California drones to be limited by regulating airspace above private property

WOW....

Congrats, I didn't know California had paid off their 46 BILLION debt and addressed the pending 75+ BILLION unfunded liabilities like the Cal Pension fiasco......:eek:

Nice job of moving the goal posts to fit your agenda.

"California ended the fiscal year with $1.9 billion left over in its state general fund, Controller John Chiang (D) said last week, the first time the general fund ended with a positive cash balance since 2007, the year before the recession began. The state Department of Finance has projected a $4.2 billion surplus for Fiscal Year 2014-2015, which began July 1."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-years-of-cuts-state-budgets-show-surpluses/

And as I said before, there has been NO FEDERAL BAILOUT, so comparing California to what happened with the big banks is complete nonsense.
 
No, you're selling an LLC, not a property. No change in value.

Same as selling an LLC, or a share in an LLC that owns an airplane. No change in ownership of the asset, so no tax hit.

What about when you create the LLC? There is a transfer of ownership into the LLC, no?
 
What incentive would there be to do that? If you sell the property, it's the buyer, not the seller, who will have to pay based on the increased valuation. Also, would the valuation go up to market value when you transfer it to the LLC?

It's a benefit to the savvy buyer, so you can negotiate a higher sale price for those shares.

Works with all sorts of valuable property. Winged things in particular.
 
What about when you create the LLC? There is a transfer of ownership into the LLC, no?

Yes, but that happened once for the commercial properties, a long time ago.

There is another loophole where the property is not reassessed unless there is more than a 50% change in ownership. As you can imagine, there are a lot of shell game ways to play that out to hide ownership changes. There are likely many cases where the property has changed hands fractionally over time, and may have none of the original owners, but the counties don't have the resources to track all of that down. The other factor that comes into play are publicly traded companies - all of the shareholders may have changed in a period of a few years, but it doesn't trigger a property assessment (similar to the LLC issue, but on a bigger scale).

Basically, I don't like hearing companies whine about property taxes in California, at least not the bigger businesses who should be smart enough to know how to play this game. It is well documented that there has been a large shift in property tax revenue in most areas of CA from businesses to residential since Prop 13 went into effect.
 
From TFA:

"Nearly every state in the union has considered drone legislation in recent years—only Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin have not"

But let's not let that get in the way of the California bashing.



Temps are supposed to be in the 80's this weekend. Can't decide if we should go to the beach this weekend or up to Big Bear to play in the snow.


It's 75 where I'm at, just took a nice drive through the Napa valley, windows down music blasting, tasted a little grape here and there, met with some friends, had a few laughs. All was good until I realized I may not get to play peeping Tom with my drone later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Yes, but that happened once for the commercial properties, a long time ago.

So it only works if you create the LLC and transfer the property into it before the value goes up?

There is another loophole where the property is not reassessed unless there is more than a 50% change in ownership. As you can imagine, there are a lot of shell game ways to play that out to hide ownership changes. There are likely many cases where the property has changed hands fractionally over time, and may have none of the original owners, but the counties don't have the resources to track all of that down. The other factor that comes into play are publicly traded companies - all of the shareholders may have changed in a period of a few years, but it doesn't trigger a property assessment (similar to the LLC issue, but on a bigger scale).

Basically, I don't like hearing companies whine about property taxes in California, at least not the bigger businesses who should be smart enough to know how to play this game. It is well documented that there has been a large shift in property tax revenue in most areas of CA from businesses to residential since Prop 13 went into effect.

Sounds like California is not quite as anti-business as some would have us believe.
 
So it only works if you create the LLC and transfer the property into it before the value goes up?

No, there are other ways to do it by manipulating the <50% ownership transfer rules.

Search the interwebs, there is plenty about it.

Jeff
 
Sounds like California is not quite as anti-business as some would have us believe.

Some of the most anti-business things I've seen are more related to municipal-level government than the State.

I have no particular love for the State's environmental agencies, and I have to deal with them on a regular basis.

Jeff
 
Nice job of moving the goal posts to fit your agenda.
"California ended the fiscal year with $1.9 billion left over in its state general fund, Controller John Chiang (D) said last week, the first time the general fund ended with a positive cash balance since 2007, the year before the recession began. The state Department of Finance has projected a $4.2 billion surplus for Fiscal Year 2014-2015, which began July 1."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-years-of-cuts-state-budgets-show-surpluses/

And as I said before, there has been NO FEDERAL BAILOUT, so comparing California to what happened with the big banks is complete nonsense.

Glad to hear they are now only 44 BILLION in debt.........

Wait till the illegal aliens get folded into the budget.......:yikes:
 
Glad to hear they are now only 44 BILLION in debt.........

Wait till the illegal aliens get folded into the budget.......:yikes:

Still shifting those goal posts, I see! :rofl:
 
If you're worried about that, the first thing you should do is address it at the county and state levels. Your house and property are routinely photographed by very expensive, high res cameras for tax and law enforcement purposes. I'm sure they have found some interesting things

As this relates to pilots, right now the only agency that controls any airspace is the FAA. This is great because we can fly anywhere in the USA and all the laws are the same.

Contrast that with gun laws. My right to own and transport guns is actually constitutionally protected. However if I want to put my rifle, a handgun and some ammo in my car and drive up to ohio to hunt with my cousins, I have to consult the gun laws for each state I travel through to make sure I am not carrying too much ammo, an illegal gun, illegal ammo, a magazine with too much capacity, and the guns and ammo are secured in the right fashion.

To make it more difficult, many gun laws in each state have grey areas and its super difficult to find the laws, few states publish them in an easy to find and read fashion. You have to scour the internet and hope what you are reading is correct. If you get this wrong, something that is perfectly legal and routine in one state could easily get you a felony conviction and years in prison in another.


DO you want flying to be like that!!

That's because they don't want us to have guns.
 
I'm not worried about it, I applaud laws if they protect my privacy (as if there is such a thing these days).

I guess I'm confused on where you stand, federal laws as it applies to flying are good but state's laws as they apply to guns are bad?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The government wants to have a monopoly on violating your privacy. They hate competition.
 

Some of those criminal miscreants were in other small cities before they came to Bell. They perpetuated the same acts in those other municipalities.

The city of Irvine, CA has been the subject of investigations with regard to MASSIVE retirement pensions for city employees. There are a lot of millionaires in that crowd. Stockton, CA experienced much of the same.

Other than the criminal fraud as in Bell, there is the crap than comes down through CAL PERS and the secret negotiations when hiring exec level employees. Morro Bay, CA hired a city administrator who 'resigned' after less than one year due to his poor performance. When it became public that upon separation from the city that he got a huge bonus the people went ape. But it is what we agreed to, said the city managers. They all pat each other on the back. wink wink hush hush

Quite a few of these public employees go from city to city collecting a fat severance from each. And pension plans are mobile which is advantages. Then the system is rigged that retirement is based on hours worked in the last year therefore they'll seek all the overtime they can get, even blowing the dept budget to feather their nest.

Again in Irvine, several public employees colluded with other employees that they held positions with different departments within or without the municipality. Ex, chair on the water board while also as paid employee with the Fire Dept and city admin.

The word is graft.
 
Last edited:
I mist say, it's quite interesting that most (all?) law enforcement uses are exempt from the drone regulations/prohibitions. This in the state that claims to be the bastion of personal freedoms.

It clearly shows that All men are NOT created equally...:mad2::mad2::mad2:..

Sad state of affairs for a once great country....:sad::sad:....IMHO..
 
It clearly shows that All men are NOT created equally...:mad2::mad2::mad2:..

Sad state of affairs for a once great country....:sad::sad:....IMHO..

Very true and very sad. And it's in no way a new phenomenon...

I've told the stories here about the Nat Guard and Mo State Highway Patrol choppers hovering at 5' to 10' AGL in the middle of our first farm every September when they were out on their annual fishing expeditions trying to find pot plants. That was 25 years ago.

Probable cause? We don't need no steenkin' probable cause.

Drones won't invent this activity, they'll just make it cheaper.

Put me in the 12 gauge group. Or maybe even a .22 to make it more sporting! ;)
 
Gotta love whiners who think that if california seceded from the union NOTHING made in california WOULD EVER be able to make it's way to california, and NOBODY would ever think of a way to replace said stuff, not having it made in california.

Of course, those are always the same people who think saying there;'s too much regulation, means there should BE NO regulation what-so-ever, and bash accordingly.
 
Gotta love whiners who think that if california seceded from the union NOTHING made in california WOULD EVER be able to make it's way to california, and NOBODY would ever think of a way to replace said stuff, not having it made in california.

Not that the multitudes of Texans who frequently threaten to secede from the union would ever do the same mind you.

:rolleyes:
 
To sum up the thread so far, we have learned that almost all states have had legislation proposed to limit UAV use, but when it's proposed in California, it's a reason to dislike California.

So who is it, exactly, who's whining? :rofl:
 
I find it odd that those that oppose regulations on drone flights are the same ones that are quick to say they'll bust out the 12 gauge. It is America and so there is no problem that can't be solved with a gun I suppose. I guess they'll need to expand the Stand Your Ground laws to include drones.
 
I find it odd that those that oppose regulations on drone flights are the same ones that are quick to say they'll bust out the 12 gauge.

If you're referring to me, I never stated the former.

And if the drone is low enough to hit with a 12 gauge...it's trespassing, plain and simple.
 
And you base this "law" on... ??? A God given gut instinct or something? :rolleyes2:


Yup......

LIFE...

LIBERTY....

And the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS......


It is that last one that is the " gut instinct" part....:yes:.......:D
 
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?
 
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?

I agree....

There will need to be some additional guidance from the courts on what constitutes " trespassing"...

The courts can issue restraining orders that keep certain people away from others who feel threatened.... Be it driving in front of a persons house, or 200 feet, or 500 feet, or 1/4 mile.... Seems to me you cannot sell drugs within 1/2 mile of a school, so maybe 2640 feet is ok for a drone set back....:dunno::dunno::rolleyes:....
 
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?

Oh, I don't know, how about 400'... like the California proposal? :rolleyes2:
 
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?

What's the range of a 12 gauge? 50 yards maybe?

;)
 
Oh, I don't know, how about 400'... like the California proposal? :rolleyes2:


So in combination with the proposal by the FAA you can fly them between 400 and 500 feet? :)

I also think all the talk about shooting them is... just talk. Ok way out in the country maybe but not anywhere else.
 
That's not in the California proposal.
True, I looked at it again and the California proposal is...

SECTION 1. Section 1708.83 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

1708.83. (a) A person knowingly enters onto the land of another person pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1708.8 if he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the property.
(b) A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without permission, he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 42102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the real property.

But it doesn't define "navigable airspace".

In the past I thought none of the air above your land really belonged to you. But before drones came along, the only time someone might have a dispute was with a hovering helicopter or someone flying RC airplanes over your property.
 
I'd say "navigable airspace" could reasonably be defined as the height below which you don't need the FAA's "permission" to build a structure.
 
I'd say "navigable airspace" could reasonably be defined as the height below which you don't need the FAA's "permission" to build a structure.


I 'think" MET towers need to be lower then 200' AGL... So maybe anything up to 199' is non navigable...:dunno:..:confused:..

Suppose the property is on short final and 199'AGL will be a hazard to landing and take offs...:dunno:....:yikes:
 
True, I looked at it again and the California proposal is...



But it doesn't define "navigable airspace".

"as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code" (See post #10 for details.)
 
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?

somewhat similar argument to trespass laws while floating/fishing rivers here in Colorado. I believe (but don't know for certain) that the waterways are deemed public property and one can float them thru private property without trespass. However, if you set foot on the banks, you're liable for trespass.
 
Back
Top