveillance.

[CybrSage]

Very much correct, the developer pretty much "owns" the local courts, HOWEVER they are scared of the Federal Courts, which is exactly where I would take this case. They'll lose in a heartbeat.

I think the real reason is sales are down and they don't want anyone to know how crappy they are building down there.

It would go to State Court first. The developer would have to show there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a construction zone in order for it to violate State Law.
State Law is more restrictive than fed law in this instance and it spells out that if the person can be seen from the ground, outside of private property, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they cannot be, but can be seen from the air, there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I posted the law, above.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

Airspace is not “private property.”

[CybrSage]

now if they are hired to monitor the build of a home, then yes they COULD lose this battle, however the fly overs for what is going on and where it's headed is not considered surveillance.

I agree. Though at least with Don, he only does building films if the homeowner (purchaser) requests it. I suspect that would be good enough for a judge to say the surveillance is authorized.
I could easily be wrong as I only use common English and legal definitions are sometimes the exact opposite of the word's everyday use.

[CybrSage]

Airspace is not “private property.”

Yes and no. Up to 50 feet above the property is still considered private property wet flying a drone.

[Stu from NYC]

I had the opportunity to see Don's well reasoned and knowledgible response to the letter he received. In a nutshell, a lawyer (from CA) wrote to him on behalf of the owner and told him that he had no proper license and no legal right to do what he has been doing. It's Don's position, which he backed up with authority, that he does.
In my experience, some junior lawyer in the mailing firm was assigned the job of getting rid of Don's videos. He may have done a little research, but it's clear from his letter than he had no legal authority to cite to back him up. So he just used the threat of expensive legal costs to engage in what we now call lawfare. I thihk Don is going to fight and from what I can gather, he'll eventually win.

Hopefully he will win but what will it cost him to do so? In the videos I have seen he has basically been a cheerleader for the Villages. Hope we can see the letter and his response.

[Catfishjeff]

No point repeating all the actual laws that are involved as others have done a good job of it. I have founded and operated multiple successful businesses in my long career and this is one of the worst PR disasters I've seen (right up there with Bud Light and Disney's phony "Don't Say Gay" law). This is a huge overreach by the Morse family to crush the little guy. But....the media is picking up this story and it's bound to spread. Channel 9 did a story on it and made a point that the developer did not respond to their questions. The story is spreading all over social media where millions can potentially see it. In only a matter of days until the big boys, like the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and so forth will be picking this story up. And The Villages cannot unring this bell. Their legal argument is bogus. They have painted themselves as the bad guys. Somebody should be fired for creating this PR nightmare.

[Regorp]

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaI

A big reason for many newer residents moving to TV in the last 5 years or so is the ability to watch the drone videos presenting all TV has to offer to us. Been here 3 years and we watched many of these, convincing us to move here. TV is hurting themselves by messing with free advertising.

[Normal]

It would go to State Court first. The developer would have to show there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a construction zone in order for it to violate State Law.
State Law is more restrictive than fed law in this instance and it spells out that if the person can be seen from the ground, outside of private property, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they cannot be, but can be seen from the air, there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I posted the law, above.

YouTube has never promoted privacy

[Miboater]

I hope this will put to rest the talk that Don Wiley is a puppet of the developer.

[rsetterlund]

I wonder what the Villages is trying to hide.

[shut the front door]

The Developer is overreacting their authority and trying to intimidate Don. His videos are very informative and he has always been supportive of the Villages. Nothing negative. I am not sure how this all came about???

The Villages flat out does not like people making money when they don't get a cut. All of these youtube channels make money, as they should. If TV doesn't get their cut, they're going to do everything in their power (legal or otherwise) to make it stop.

[rickaslin]

Maybe, the developers don't want the public to see the poor quality of new construction.

So you think a drone can show poor quality of construction?? How close does a drone have to be to show this ??

[jsa]

Maybe, the developers don't want the public to see the poor quality of new construction.

Has it been established that there are systemic build quality issues? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

[RRGuyNJ]

Makes you wonder what The Villages are trying to hide.
If the fights are within the regulations regarding flying drones I doubt they have anything to base their legal fight to stop the drones from flying. They're up to something in my opinion.

[Bill14564]

Makes you wonder what The Villages are trying to hide.
If the fights are within the regulations regarding flying drones I doubt they have anything to base their legal fight to stop the drones from flying. They're up to something in my opinion.

Probably not trying to hide anything, probably just want to control the release of information. It's hard to release exciting new updates when the video has been on YouTube for a month already.

[graciegirl]

Probably not trying to hide anything, probably just want to control the release of information. It's hard to release exciting new updates when the video has been on YouTube for a month already.

That sounds like a reasonable reason. I grow so tired of the genre of previous comments who just love to jump on the developer. WHY would the family want to ruin their very good reputation with such ding-a-ling motives. I always wonder who is so het up over the very good reputation of our founding and maintaining family? I always wonder is it a competitor, or a jealous person who doesn't live here? What is the motive? It is indeed their successful business and if they don't want a drone to fly over it, they will try to stop it. That is fine with me.

[fdpaq0580]

Not a lot of theft by way of drones.

Surveillance to locate things of value, security, access, egress, optimal routes. "Casing the joint" by drone as part of planning the heist. Very important... or so I've been told. 😎

[fdpaq0580]

Intimidation to scare, nobody likes a bully…

Political? Nah!

[Rocksnap]

I had the opportunity to see Don's well reasoned and knowledgible response to the letter he received. In a nutshell, a lawyer (from CA) wrote to him on behalf of the owner and told him that he had no proper license and no legal right to do what he has been doing. It's Don's position, which he backed up with authority, that he does.
In my experience, some junior lawyer in the mailing firm was assigned the job of getting rid of Don's videos. He may have done a little research, but it's clear from his letter than he had no legal authority to cite to back him up. So he just used the threat of expensive legal costs to engage in what we now call lawfare. I thihk Don is going to fight and from what I can gather, he'll eventually win.
I’m thinking a GO FUND ME should be started to help out any legal expenses for Gold Wing Nut!

[Bill14564]

Surveillance to locate things of value, security, access, egress, optimal routes. "Casing the joint" by drone as part of planning the heist. Very important... or so I've been told. 😎

Only in the movies. Those who would steal from a construction site don't need drones to know what types of material are on the site or the access points. These things sit in wide open, cleared fields visible from the roadway.

[Johnsocat]

The developer wants to protect its reputation, thereby protect the future values of your home. I think what is happening is misinformation is being put out by these drone video creators (except for maybe 1 or 2 that do get it right) and the developer receives phone calls all around the world (literally) with people wanting to confirm if X area” is opening in 3 months as the drone video states, when it’s really not scheduled to open for 6 months. The ones that don’t get it right are creating added work and diminishing reputations by being wrong. I’m sure there are also liability issues, along with showing assets at construction sites.

My suggestion is the developer needs to issue special permits for drones and limiting how many are out there. Then it can be controlled and managed.

Oh goody!!! More government regulation and fees for us taxpayers...

[Papa_lecki]

Probably not trying to hide anything, probably just want to control the release of information. It's hard to release exciting new updates when the video has been on YouTube for a month already.


My suggestion is break some big news without drone video. You can tell a story without the drone.

[Normal]

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Never throw rocks in glass houses. Would The Developer be permitted to fly drones and capture private residences “if” they ever released a video? You have to wonder what they were even thinking.

[Rocksnap]

Can you please point out where in FAA Regulations, the FAA has the authority to allow or not allow, "taking video of private property" and using such vidoe, commercially?

Is that a trick question? The FAA could care less what someone’s filming, they only care about the airspace. Last I checked, the airspace above is open to all, unless otherwise noted. That’s the REGULATION. Which is why there are web sites that drone operators use to make sure the airspace is LEGAL to operate in. TV has no such airspace restrictions. Like it or not, TV management needs to suck it up.

[Marathon Man]

I’m thinking a GO FUND ME should be started to help out any legal expenses for Gold Wing Nut!

Let us know when you have it set it up. I'm sure that there are folks willing to contribute.

[Rocksnap]

Bet you would feel differently if you were the one building houses and trying to market your product nationwide and some guys with no skin in the game were taking drone videos of product you don’t have ready for the market yet and posting it on you tube for their own profit.

That’s life. No one ever said it was fair. It’s unfair for TV to even try to get drone operators to stop flying above TV. Construction or not. So TV is trying to be the 800 pound gorilla to stop something totally legal.

[twoplanekid]

That sounds like a reasonable reason. I grow so tired of the genre of previous comments who just love to jump on the developer. WHY would the family want to ruin their very good reputation with such ding-a-ling motives. I always wonder who is so het up over the very good reputation of our founding and maintaining family? I always wonder is it a competitor, or a jealous person who doesn't live here? What is the motive? It is indeed their successful business and if they don't want a drone to fly over it, they will try to stop it. That is fine with me.

Now that is a good question. To try to control the release of information in todays world isn't going to happen unless it's classified :smiley: So, move on to doing things differently and not try to control the rights of others.

[BrianL99]

Is that a trick question? The FAA could care less what someone’s filming, they only care about the airspace. Last I checked, the airspace above is open to all, unless otherwise noted. That’s the REGULATION. Which is why there are web sites that drone operators use to make sure the airspace is LEGAL to operate in. TV has no such airspace restrictions. Like it or not, TV management needs to suck it up.

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

[Normal]

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

Wrong

Where would video recording be considered illegal in public? Is it when everyone whips out their cell phones because something is happening? Perhaps it’s at Publix in the parking lot when I am putting my groceries in the car? Maybe it’s when I’m taking money from the ATM? I know, it’s when the beach cam catches me walking on the boardwalk? I’ll bet it’s when the bus driver is driving his bus? Nah. It’s when the cops arrest someone and their body cam is on? How about when Google Earth caught my car in the driveway? You got me, it’s when my dashboard camera is filming the car in front of me or behind me? Perhaps it’s when my Ring Doorbell busts the Amazon guy delivering a package?

There aren’t any red herrings

[Stu from NYC]

That’s life. No one ever said it was fair. It’s unfair for TV to even try to get drone operators to stop flying above TV. Construction or not. So TV is trying to be the 800 pound gorilla to stop something totally legal.

Not the first time

[Danube]

Can you please point out where in FAA Regulations, the FAA has the authority to allow or not allow, "taking video of private property" and using such vidoe, commercially?

It's legal by default to film private property. The FAA can restrict but it can't "allow.

See the maps posted, above.

[jimjamuser]

Maybe, the developers don't want the public to see the poor quality of new construction.
Worker citizenship?

[Danube]

Airspace is not “private property.”

But many people posting "feel" like it should be. And they really, really, think their feelings have a greater value than your legal rights.

[jimjamuser]

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Never throw rocks in glass houses. Would The Developer be permitted to fly drones and capture private residences “if” they ever released a video? You have to wonder what they were even thinking.
Get low paid workers.

[ElDiabloJoe]

///
:popcorn: :popcorn:

[BrianL99]

Wrong

Where would video recording be considered illegal in public? Is it when everyone whips out their cell phones because something is happening? Perhaps it’s at Publix in the parking lot when I am putting my groceries in the car? Maybe it’s when I’m taking money from the ATM? I know, it’s when the beach cam catches me walking on the boardwalk? I’ll bet it’s when the bus driver is driving his bus? Nah. It’s when the cops arrest someone and their body cam is on? How about when Google Earth caught my car in the driveway? You got me, it’s when my dashboard camera is filming the car in front of me or behind me? Perhaps it’s when my Ring Doorbell busts the Amazon guy delivering a package?

There aren’t any red herrings


The attorney for The Villages, apparently doesn't agree with your legal conclusions.

[graciegirl]

I have said this many times as well; The Villages aren't our mother. I would not expect a tree falling during a hurricane to be cleaned up by anyone except the owner of the tree.

I see all around me evidence of constant care of the areas known as greenspace. I know that makes this place more beautiful and more desirable to buy but they do such a good job keeping things looking nice, picking up debris, cutting back bushes, etc. etc.

[asianthree]

I have said this many times as well; The Villages aren't our mother. I would not expect a tree falling during a hurricane to be cleaned up by anyone except the owner of the tree.

I see all around me evidence of constant care of the areas known as greenspace. I know that makes this place more beautiful and more desirable to buy but they do such a good job keeping things looking nice, picking up debris, cutting back bushes, etc. etc.

You missed the point The owner of the trees were not on homeowner property, but 40 plus feet away on common areas. With that thought clean up should be done by the owner the tree..So you don’t think the homeowner should be removing a tree that is 35’ in common area, but still falls on a house. Homeowners didn’t own the tree, not on their property yet had to pay to remove a 40’tree falling from the common areas

[BrianL99]

It's legal by default to film private property. The FAA can restrict but it can't "allow.

See the maps posted, above.

You're exactly right The FAA has nothing to do with photography or videography. They are out of this equation and not relevant, unless & until a drone starts flying in controlled air space.

[Stu from NYC]

I have said this many times as well; The Villages aren't our mother. I would not expect a tree falling during a hurricane to be cleaned up by anyone except the owner of the tree.

I see all around me evidence of constant care of the areas known as greenspace. I know that makes this place more beautiful and more desirable to buy but they do such a good job keeping things looking nice, picking up debris, cutting back bushes, etc. etc.

The villages is kept very nice but do believe that we are the ones who pay for all of this landscaping.

[Goldwingnut]

Hopefully Don will post here

I don't have the time to spend composing responses that are easier said than written. I'm holding my tongue as I continue to work through these issues. I'll have something to say on my 3 o'clock Sunday broadcast. Until thing I need to spend my time getting #154 ready for release.

[fdpaq0580]

Only in the movies. Those who would steal from a construction site don't need drones to know what types of material are on the site or the access points. These things sit in wide open, cleared fields visible from the roadway.

Of course! My way would make a much better action flick. Thieves hanging underneath dump trucks. Guys in wings units shooting down rocket drones with nail guns. Transformer construction bots absconding with millions of dollars of rebar to produce next-gen Transformer builder's. "Screwball to Wingbolt. Flag Twisttye tog launch the bulldozer drones".
I can hardly wait for the sequel.

[fdpaq0580]

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

I'm in the witness protection program. No pictures please. Out me and enjoy Guantanamo.

[LianneMigiano]

Someone with media contacts needs to get state/national exposure involved. I'm sure that drone flights and privacy interests are interesting to more than just our community! Some of these replies regarding airspace should be shared throughout the country!

[Rocksnap]

I'm in the witness protection program. No pictures please. Out me and enjoy Guantanamo.

Address please? So drone operators can ‘avoid’ capturing you on video.

[ltcdfancher]

well if they can fly drones over air bases why can’t you fly them over a construction site
I’d disagree with this statement. I see uncountable numbers of posted signs that prohibit drone flights at a large number of USAF installations.

[BrianL99]

I’d disagree with this statement. I see uncountable numbers of posted signs that prohibit drone flights at a large number of USAF installations.

Try to fly one over the Super Bowl or the World Series ... or a Taylor Swift concert. See how local law enforcement & the FAA react.

Go fly one of Disney World or the Grand Canyon or any National Park.

Apparently large groups of people (or area) are entitled to privacy, but the Developer of TV isn't.

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina & Washington, all impose restrictions from drones from taking video of private property, without permission of the land owner.

[Bill14564]

Try to fly one over the Super Bowl or the World Series ... or a Taylor Swift concert. See how local law enforcement & the FAA react.

Go fly one of Disney World or the Grand Canyon or any National Park.

Apparently large groups of people (or area) are entitled to privacy, but the Developer of TV isn't.

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina & Washington, all impose restrictions from drones from taking video of private property, without permission of the land owner.

None of those restrictions have to do with privacy.

The laws are more specific than "don't take pictures of private property." It remains to be seen whether the drone operators around TV are violating the specific restrictions of the current laws.

[ithos]

I cheated and used Chat GPT.

In March 2025, The Villages' legal representatives issued cease-and-desist letters to drone operators, including Sumter County Commissioner Don Wiley, citing Florida Statutes Section 934.50. This statute prohibits the use of drones to record images of privately owned property without the owner's written consent if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Violations can lead to civil actions and financial penalties. ​
However, this situation has sparked a legal debate over the balance between state privacy laws and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority over navigable airspace. The FAA maintains exclusive control over U.S. airspace, which complicates the enforcement of state-level drone restrictions. ​

Given these complexities, it's advisable for drone operators in Sumter County to:​
Stay Informed: Regularly review both federal and Florida state drone regulations.​
Respect Privacy: Avoid flying over private property without consent, especially in areas like The Villages where privacy concerns have been legally asserted.​

Consult Authorities: Engage with local authorities or legal counsel to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and to stay updated on any new regulations or legal interpretations.​
By taking these steps, drone pilots can navigate the evolving legal landscape and operate responsibly within Sumter County.​

Drone Ban in The Villages Sparks Legal Battle Over Airspace, Privacy, and Press Freedom | (https://lakeandsumterstyle.com/drone-ban-in-the-villages-sparks-legal-battle-over-airspace-privacy-and-press-freedom/?utm_campaign=drone-ban-in-the-villages-sparks-legal-battle-over-airspace-privacy-and-press-freedom&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=chatgpt.com)
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/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

and of course more can be found on the banned site.

[ThirdOfFive]

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.
Best summary I've seen yet. Legal beagles far more knowledgeable than the posters here will end up hashing this out.

Bottom line though...it seems to me that the developer doesn't have to win. All he (she?) has to do is not lose, and in the meantime draw things out as long as possible. The developer no doubt has salaried attorneys who do work as it comes up, but the drone guys have to hire theirs. So it all comes down to the cost of this particular "justice" and whose money runs out first.

[Stu from NYC]

Best summary I've seen yet. Legal beagles far more knowledgeable than the posters here will end up hashing this out.

Bottom line though...the developer doesn't have to win. All he (she?) has to do is not lose, and in the meantime draw things out as long as possible. The developer no doubt has salaried attorneys who do work as it comes up, but the drone guys have to hire theirs. So it all comes down to the cost of this particular "justice" and whose money runs out first.

You nailed it. Might be a good use of a go fund me campaign. Strange that the developer is taking on Don Wiley.

[Catfishjeff]

Yes and no. Up to 50 feet above the property is still considered private property wet flying a drone.

I'm a drone pilot and nowhere have I seen a 50' rule. What's your source?

[phylt]

I don't have the time to spend composing responses that are easier said than written. I'm holding my tongue as I continue to work through these issues. I'll have something to say on my 3 o'clock Sunday broadcast. Until thing I need to spend my time getting #154 ready for release.

Don, we so appreciate your hard work and effort that you show through your so-informative videos of TV. We have always enjoyed them and look forward to the next, and next.

We're always supportive of the 'little guy' and the 'underdog'. The group of videographers who conduct their private businesses honorably and provide a service to the community certainly are a positive to The Villages. Both the residents, and those considering moving to TV.

Appears that the ONLY reason the Developer team is forcing these actions is to CONTROL all Media within their geography. Uncertain which, if any, laws support their argument. That certainly will be exposed soon. IMO, THEY are forcing your group to hire $$$ legal teams. THEY have virtually unlimited resources, so it's David vs. Goliath. So be it. But, it appears that THEY may have taken a position which will be negative to the public. I personally hope so and they will eventually stand down.

What if the Developer decided to take action against outside Real Estate firms? Issuing a threat that pre-owned homes within The Villages can ONLY be represented and sold by TV Agents??? Control.

We will be watching this issue closely, and if a Go Fund Me is opened, we will support as well.

--- a concerned Villager

[Buckeye Bill]

After reading 6 pages of comments the only one that makes sense is the post that TV is upset that they aren’t getting their cut of any and all moneys made by the drone operators. I know some have sponsors to defray the cost of producing the videos can TV be so petty to want a cut which more than likely less than the cost of having a Lawyer firm on retainer. Get real folks these operators are doing this for a hobby and if they can defray their costs let them.

[BrianL99]

I'm a drone pilot and nowhere have I seen a 50' rule. What's your source?

There is no arbitrary 50' rule.

There is a Supreme Court Decision from 1946 that is the controlling law at this point.

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby)

[BrianL99]

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

Best summary I've seen yet. Legal beagles far more knowledgeable than the posters here will end up hashing this out.

Bottom line though...it seems to me that the developer doesn't have to win. All he (she?) has to do is not lose, and in the meantime draw things out as long as possible. The developer no doubt has salaried attorneys who do work as it comes up, but the drone guys have to hire theirs. So it all comes down to the cost of this particular "justice" and whose money runs out first.

& you are exactly right. The Developer doesn't have to "win", he only has to "not lose" or win by default, when the opposition gives up or goes broke.

I'm shocked by the general tone of this discussion. In a community that consists primarily of an older, conservative population, I would think that constituency would be more concerned with protecting privacy rights.

I suspect the tone would be entirely different, if the discussion involved their personal space and/or real estate and not the private space/property of the "big bad Developer".

Ethics are often situational.

[kingofbeer]

I hope this will put to rest the talk that Don Wiley is a puppet of the developer.
He will not win this battle.

[sallyg]

I don't understand why TV is concerned about this. The videos I have watched have been interesting and informative. Rather than drive around construction areas (not encouraged by anyone) it's nice to have an overview. I have to think the videos help rather than hinder home sales.

[azcindy]

I don't have the time to spend composing responses that are easier said than written. I'm holding my tongue as I continue to work through these issues. I'll have something to say on my 3 o'clock Sunday broadcast. Until thing I need to spend my time getting #154 ready for release.

You go Don! Your videos are a huge reason why I will be moving to The Villages.

Cindy

[Bill14564]

& you are exactly right. The Developer doesn't have to "win", he only has to "not lose" or win by default, when the opposition gives up or goes broke.

I'm shocked by the general tone of this discussion. In a community that consists primarily of an older, conservative population, I would think that constituency would be more concerned with protecting privacy rights.

I suspect the tone would be entirely different, if the discussion involved their personal space and/or real estate and not the private space/property of the "big bad Developer".

Ethics are often situational.

SSDD (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2418572-post83.html)

I expect privacy *within* my home, not out in my yard. Hiding behind a tree to pee is still out in the yard with no expectation of privacy.

In an area that prohibits fences (for the most part) and hedges, has "kissing lanais," and can find a recent aerial view of their home on the property appraiser's page, few have any misconceptions about their yards being private.

[Normal]

SSDD (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2418572-post83.html)

I expect privacy *within* my home, not out in my yard. Hiding behind a tree to pee is still out in the yard with no expectation of privacy.

In an area that prohibits fences (for the most part) and hedges, has "kissing lanais," and can find a recent aerial view of their home on the property appraiser's page, few have any misconceptions about their yards being private.

Few things we agree on, but this is certainly one of them.

[fdpaq0580]

Oh goody!!! More government regulation and fees for us taxpayers...

Every new thing needs regulation and the societies government is the body that does (or should do) that for the benefit of society as a whole. Nothing new about that.

[fdpaq0580]

Address please? So drone operators can ‘avoid’ capturing you on video.

Yes, it was a joke. But the point is that while most drone fliers have respect for the public, not all of them do. Picture my house from the street is one thing. Drones filming my backyard from overhead is another. It is a matter of privacy for many. It is an invasion of privacy, like someone reading over your shoulder. Intrusive behavior by some means regulation for all.

[Normal]

Yes, it was a joke. But the point is that while most drone fliers have respect for the public, not all of them do. Picture my house from the street is one thing. Drones filming my backyard from overhead is another. It is a matter of privacy for many. It is an invasion of privacy, like someone reading over your shoulder. Intrusive behavior by some means regulation for all.

There isn’t any regulation coming. At the very least, the freedom of the press or of speech would be infringed upon.

I personally think the builder has done A Lot for all our communities. Infringing on freedom of videos or press or speech or whatever was just a wrong move. We all make them.

[jimjamuser]

Maybe, the developers don't want the public to see the poor quality of new construction.
Or maybe it is something about the workers?

[fdpaq0580]

SSDD (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2418572-post83.html)

I expect privacy *within* my home, not out in my yard. Hiding behind a tree to pee is still out in the yard with no expectation of privacy.

In an area that prohibits fences (for the most part) and hedges, has "kissing lanais," and can find a recent aerial view of their home on the property appraiser's page, few have any misconceptions about their yards being private.

Not everyone in TV has "kissing" lanais". I have a small pool and deck in a "birdcage" surrounded by tall plants that provide privacy from the street and from my neighbors. I, for one, would find a drone circling overhead to be rude, intrusive, and a possible/probable invasion of privacy for possible nefarious or illegal purpose. Can you say "telephoto lens"?
Go hover over a golfer getting ready to tee-off, or try to make a 15 ft putt for a birdie an a win on a championship course. Then ask how they like drones. I play, and I would not like it one bit.

[jimjamuser]

Bet you would feel differently if you were the one building houses and trying to market your product nationwide and some guys with no skin in the game were taking drone videos of product you don’t have ready for the market yet and posting it on you tube for their own profit.
What would the builder be afraid of? The builder is getting free advertisement.

[fdpaq0580]

There isn’t any regulation coming.

Some regs are already in place. Some need "fine tuning" to deal specifically with "drones". More will be added as necessary. Drone Pilot License? Wait and see. Once upon a time you could drive a car without a license. Once upon a time you could fly a plane without a license. Once you could own a dog ...
See where this is going.

[Bill14564]

Not everyone in TV has "kissing" lanais". I have a small pool and deck in a "birdcage" surrounded by tall plants that provide privacy from the street and from my neighbors. I, for one, would find a drone circling overhead to be rude, intrusive, and a possible/probable invasion of privacy for possible nefarious or illegal purpose. Can you say "telephoto lens"?
Go hover over a golfer getting ready to tee-off, or try to make a 15 ft putt for a birdie an a win on a championship course. Then ask how they like drones. I play, and I would not like it one bit.

Yes, I can say, "telephoto lens." It isn't a very difficult word to pronounce. But what is your point?

If you hover over a golfer you are violating the FAA rules. If you are flying near enough to him that it physically affects him then you are violating FAA rules. If he becomes annoyed because he doesn't like drones and it offends his delicate sensibilities.... that sounds like a "him" problem and not a drone problem.

[Salty Dog]

Once upon a time you could drive a car with out a license

You can drive a car/vehicle without a license on your own property. This is common on large farms or ranches.

[jimjamuser]

I wonder what the Villages is trying to hide.
Maybe build quality or worker type?

[fdpaq0580]

You can drive a car/vehicle without a license on your own property. This is common on large farms or ranches.

You are being intentionally obtuse, I believe. You can also fly "tiny " planes and helicopters and gyro-copters in certain instances without a license. Even own a dog. But not in most urban areas, like TV. Google/tube tiny planes you don't need a license to fly.
Laws and regulations only matter if you get caught breaking them. At least that seems to be the mindset of some folks.

[fdpaq0580]

Maybe build quality or worker type?

Possible interference or distraction making for an unsafe or dangerous work environment? Higher insurance rates?

[JMintzer]

Maybe build quality or worker type?

What "type of worker" can you see from a drone?

And what can a drone tell you about "build quality"?

[fdpaq0580]

What "type of worker" can you see from a drone?

And what can a drone tell you about "build quality"?

Depends on how good your telescope is, I would suppose.

[Altavia]

What would the builder be afraid of? The builder is getting free advertisement.


There could be hints something like a fire station, sewage processing, power distribution facility, future commercial site, etc. they don't want buyers to be aware of prior to selling nearby homes.

[fdpaq0580]

There could be hints something like a fire station, sewage processing, power distribution facility, future commercial site, etc. they don't want buyers to be aware of prior to selling nearby homes.

Don't forget the prison. 😲😳🥺

Just trying to help. 🥺

[poordirtfarmer]

I don't understand why TV is concerned about this. The videos I have watched have been interesting and informative. Rather than drive around construction areas (not encouraged by anyone) it's nice to have an overview. I have to think the videos help rather than hinder home sales.

Agreed. My wife made me watch 50 or so of Don Wylie’s videos before convincing me to sell our beachfront condo in Destin and buy in the Villages for our vacation home. I can’t imagine a greater Villages ambassador than Don. As much as I am in awe of the Morse family, I just don’t understand why they could not find a way to accommodate a person that has created so much excitement for the Villages. I hope the developers do the right thing by moving this conversation from their attorney’s conference room to the family kitchen table.

[Stu from NYC]

Agreed. My wife made me watch 50 or so of Don Wylie’s videos before convincing me to sell our beachfront condo in Destin and buy in the Villages for our vacation home. I can’t imagine a greater Villages ambassador than Don. As much as I am in awe of the Morse family, I just don’t understand why they could not find a way to accommodate a person that has created so much excitement for the Villages. I hope the developers do the right thing by moving this conversation from their attorney’s conference room to the family kitchen table.

One can hope but they did start something with a fellow who is a Sumter country commissioner who does have a certain amount of power.

Don is basically a cheer leader for the villages so rather surprised the developer is doing this.

[fdpaq0580]

One can hope but they did start something with a fellow who is a Sumter country commissioner who does have a certain amount of power.

Don is basically a cheer leader for the villages so rather surprised the developer is doing this.

Not necessarily about Don. But some drone enthusiast certainly PO'd someone somehow.

[Marathon Man]

Not necessarily about Don. But some drone enthusiast certainly PO'd someone somehow.

Agree. Lots of guesses and questionable information have been put out there. I think "The Developer" had enough and felt it was time to try to shut things down. Don certainly cannot be excluded, that would not fly (no pun intended).

[Stu from NYC]

Agree. Lots of guesses and questionable information have been put out there. I think "The Developer" had enough and felt it was time to try to shut things down. Don certainly cannot be excluded, that would not fly (no pun intended).

The Sun will be giving us the developers side of things dressed up like news sooner rather than later.

[JMintzer]

Depends on how good your telescope is, I would suppose.

What could that possibly tell you (and please excuse me if I missed any sarcasm in your post)...

[Stu from NYC]

Don's latest video was here he made a bit of a reference to this and now do not see the thread.

[NatureBoy]

Don made some good statements in his latest live stream video. Apparently, some of the drone channels have been flying dangerously - through/inside buildings under construction, between large cranes and their load, etc. I am not a lawyer, but these sound like violations of the FAA pilot rules. The proper response would be to cite those specific instances and file complaints with the FAA and/or appropriate governing body. Instead, The Developer's lawyer sent out a blanket cease, desist & remove letter to several prominent drone pilots.

I believe The Developer has vastly overreached their perceived control/authority. Hopefully, the drone pilots can afford enough lawyering to put The Developer in their place.

[JMintzer]

Worker citizenship?

You can tell that from Drone footage? Impressive!

[JMintzer]

Don's latest video was here he made a bit of a reference to this and now do not see the thread.

It's still here...

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/construction-news-update-154-3-30-2025-a-357646/

[PootleK]

There could be hints something like a fire station, sewage processing, power distribution facility, future commercial site, etc. they don't want buyers to be aware of prior to selling nearby homes.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Originally I'd thought the houses in Lakeview (is that the name now?) would be great, right next to Eastport and a walking trail around the lake. It was only from the drone videos on Youtube that I realized there would be a "water treatment facility" right beside it. Is this sewage? Is it going to reek? I don't know if it would be a problem, but I do know The Villages weren't planning on putting it on their maps!!

[Stu from NYC]

It's still here...

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/construction-news-update-154-3-30-2025-a-357646/

It was gone I tell you, gone:posting:

[margaretmattson]

I am not a legal expert, but reading Florida SB 767, which was signed into law, it appears there must be an expectation of privacy in order to ban the drone flights. Line 82 forward defines what that is. The drone also has to stay in a line of sight and he greater than 50 feet. I believe that part is from federal law

"72 (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
73 (a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather
74 evidence or other information.
75 (b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as
76 defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging
77 device to record an image of privately owned real property or of
78 the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such
79 property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the
80 individual or property captured in the image in violation of
81 such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or
82 her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is
83 presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or
84 her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable
85 by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a
86 legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable
87 from the air with the use of a drone."Interesting. I am now seeing a thin line between who is right and who is wrong. The pilots are flying drones over a construction site with AN INTENT to report it to others for financial gain. (Their gain is through ads appearing on their videos) Is this the definition of surveillance? I'm not certain. IMO, this seems to be an issue the courts may have to weigh in on.

No, I am not on the Developer's side. I am simply trying to understand both of the grievances.

[asianthree]

Interesting. Are the drone pilots conducting surveillance of the construction site? And, reporting it to the masses? I am now seeing a thin line on who is right and who is wrong.

Wikipedia: Definition of surveillance

Close observation, of a suspected spy or criminal.

[margaretmattson]

Wikipedia: Definition of surveillance

Close observation, of a suspected spy or criminal. The legal definition I read before posting states: careful observation of a person or place to track activity. Kinda vague. This is why I believe the courts may need to get involved.

[Maker]

Interesting. I am now seeing a thin line between who is right and who is wrong. The pilots are flying drones over a construction site with AN INTENT to report it to others for financial gain. (Their gain is through ads appearing on their videos)

Revenue won't be very much. Not likely to cover their expenses.
Please clarify how you know their "intent" is to make money?
BEWARE: Libel is the publication of a false statement about someone in writing that harms that person's reputation by exposing them to public hatred, scorn, disgrace, ridicule, or shame.

You then said "to report it". That is news gathering activities There are numerous court decisions that broadly protect that activity from arbitrary restrictions and legal threats or harassment. And libelous accusations.

[Laker14]

My suspicion is that The Developer would like to have 100% control of all information disseminated to the public, for reasons mentioned in previous posts. It's what they've always had, and it's what they've always done, and it's how they'd like it to remain. It's understandable that's what they want.
It's predictable that they'd wield their financial might via legal actions to get what they want. Whether they are actually correct in their legal posturing is probably never going to get to the point of a legal decision, because the droners simply won't have the money to match The Developer's.
Too bad, because I think it would make for interesting theatre to see if a well compensated legal team could force a distinction between The Developer's "right to privacy", and its "wish for secrecy".

[ElDiabloJoe]

My suspicion is that The Developer would like to have 100% control of all information disseminated to the public, for reasons mentioned in previous posts. It's what they've always had, and it's what they've always done, and it's how they'd like it to remain. It's understandable that's what they want.
It's predictable that they'd wield their financial might via legal actions to get what they want. Whether they are actually correct in their legal posturing is probably never going to get to the point of a legal decision, because the droners simply won't have the money to match The Developer's.
Too bad, because I think it would make for interesting theatre to see if a well compensated legal team could force a distinction between The Developer's "right to privacy", and its "wish for secrecy".
I pretty much agree with you. My only caveat is that there is no "right to privacy," only a legal "reasonable expectation of privacy." Question is, in this circumstance, does the Developer have a "REASONABLE expectation of privacy?

[margaretmattson]

Revenue won't be very much. Not likely to cover their expenses.
Please clarify
how you know their "intent" is to make money?
BEWARE: Libel is the publication of a
false statement about someone in writing that harms that person's reputation by
exposing them
to public hatred, scorn, disgrace,
ridicule, or shame.























You then said "to report it". That is news gathering activities There are numerous court decisions that broadly protect that activity from arbitrary restrictions and legal threats or harassment. And libelous accusations.You are putting words into my mouth. I said, I believe this is something the courts may have to resolve.

The drone pilots are flying over the construction site with the INTENTION of placing their video on social media. They are
not using what they captured via their drones for personal reasons. Instead, they are REPORTING news and updates of the construction progress TO THE MASSES. They accept money from advertisers. Nothing in my statement is libel.