3 ms·
That's just not the case. [1] The law is not that you have rights 500ft above your property the correct hight is 83ft due to some chickens getting scared. [1]
by kenrikm 11y ago
That's just not the case. [1] The law is not that you have rights 500ft above your property the correct hight is 83ft due to some chickens getting scared.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/30/317074394/drone-wars-who-owns-the-air http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/30/317074394/drone...
- Nadya 11y agoI lost my reference - but you don't own any of the air above the highest structure of your property. The 83ft, if I remember correctly, was the height of the tallest structure of that farmer's farm. So that isn't a value set in stone either. There's also limitations to how tall you can build structures, even on your own property, so erecting a giant tower to claim more airspace isn't a solution! Bonus Trivia: Few homeowners own the ground beneath their home unless they have something called "Mineral Rights".
- mzs 11y agoInteresting I looked into it a bit and it was more about being compensated on grounds of the taking clause and for an easement, thanks.
- mzs 11y agoThanks, I want to add that the article mixes a lot of stuff. For example the limitation on the pig drone has almost everything to do with using the drone for commercial purposes and nothing really to do about the 83-500' issue itself.