> A huge portion of the ‘no vehicles in the park’ questions are already answered by existing US aviation laws, for example. Which evolved by arguing about rule

> A huge portion of the ‘no vehicles in the park’ questions are already answered by existing US aviation laws, for example. Which evolved by arguing about rules, because landowners had the reasonable and probably correct expectation that their property rights extended upwards to infinity. > Another huge swatch of the questions would have been answered if the rule was ‘no motor vehicles in the park’. It's trivial that changing the rule to make it narrower changes the outcome. But then people won't agree about whether the change should be made. How annoying a vehicle is isn't determined by its method of propulsion.