[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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 So, move on to doing things differently and not try to control the rights of others.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Rocksnap

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Rocksnap

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by elle123

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

Worker citizenship?

[Danube]

Originally Posted by G.R.I.T.S.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Get low paid workers.

[ElDiabloJoe]

///

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Danube

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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.