A federal judge has ruled that Newton’s drone ban goes too far, Universal Hub reports.
Court overturns Newton’s drone ban
by Village 14 | Sep 21, 2017 | City Council | 12 comments
September 13, 2023
A federal judge has ruled that Newton’s drone ban goes too far, Universal Hub reports.
September 13, 2023
This is a HUGE victory for NNHS’s student aviation club. The students and parental advisor attended multiple City Council meetings, even with hours of homework keeping them up well into the night afterward, just to point out the flawed logic in the ordinance. As a former member of the club when it was founded, these students deserve encouragement and support, not isolation and mandatory registration fees.
I was disappointed to see no vocal support from any current School Committee member when Newton’s students needed them the most.
Cyrus, wasn’t the fee $10 per club (Sec 20-64 (b)(2))? And wasn’t there a specific carve-out for educational use ((c)(3))?
(See: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/45829 , Sec. 20-64. Pilotless Aircraft Operation)
I think the legislation, independent of any good intentions, was poorly researched and implemented (e.g., no consultation with the FAA as noted in the verdict, which basically guaranteed a challenge), but I don’t see how the impact on students was anything special, let alone somehow a campaign issue.
Hi Mr. Halle, word is that some students wishing to fly outside of the club (For example on weekends) were forced to buy permits. Unfortunately, to many students $10 isn’t chump change and for those teetering on joining hobby, the act of registering and paying a fee may be a turn-off, which is a shame because the hobby can be quite fun!
A one-time $10 fee might possibly not be chump change for someone somewhere, but neither is the price of most drones.
Yes, the ordinance was broad enough to cover rubberband powered airplanes. But for most enthusiasts, drone flying isn’t exactly a cheap hobby. And you could even argue that the $10 was some insurance that a lost drone would get back to you.
At any rate, most of the ordinance is struck down (though several provisions, such as no flying over emergency response and adherence to the noise ordinance remain in effect).
Mr. Halle, the ordinance collected names, phone numbers, home and email addresses from minors and made them available to anyone who cared to file a public records request. It required hobby clubs to turn over to the City annually a list of their youth members. What if the City did the same for youth activist, political, cultural or religious organizations? Do students have the right to associate without the government maintaining membership lists? And don’t parents have a say?
Michael, fair points of discussion, and they might have been grounds for changes to the law had this case not struck down the ordinance. (Your FAA registration had the same issue, though it was struck down earlier this year on different grounds.)
But there’s no reason to debate, let alone defend, a dead ordinance.
But I also see little value in trying to turn it into a campaign issue, particularly a school committee issue.
Don’t your privacy and liberty arguments apply to everyone?
Think of the home schoolers!
In a perfect world, we would see such decisions for all of the absurd “bans” passed by our Councilmen.
Sound verdict. I argued against this solution–in–search–of–a–problem from the beginning. The city should not appeal and save further taxpayer expense.
Cyrus makes a relevant point about hobby fees. In contrast, the NPS just spent $40 million on Zervas with no state reimbursement because the state did not deem the school worthy of renovation at this time. This is the first time this has ever occurred with a loss of $20 million state funding. I believe that the school committee is flawed in regards to student fees which should not be levied at all. The SC is more concerned about teachers than students and this is reflected in many policies, i.e. School start times, too many free days and a lack of courses that truly reflect the changing economy.
School fees sound like a definite topic to discuss in the school committee race. But as a parent, I view them as family fees, not student fees.
But at any rate, the struct down drone registration fee was $10, one time, for the whole club, levied by the City and not the school. Other issues raised on this thread relate to fees (now struck down, I repeat) for any private citizen flying drones in Newton. I see no relationship to the schools or the school committee.
Love to hear about relevant school issues. Say, fees: why does it cost the same to take the bus to a high school as it does to get a parking space at one?
But struck down drone fees? Let’s move on.
FAA requires the larger, expensive drones to be registered and marked with a tracking number already–and its registration is valid nation wide. Newton foolishly had no minimum size qualification for registration, so even a $20 toy would require a $10 fee which is ridiculous. Plus, anyone entering Newton was required to pay a fee to fly a toy in a park.
Imagine if you had to pay every city and town $10 to drive your car in each city or town! That’s what hobbyist were facing if others followed the Newton’s Council fiefdom model.
So will the City be issuing refunds???
David, the FAA hobbyist registration was also struck down, I believe, but only because Congress didn’t authorize it.
Once again, I see no purpose in kicking a dead ordinance, even if it deserved it.
As for fee refunds, you should call the office that did the registration and ask. It would be amusing to know how many registrations they actually got. Report back if you find out!