Steve what about airplanes... what about airplanes
@jonathanmarois9009
2 жыл бұрын
Won't you PLEASE _think_ about _the airplanes!!_
@Ginfidel
2 жыл бұрын
Easement for airplanes!!
@MysticDonBlair
2 жыл бұрын
Yes but what about the airplanes
@danielsegard2051
2 жыл бұрын
What about Superman? How high must he jump to be in the airplane easement?
@I_Lemaire
2 жыл бұрын
What about enemy fighter jets?
@alassandra2000
2 жыл бұрын
This reminded me of this: there are situations where property owners have been arrested and heavily fined for rain water catchment because the state they're living in claims they "own the rainwater". Would love to see you do a video on this.
@snaplash
2 жыл бұрын
That strikes me as odd, since the rainwater you collect is eventually going to end up in the ground or air, just like if it fell without being stored. Now, if you were trucking the water out of state, then it would be different I suppose.
@CptBlackbeardlives
2 жыл бұрын
Snaplash it's a waters rights issue where people upstream aren't allowed to collect too much water because then the people downstream wouldn't get any. Only an issue in areas where water is scarce of course.
@imjashingyou3461
2 жыл бұрын
@@snaplash thats the point. It's almost all drought prone, or precipitation or water scarce states. (Like Colorado) The point is that you are preventing that rain water from entering the streams or rivers it would naturally and to which many rely on for thier water supply down stream. And while it's not a problem if one person does it. It is a problem if thousands do it. That's 100s of millions of gallons of water not entering the natural watersheds. And if it's not banned can be common practice in such states.
@imjashingyou3461
2 жыл бұрын
@@witebatman yeah that's not why at all. It's because you don't have enough water to begin with.
@scotcoon1186
2 жыл бұрын
@@witebatman I've been farming or around it all my life. Who told you we are throwing away what we grow? California let's 50% of the water in the San Jacinto out to sea, ag only gets 40% of what's in the river.
@romeolima5339
2 жыл бұрын
I own a house in a suburb in Michigan. My neighbor put a cow statute in there yard. I just thought it was silly. But some of my neighbors. Got bent out of shape. I told them when they complained to me. " he pays the taxes and has title. If he wants a cow statue on HIS PROPEETY IT IS HIS RIGHT. " Much to my chagrin, the neighbors must have complained. The neighbor with the statue was told by the city to remove it or face fines for everyday it was in place after a certain date. There is NO home owners association. What the city did never sat well with me. The statue neighbor and I shared information about the known complainers and ostracize them to the point they had to rely on the property value that they where so worried about. Because they had to move within two years. I still hold to "tend to your own knitting." If your property value is worrisome to you? Your neighbor isn't your problem YOU'RE MONEY MANAGEMENT IS. I also have a property up north in Michigan. The township says you can't build a building with in 3 feet of the property line. The reason I know it's a problem. Is because my neighbor helped me build a storage shed. When we built it he asked me to bring it up to his property line so as not to block his view. After it was built the town ship sent me a letter, saying I had to remove it. Ba ha ha ha. I told the neighbor about it. He gifted me 3ft. by 20 feet of his property. We both gave the township the finger. I then showed up on a weekend when the neighbor was up. He was shocked when I took him out to the storage building. To show him the new door. That openned to his property. I tossed him keys to the lock and told him to open it. Inside was a brand new zero turn mower. He has a set of keys to it as well as the lock. If our properties need mowing? I or my neighbor mow both our properties. Be a good neighbor but leave people alone. Tend to your own knitting. Neither me or that neighbor do social stuff together. Other then get along.
@jphickory522
2 жыл бұрын
Good man Russ
@witkr904
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent storytelling
@romeolima5339
2 жыл бұрын
@@witkr904 The reason I tell the story is simply to the point of the video. Property rights really don't exist as they should. Government makes sure of that. Also don't be a prick. People doing the best they can to observe property rights by corner stepping. Should NOT BE bullied by a guy who has land locked public land. So as to try and keep that public land for his exclusive use. That's a prick. Also to absolutely hunt private land including shooting onto private land makes you a prick in the other direction.
@peppermintcatsass3141
2 жыл бұрын
Please tell me you have a picture of Cow.
@dkhnova
2 жыл бұрын
"statue"
@romrimland
2 жыл бұрын
I had a dog in my youth that would whole heartedly agree with you. She would bark at every plane that crossed overhead from the moment it crossed the fence line until it left the other side.
@marklewus5468
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Steve, great video. You were talking about drones. The FAA regulates all airspace in the United States but some towns have made hobby drone use illegal. If you take off from property you own, fly in any airspace (whether above owned property or not) in a manner consistent with the rules set out by the FAA, and land on your own property, you're legal. When a town outlaws drones they can't outlaw the flying of them, they can only outlaw the taking off and landing because the FAA controls all airspace for flying vehicles.
@doctorbobdc
2 жыл бұрын
I'm so glad I own the airspace above my property because my house was built in that airspace.
@noladol
2 жыл бұрын
"It's yours until we say It's not." ~U.S. Government
@Flies2FLL
2 жыл бұрын
There is actually another easement. The FAA describes what is known as an "obstruction plain", which starts at the center of an airport and rises the farther you go away from that center. Basically, no ground-based structure can intrude into the obstruction plain, which means that you cannot build a tower or a tall building on your property if you are close to an airport. Thus this easement is used to prevent use, not allow use. Great video!
@The_Privateer
2 жыл бұрын
For us 'drone' or UAS pilots - The FAA disagrees - Yes, even at grass level on your own property. Even if you're in the middle of hundreds of acres of your own rural property far away from any airports or people. There is currently a lawsuit against the FAA for their recent 'remote ID' related rulemaking regarding 'airspace ownership' and recreational (and business) drone use.
@gizzyguzzi
2 жыл бұрын
It's not the planes that are a bother, but these military helicopters buzzing my rooftops. They shake the ground and windows, and even your soul.
@andrewwatson9805
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Steve. On airplanes... no, I'm not playing that game. I thought you may be interested in this: there are more than a few US general aviation pilots who are a little ticked off with the FAA shooting themselves in their collective feet while trying to swap them in their mouths. There's a current case where a pilot was asked by a friend if he could land at a small "remote-controlled" aircraft field for one of their future events. The pilot did a precautionary inspection on the field, decided it was too risky, and aborted the landing. However, some neighbour caught this on his home security camera and complained to the FAA that the pilot flew within 500 feet of his dwelling. The FAA are now going after the pilot. The law allows one to fly within 500 feet of a person, dwelling, etc., provided that one is in the process of landing or taking off. The pilot pointed out that he was doing a precautionary, and referred to the FAA guide for pilots that urges the pilot to do a precautionary inspection prior to landing--which is what he did. However, the FAA are now stating that because he did not actually land, he was in violation of the 500 foot rule. What say you on this? For more info on this see this KZitem video: kzitem.info/news/bejne/s6Z8qoaljKaUl2k
@IRAMightyPirate
2 жыл бұрын
Would love to see Steve talk about this.
@KimiWallrus
2 жыл бұрын
That's Trevor v. FAA, no legal retaliation in court will be had by the complaining.
@agpilot4972
2 жыл бұрын
@@KimiWallrus The Trevor case is a different one. Andrew is referring to Trent Palmer. In that case, the FAA has overstepped. I'm watching that one closely as it will set a dangerous precedent.
@agpilot4972
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for bringing that case up. I'm one of the many general aviation pilots that will be affected by that case. I am considered general aviation, but that does not mean recreational. In my industry, we typically land off airport 60 to 100 times a day. That is the nature of our business. If this precedent is established, it will drastically affect my industry and a significant part of the national economy. I'm watching the Trent Palmer case very closely.
@jupitercyclops6521
2 жыл бұрын
I think ; Screw the faa. Their unconstitutional strangle hold they put on quad copters is over reaching tyranny. The real reason why they were given authority 8s ; The gov doesn't want the people to have the means to video their wrong doings at their fingertips. More specifically; A couple young men flew a drone over a large corporate hog farm and got footage of said farm illegaly dumping a lot of waist directly into a water way. The other incident was supposedly one of the first timed a gopro to a quadcopter. Police had an area blocked off during a large protest. They took arrested citizens to this area . People wanted to see what the public servants were doing so a reporter mounted a gopro to a fiends qc. Of course gov had to come up with propoganda lies so they said quads had been a problem for manned flights and that quads had been taking photos of our mothers & daughters when they were getting out of the shower ,& when they were engaged in bowel movements
@tylerhomephotography3259
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Steve, I went deep into the rabbit hole on this subject, and for the most part you are right (maybe some super technical discrepancies, but nothing worth arguing over by any means.) A lot of this that you covered has been covered in a number of Supreme Court cases after Causby is one of the clearest distinguishing lines for how much airspace you own. In quick summery police hovered over a mans house that they suspected of growing marijuana for 5 hours until he walked outside with said marijuana. Riley argued that it violated his 4th amendment rights because it was over his house at a low altitude, the Supreme Court disagreed and cited that their main reasoning is that the helicopter did not disturb the normal use of the land. They considered both the noise level (helicopters are very loud at this altitude) and the amount that it disturbed the trees, grass, and other things in his back yard. Because it was not a pervasive noise (days or weeks or other long stretches) and did not disturb the ground, it was not a violation of the fourth amendment. The court also used the reasoning that because a normal person could do the same, the police were allowed to do so. 400 ft is within the FAA definitions of safe altitude for a helicopter, and allows pilots to make judgement calls for flying lower because of the aircraft's ability to hover in very tight confines of space. See Florida V Riley: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley See also for similar circumstances in California V Ciraolo en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo See also dow chemical vs United States for no privacy from aerial photography by drone even in heavily guarded facilities. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Co._v._United_States The dow chemical case particularly is of interest because the courts said that unless the area is both fenced and covered, the open fields doctrine applies and there is no expectation of privacy, even when high fencing and gated entry with guards present. This ruling absolutely enshrines that in order for an individual to expect privacy, not only do you have to have fencing (walls) but also a roof. Kylie vs United States is an interesting exception to these rules though because the courts found that thermal imaging of the home itself was an illegal search because the thermal waves are not detectible by the unaided human eye en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Under federal law, the federal government has exclusive sovereign authority over all US airspace. See 49 U.S. Code § 40103 www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103 The next item that gives a significant amount of tell to this is the FAA's letter in 2018 regarding use of airspace in local regulations vs federal authority. This letter was to clarify that while localities and states have the authority to make limitations on takeoff and landing of aircraft, the states and local authorities have no authority to make laws regarding the use of airspace, even with drones at low altitudes. This is especially important for photography from a drone. As airspace is a public right away, photography from drones is a constitutionally protected right, even if a state or local authority attempts to outlaw it. The Dow chemical, Ciraolo, and Riley cases all relied on the ability for an average civilian being allowed to take those photos for the police to be allowed to take them without a warrant. www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22938 So where does one actually own airspace? While Causby Vs US did set a precedent that the ownership of airspace does not extend to the heavens, it also set how high you actually own. The reasoning in the case was that you own the airspace up to the point that you are actually using for structures and trees. Above that, it is public right away. There can be cases like in Causby though where the government has unconstitutionally seized the airspace in which it causes disturbance to the ground below. Causby was ruled in Causbys favor not because the government flew planes occasionally over the property, but because the flight was both regular, and because it disturbed the ground below as evidenced by killing some of his chickens. While it seems there is grey area in ownership of airspace, it actually is pretty well settled case law, but it takes some digging to find all of the relevant cases. To your joke about the bridge, I would argue that there would actually be a good case for the government to be allowed to build a bridge over a house, AS LONG AS it did not disturb the ground below it with pervasive noise, or other disturbances. For instance if the government was able to control the sound of the cars on the bridge, and make it so that it was high enough that it was above what the individual could reasonable use within zoning laws, that it would probably stick as being allowed (almost something like Old New York and New New York in the Futurama Series if you have ever watched it. If you read all the way through this, thanks for reading, love your videos as they break down complex subjects for the average person to understand!!
@stanhunderwood3374
2 жыл бұрын
As a licensed Farm & Ranch Real Estate Broker since March 1976, I've encountered many easement situations and have referred clients to attorneys. Okay... You may own the land and everything beneath it, as many state laws say. But there are PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS: Anyone who routinely passes over your property without interruption after a set number of years (per state law) LEGALLY OWNS an easement to continue doing so. That happens a whole lot out in the country where neighbors (and county roads) intersect private property. In the heart of the city as well. Also, we all must realize the government REALLY owns our property. Government seized it from the original owners (native Americans) and loaned it to homesteaders. Don't pay your annual rent (property taxes) to the government and you'll find yourself evicted by the sheriff and you replaced by a new "tenant" the government leases the property to. Don't believe me - go ahead and find out.
@jameswhitaker1324
2 жыл бұрын
‘So let’s talk about the law. I am an attorney, after all.’ LMAO It’s always seemed very unfair to me that heavenly bodies are constantly permitted to violate my property rights.
@OnesteptotheRight
2 жыл бұрын
most people who have never worked in construction lack basic knowledge of right of way and utility easements. Its understandable, and zoning and property set backs vary throughout the country. To be clear , speaking of zoning, although the space above your plot is owned by you, you cannot exceed above 4 floors in most residential areas based on zoning. Pretty interesting stuff, I mean there were no airplanes when the first laws were written, but yes you did a great job explaining.
@acdii
2 жыл бұрын
As soon as I saw the title I KNEW which case you were going to refer to. I am an RC pilot and fly scale model aircraft and have been following the FAA case on "drones". I ran across a case where a property owner was being fined for a messy back yard that is surrounded by a fence you can't see through. Apparently the police used a remote controlled drone to take video of the persons back yard. The police lost the case due to the case you mentioned which made it to the SC. Up to I think 500' AGL you have complete ownership of your airspace, ANYTHING that crosses that airspace is considered trespassing, even aircraft, which goes back to the arrest you mentioned, they more than likely were power gliding under the 500' AGL. Anything OVER 500' AGL is considered free to fly over, however, you cannot HOVER over someones property like in a helicopter without the landowners explicit permission. If someone flies a drone over your house under 500', they can be charged with trespassing. However, you being the homeowner cannot shoot the drone down if it is in your backyard due to other laws on the book about illegal discharge of firearms blah blah blah, because it is in no way a threat to life.
@maxsmodels
2 жыл бұрын
I had to study the Causby case when I got a Masters degree in Aviation Science. They almost accidentally decided that the sky up to 83 feet above your soil is yours by default as that was the altitude that the military planes passed over Causby’s farm as the took off and landed. This is not a rock solid limit but it is a virtually guaranteed minimum..
@jamesgoodman4296
2 жыл бұрын
You beat me to this case. I was searching to see if anyone mentioned it.
@StephenMannUSA
2 жыл бұрын
"83 ft" is an erroneous misreading of the Causby decision. The case before the court was a fifth amendment taking of private property. THAT IS ALL. The court held that the farmer (Causby) was owed compensation for the illegal taking of his property. (His chickens). What the Causby decision did say was that a property owner only owns the airspace above his property that he can reasonably use. The '83 ft' was simply an observation by one of the justices in his summary, but it is not law nor precedent. No federal court has adjudicated airspace ownership.
@jeffvantreese1260
2 жыл бұрын
The upward limit of airspace in Michigan is 1,000 feet above average ground level in an urban area. I represented a city airport that had to condemn about 50 avigation easements in the course of extending a runway. To make things interesting, the surveyor forgot to include the height of the transom….I had to amend the legal description to add 3 feet to the top in each of the cases. FYI, the limit is 500 feet in any non-urban area.
@PintoPopProductions
2 жыл бұрын
This topic was discussed in the 2010 movie Burlesque with Cher and Christina Aguilera as a way of protecting their theater from a developer. They went to the owner of the condo tower across the street and made a deal to preserve his tenants' view of the city by not having another high-rise blocking it. I would laugh if someone cited that in court.
@AllynHin
2 жыл бұрын
Is that the only time ownership of airspace was used in a movie to protect a building? I recall that same plotline, but I don't think I watched that movie.
@josephdavis2773
2 жыл бұрын
Had to laugh...you said "if you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm sorry, I did my best". Reminds me of a saying I use a lot. "I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you". Love your channel. Keep it up!
@Platinum1812
2 жыл бұрын
You own the airspace above your property up to heaven. There is just a permanent involuntarily easement existing.
@spirithorse4989
2 жыл бұрын
I think the most simple example would be tree branches from a neighbor's tree that hang over into your property without touching anything (usually fenced,) can legally be cut.
@yoppindia
2 жыл бұрын
Hmm..these fights are normal here. People have cut it. Things have turned up at courts and police station. But good Neighbors don't cut unless there is damage to their building. City municipal and power utility also cut if it's too old or tripping the wires
@ttww1590
2 жыл бұрын
@@yoppindia No, good neighbours cut before it's an issue 🙂
@MakeItWithJim
2 жыл бұрын
The timber and fruit remains possession of the tree owner
@riverraisin1
2 жыл бұрын
@@MakeItWithJim So, I should, or should not throw the cut branches into their yard?
@zackfelker
2 жыл бұрын
If your cutting the branch kills the tree you are liable though.
@Zivon23
2 жыл бұрын
I love the fact that you went straight to easements. Great stuff.
@BarryB382
2 жыл бұрын
Steve, what happens when Amazon wants to fly a delivery drone over your property to make a delivery? I believe the laws are muddled at this point and it's going to get worse.
@WilliamPorygon
2 жыл бұрын
In all seriousness, thank you for teaching me the concept of easements, you explained it very well.
@geoffstrickler
2 жыл бұрын
Speaking of easements, I had a home on which I owned mineral rights. When a fracing company wanted to drill a well nearby and needed to lease my mineral rights, I held out for a better deal than they were offering. They raised it to include my land to the middle of the street, which as Steve mentioned, is often the actual property line.
@theEVILone0130
2 жыл бұрын
It is crystal clear steve
@geekfreak618
2 жыл бұрын
You must have been in a more western state. Here in the old Midwest coal and other mining areas hardly any land comes with mineral rights.
@riverraisin1
2 жыл бұрын
@@geekfreak618 So who owns the mineral rights? The state?
@lexpox329
2 жыл бұрын
@@riverraisin1 my uncles land mineral rights is owned by some old company that got bought out several times. But maybe the state owns the rights in some cases.
@theBear89451
2 жыл бұрын
@@geekfreak618 Did you look at property history? The mineral rights were probably sold at one point. You pay more property taxes, when you own more property, in the 3rd demotion.
@danclark3144
2 жыл бұрын
I used to be a Contract Administrator for a public transit system and dealt with easements all the time. I also own a home that is directly under the landing path of our local airport. I never realized the FAA flight paths were actually considered easements. Thank you, I learned something new today.
@ajs96350
2 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate your dumbing it down to the level that I can understand it. Thanks
@fredflintstone8048
2 жыл бұрын
The topic of mineral rights would be interesting to cover. There are also cases of where oil, water, and natural gas drilling companies will drill at an angle and extract from underneath someone else's property. Is this legal?
@rockjockchick
2 жыл бұрын
I suspect it is theft.
@Pointlesschan
2 жыл бұрын
They would have to lease/purchase mineral rights for the property they are going under
@rbryanhull
2 жыл бұрын
They're required to lease mineral rights and pay royalties in as certain radius of the wellhead, without regard to surface boundaries. If they're extracting from reserves under your mineral rights, you'll get paid. However, if they offer to lease your minerals, and you refuse, you'll be liable for the proportional amount of drilling costs.
@cgi2002
2 жыл бұрын
@@rbryanhull issue is however you do not own the mineral rights by default, they are held on a document that you need to purchase.
@lifetimedreamvideos985
2 жыл бұрын
@@cgi2002 I thought fee simple land ownership included mineral rights. Some parts of the country that's common. Other places, it's likely been sold off a long time ago.
@christopherg2347
2 жыл бұрын
The lenghts some people will go to, to invent a argument never ceases to amaze me.
@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin
2 жыл бұрын
No it doesn't!
@pvt.watson5
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for teaching me something new and giving me knowledge to protect my family and home. Many thanks.
@robertbeda959
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting video. Not an attorney but served 23 years on P&,Z in my town. Developers wanted to build residential homes right next to our Hospital's helipad. Learned quite a bit about avigation easements and much more.
@joemorgan2001
2 жыл бұрын
I owned a drone company in California. The limit of flight ops were limited to flights of 25ft or more above the highest point on each property including trees hills or structures. 2014-2017.
@starhawke380
2 жыл бұрын
I remember an argument from some drone folks about a year ago about this issue, and they were saying something about a 3ft rule. That the FAA claims all airspace above 3ft from the ground. Therefore drones could fly over private property as long as they were more than 3 ft above the ground. Cant find the Cite anymore though...
@HiddenWindshield
2 жыл бұрын
@@starhawke380 The rule is that the FAA has jurisdiction over any aircraft not in Ground Effect. Three feet sounds about right for where Ground Effect would end for a large drone.
@morrij01
2 жыл бұрын
There's a difference between a permanent or semi-permanent structure, which contacts the ground, and the temporary passage of an aircraft. Usage of the space/airspace should be considered.
@DJBigMac209
2 жыл бұрын
Great video Steve. I understood completely. I appreciate your time.
@jerryfarmer5989
2 жыл бұрын
I am so glad you brought up mineral rights. I own a huge chunk of our town, kinda huge. It 400 acres out in any direction from the center of our property. As to the air space I consider the 500 foot ceiling simply because helicopters are flying over us all the time. Besides I put up a 100 foot ham radio antenna. Some said I couldn't and all I did was say "why not".
@jamesodell3064
2 жыл бұрын
In New York City property owner sometimes sell air rights above their property. A building will be built over the existing structure but usually not touching it.
@mabl4367
2 жыл бұрын
So once a day people owning land close to the the equator take turns owning the sun for a brief moment when the sun passes above their land. :) Also you can't own a cylinder extending to the center of the earth since it would intersect the cylinders of the neighbouring properties. It must be a cone.
@DamnedRegistration
2 жыл бұрын
From the equator to the two tropics thanks to the Earth's inclination! Depending on the time of the year (and the day) of course. That's quite a lot of people, but a very short Sun ownership period for each of them. I'm too high up North to own the Sun but that said, we can extend the concept to the whole universe so I could own many other stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. !
@mxMik
2 жыл бұрын
@@DamnedRegistration steve explained that other stars and galaxies enjoy easement as they are swooshing swiftly high above.
@ptrinch
2 жыл бұрын
I can see it know... Yes, your honor. The meteorite was, for a moment, my property. But by the time it landed on my neighbor's house, it was theirs.
@additudeobx
2 жыл бұрын
It's a wedge, not a cylinder. The point, or bottom of the wedge is the center of the earth, rising thru the "4" corners of the property and out into the space above it. Maybe you could call it a cylindrical wedge. But the defining lines are not parallel.
@mabl4367
2 жыл бұрын
@@additudeobx yes i said it can't be a cylinder and that it must be a cone. I guess wedge is more precise than cone.
@alewis8765
2 жыл бұрын
Super interesting topic. I appreciate your commentary. Steve, you mentioned a concept which I've heard my dad talk about at length over the years. (he was a county Public Works manager and College adjunct professor for real estate economics) When you own the land, you own what's on the land. I've used this doctrine as justification for never owning a condo or townhouse. A condo is a fancy term for an apartment that you own. And like an apartment, they are often built one on top of the other. Typically the land that condos and townhouses are built upon is owned by the HOA. Since you can't pick up your condo and move it somewhere else, who actually owns the condo? If you don't pay your HOA fees, the HOA can place a lien on the property and take ownership of the unit, which they already own because they own the land. So when you own a condo, you don't really own it. You're paying a mortgage on something that you also have to pay rent. Thanks, I'll pass Also, even though you own the airspace above your property, a lot of cities/counties have limits on structure height, regulated by zoning and other considerations. Set backs are another limitation on property use. (can't build within _x_ feet of the property line) New York City, San Francisco, etc are nightmares for building high rises. You'll spend a fortune on litigation before you can even break ground.
@samallen6669
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent explanation, as always. Thanks Steve.
@billbarker1950
2 жыл бұрын
Great channel. My sister and I just went through this, in Vicksburg Michigan. After my mom passed. The neighbor hired a tree service to trim a maple tree near our property line, right up the property line. The township said that was perfectly legal. I do understand why that would be the case. If we had a tree hanging over the neighbors house, they have a right to remove that threat to their home. Also we could be liable for any damage that tree caused to their home. The tree in question was not anywhere near their house. I get it. It was hanging over their property.
@Dave_Hoffsommer
2 жыл бұрын
So, if the hunters took a running jump across the corner, would they be considered an "unpowered aircraft" in flight???
@NatesRandomVideo
2 жыл бұрын
Underrated comment. I laughed!
@suerasmussen9982
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this! Now something I ran into years ago makes sense. Back in the early 2000s, I was working for a property management company and one of the things they owned was a marina in the Bay Area. I couldn’t figure out why they had tons of little property tax bills, one for each of the boat slips. Now I get it! They owed tax on the little parcels of land way under the water of SF Bay.
@StephenMannUSA
2 жыл бұрын
Airports are the same. It's called a "possessory interest assessment". Aircraft owners who rent parking space at a publicly owned airport also get a property tax bill every year. The California law that created two hundred years ago, the PIT, was to compensate the government for cattle grazing on public lands. Airport property and the bay waters are also public lands.
@LeonaRasalas
2 жыл бұрын
Great one! Loved this video as I always wondered since drones became so prevalent. Thank you for this and all your videos.
@snarky_user
2 жыл бұрын
Don't tell the wife; she'll want you to paint it, plant it, clean it, or decorate it.
@kenchilton
2 жыл бұрын
I called the police about a paraglider over my house. They issued him a “do not trespass” order from me. I never saw the paraglider again.
@HDDog2
2 жыл бұрын
I'm thinking about my Dad, who was a "Ham" Radio operator. He built his own towers for his antennas, higher and higher, but never had a issue. After a certain height, the had to add lights for small planes flying by, but, that was the only issue I remember.
@pupdaddymail
2 жыл бұрын
Gratified to hear you mention Causby. I did a lot of "research" on the subject as it relates to drones and Mr. Google told me that you actually can build as high as you want, with the caveat that if you go over 200 feet you have to notify the FAA and put a light on top. The FAA makes no claim as to ownership but they do maintain that the have sole regulatory authority for anything in flight no matter what the altitude. Between that and Causby the most common thought I could find on the whole thing is that you have a very good chance of claiming control over the air space up to the point in which you either build or grow trees into. Drone laws are a mess. People think that only the FAA can tell you where and when you can fly, but all sorts of local governments claim the right by saying that they have jurisdiction over everyone on their land. In practice that seems to be true so far, maybe because it is coded in law and not a regulation. As always, you produce great content as well as a lot of it. When do you sleep?
@wertacus
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting stuff. Recently took some pictures of my property with a hobby drone before beginning some landscaping. Definitely flew over the neighbors house but I figured it wouldn't really be an issue so long as it wasn't too bothersome and I didn't take pictures of their yards. I'm sure there's lots of cases now that these things are pretty cheap and the cameras are pretty good
@secondarydevice1767
2 жыл бұрын
@Snargfargle kinda buried the lede there on the neighbor's incredible drone-jumping car. Jaguar, I assume. ;) Maybe gas got expensive enough the car had to find another food source?
@christianjackson
2 жыл бұрын
Are the property "walls" that shoot into the sky an extension of the radius of the earth? So it's actually an inverted pyramid of air above your property that you own? and then all of our property meets at a point in the center of the earth?
@bjornbeehorn8227
2 жыл бұрын
Yes. Imagine how much space "above" the earth you could own...
@egarcia1360
2 жыл бұрын
I can't imagine it working any other way. I'm sure such details rarely, if ever, have come up in practice, though.
@davidgoodnow269
2 жыл бұрын
Yes. That's specifically settled in international law.
@garyfouse7618
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Steve Learned something new... I understood your explanation quite well
@ajcongdon1772
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, for explaining. I studied ground school. At the time I was learning the FAA employee explained plane's had to fly 500 feet above the terrain unless landing or taking off from an approved airfield. But I always wondered how pilots landing on highway, freeway or other road way because their aircraft was crashing anywhere else.
@thomasmaughan4798
2 жыл бұрын
Fixed wing aircraft have one minimum (2000 feet depending on where it is), rotary wing (helicopters) have a second lower limit (500 feet also depending on where it is) and drones have an upper limit so that keeps everything somewhat separated. Out in the country, rural areas, these limits are relaxed and obviously crop dusters are operating close to the ground.
@kingfunk9336
2 жыл бұрын
I made the phone company remove wires they had run overhead across my property.
@johnp139
2 жыл бұрын
I was wondering about that.
@greymanzink6118
2 жыл бұрын
Ck the certified survey plot of your land and see if you have utility easements.
@jasonwilcox5285
2 жыл бұрын
You “own the airspace” above your property but not the minerals in the ground. That’s awesome 👍
@dsutt777
2 жыл бұрын
It varies from state to state in the US.
@tiredoldmechanic1791
2 жыл бұрын
There are areas of the country where landowners sold mineral rights or kept them for themselves when they sold land. It's important to check on things like mineral rights and easements when buying property. In Canada, it appears that the provincial governments hold the mineral rights to all property.
@dangeary2134
2 жыл бұрын
I’ve been through a lot of communities across the country. There are times when I see that the height of structures and signs are very low to the ground. This only happens when there is an airport nearby. Those limits can be put to the land because the airport was there first, and the other properties have that clause grandfathered in, so when the property changes hands, it gets enforced.
@RangerPhantomSAS
2 жыл бұрын
Great explanation, I have experience with easements and love how plain and easy you explain it. I like the quote and most people think this way; they don't believe they broke the law. That is precisely the issue, most people don't know or research the laws and are ignorant of the facts (myself included at times),we just go on and assume we are correct until someone in authority tells us. Also love your shirt.
@NickLea
2 жыл бұрын
Things are sort of similar in the UK. There is an actual law that says that drones (and any other aircraft) can't trespass as long as they are at a "reasonable" height. Failure to do so could amount to trespass if the flight interferes with another person’s ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. The relevant law is Section 76(1), Civil Aviation Act 1982 (1) No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with
@pedrowhack-a-mole6786
2 жыл бұрын
Every time the word "reasonable" is used in law, I cringe. Reasonableness is way too subjective to stand alone in law. Quantify what is reasonable to remove any ambiguity.
@TropicalGardenGuy
2 жыл бұрын
A federal employee with blm told me that when federal property is landlocked, there is a presumption of an easement to allow citizens or federal employees to use a minimum of another’s land adjacent to to reach federal land. In other words, as he explained. I person cannot buy up all the property around government land and block others from using gov property
@lifetimedreamvideos985
2 жыл бұрын
J. Paul Getty, in his early oil days, had a property with only a 4' easement and a hostile neighbor intent on enforcing the limits of that easement. Getty designed a narrow railroad and narrow folding drilling equipment. He got into that property and developed oil wells. He probably bought it cheaply from the owner, who likely believed it was worthless due to the narrow easement. Getty: "Hold my beer."
@toddb930
2 жыл бұрын
Garden Guy - from my experience this is not true. If there is a piece of federal/public property that is land-locked you cannot cross over private property to get to it.
@suedenim9208
2 жыл бұрын
The 5th amendment seems to disagree. An easement is a taking that requires compensation.
@TropicalGardenGuy
2 жыл бұрын
@@toddb930 Maybe so, There is hundreds of thousands of acres of landlocked BLM land here in the west . How does BLM officers access Landlocked Gov property without a warrant ?
@chrisgraham2904
2 жыл бұрын
That has always been my understanding in Canada, that you own your property on the surface of the Earth within the latitude and longitude specification of the lot size. Ownership extends in a pie-shaped or conical shape to a pinpoint at the Earth's core and your ownership extends above the surface to the limit of the atmosphere. Aircraft, etc. have an easement to cross your airspace and easements also exist below the surface if your local transportation system wishes to tunnel a subway at 60 feet or more below the surface under your property, for example. If you purchase and take ownership of a condominium apartment, your ownership is restricted to the latitude and longitude of your property, but also contains minimum and maximum limits of altitude that identify your property. If your condominium apartment building was built at sea level, your 10th floor apartment may have lower and upper limits of 120 feet to 134 feet, for example.
@soupernutt9508
2 жыл бұрын
Steve- thank you. Yes, you are an attorney- and that was a very informative video. I don't remember anything before the 14th century either.
@georgiaobserver
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Steve, I am a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser and I have been involved with the appraisal of thousands of properties in connection with the purchase of air rights in connection with airport expansions. I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that Aircraft have an easement to fly over beginning at 600 feet above the ground. Any closer - the airport has to purchase air rights. My job was to determine the loss in value the real estate suffered from aircraft flying so close to the ground. (Noise was the big factor) The airport would then compensate the property owner as well as insulate attics and floors, and install storm windows and doors in order to reduce noise inside the structure. The easements the airport purchased would allow the planes to fly as low as 300 feet. In regards to drones flying over. I recently purchased a drone and then discovered all of the laws regulating them things. What seems to apply to your discussion is that by FAA rules, a drone can not fly higher than 400 feet (unless it is within 50' of a structure (think skyscraper inspections). If the federal flight easement begins at 600 feet and the drone can not exceed 400 feet. Then they can not trespass. Of course, there are some exceptions to this (law enforcement) I am not an attorney. Should the matters discussed in this comment be of concern to you, you should seek out competent legal advice. Thanks for your videos, I really enjoy them, Keep it up. (It ain't often I run across an attorney with a decent personality)
@AllAmericanGuyExpert
2 жыл бұрын
But are you a lawyer?
@duanesamuelson2256
2 жыл бұрын
@@AllAmericanGuyExpert he/she stated specifically that they aren't. In addition due having worked dealing with the issues probably has more knowledge than most attorneys in this area.
@justinwhite2725
2 жыл бұрын
@@duanesamuelson2256 they actually didn't say tjeh weren't a lawyer, just that they weren't an attorney 😉
@jebediahkerman8245
2 жыл бұрын
FAA FAR 91.119 defines lowest safe altitude. (c) specifies over *sparsely* populated areas, pilots must operate their aircraft 500 feet *away from* (not above) any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. This means that pilots are not required to fly any altitude above the ground in these areas as long as they don't come close to said objects. Of course, public nuisance laws still exist, and 91.119 does specify minimum altitudes for areas populated more than "sparsely".
@kireta21
2 жыл бұрын
Some years ago I heard about group of homeowners trying to sue over noise caused by low-flying military aircraft from nearby airbase, demanding either compensation or removal of jet fighters stationing there. The kicker is, when they bought the land and build houses on it, base already existed for over 40 years, which is why this land was so cheap in the first place. Their argument is that new planes are louder. Common sense says they're being f-ing ridiculus, but when it comes to the law common sense not always apply.
@blackbuttecruizr
2 жыл бұрын
Steve got a little fired up on this one.
@burnsurvivor88
2 жыл бұрын
I'm guessing 300ft above property. Love your content and I can't wait to hear this story out.
@davidp2of3
2 жыл бұрын
I really enjoy learning from you. I hope I never need it but it's nice to know
@zmbewolfable
2 жыл бұрын
If you live in a neighborhood you never own the land , leasing it , and you really never own your own home, the state usually wins the debates
@PhoebeJRose
2 жыл бұрын
I love the Enlgish case law on this "The right to airspace above land is restricted to such a height as is reasonably necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structure upon it" Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd
@pilotboy3328
2 жыл бұрын
Phoebe, you are correct. I believe this was confirmed by the Supreme Court.
@chucksayers1248
2 жыл бұрын
thanks Steve, I learned something here and that's a good thing
@metaljacket866
2 жыл бұрын
Lehto is amazing imo.,I don't know how he managed to experience so many different employment fields , Newspaper, Radio , LAW, cant really remember all the others.atm. But he was a lawyer for decades and now a very motivated KZitem personality with thousands of entertaining.posts..He is definitely more than CNN + and they spent hundreds of millions trying to make that work , it died
@littlestinker9716
2 жыл бұрын
I'll keep it mind every time Air Force One flies over. It's not infrequent. I've got the bat phone ready to speed dial Steve's office.
@SinKillerJ
2 жыл бұрын
I get military craft flying so low here that I can read the service panels. Must admit ospreys knocking things over gets old.
@joncrow3228
2 жыл бұрын
AF1 is situationally exempt from everything.
@Neptune730
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this one. I live in an area where there are two vary small airfields. Both within 5 miles of my home. According to the FAA I can't fly my hobby drones in my own back yard without contacting the airfields. I started doing that in the beginning. Even the airfield didn't know I had to call them. I don't fly higher than telephone poles. If there is a full size plane that low, there are more serious problems. I got fed up with it all and stopped flying. But with this new info I think I'll start flying again and not even worry about the FAA.
@gscurd75
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly correct as usual. Ask people who have a trail on their property that connects a public road to a beach about easements.
@bigbigspoon
2 жыл бұрын
Good job on your research
@absolutekold
2 жыл бұрын
So you own the air but... "Federal law provides that the United States government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States; the FAA makes the plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace; and any citizen has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." This gets us into the question of "navigable". generally defined as "Any structure that exceeds 200 feet above ground level generally needs to be marked (lighted) according to FAA/ICAO Regulations." as they would be navigation hazards. Although a few current drone cases could be potentially pushing this to closer to 500ft. which is the start of controlled airspace.
@daversj
2 жыл бұрын
I cant wait to argue common law from the 1500s the next time I’m in court. 🤦♂️
@rockjockchick
2 жыл бұрын
Common law is still current law in most places -unless law was written to over turn it. It was adopted when the constitution of the US was created. IE: common law marriage, common law jury etc etc.
@safetymikeengland
2 жыл бұрын
where I grew up in southern MO, there were (in the 1970s) fighter planes flying over all the time. they flew SO low, that 1) sometimes we could see the pilots, and 2) we did not hear the plane until it was gone. I would not have been surprised if the planes panicked livestock but I don't remember that being an issue.
@sleeperno1215
2 жыл бұрын
This is true. I had to obtain avigation easements for the county to control the airspace immediately around the airport. You can somewhat regulate the airspace over your property in class golf airspace. Commercial Drones can operate from 0 to 400 ft over any object without FAA approval most of the time. But even that airspace can be subject to regulation. I’ve greatly simplified this but I was a county attorney, pilot, and drone pilot. I remember that case from law school though.
@jmpattillo
2 жыл бұрын
Do your property lines converge towards the center of the earth and likewise diverge as you go up? Otherwise your property would cross into other's property below the ground. If they diverge going up, and the universe is infinite, that means if you own any property, you own an infinite amount of property!
@johnp139
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly!!!
@dangeary2134
2 жыл бұрын
Back in the 80s, some radio station had a running joke, and was “selling” property on the moon. I decided to take it to a new level, and asked them if that included the mineral rights. They said no, so I told them I didn’t want it!
@oc6huki
2 жыл бұрын
As a land surveyor, This is an interesting topic. In the concept of “cloud condominiums” the common area is often described as “50 feet above the surface to infinity” or similar.
@scottfranco1962
2 жыл бұрын
"500 feet from persons or property" is the basic FAA altitude law. This means, theoretically, you can fly 2 feet high if you are above open land, even if that land is not yours. Here "property", means buildings, cars, etc. Does anyone actually do that? Well, outside of crop dusting, I know of pilots that like to go out into the desert and fly "on the deck", low to the ground.
@DanielbenYishai
2 жыл бұрын
If the moon is directly overhead, then I get ownership of the moon! Even if Canada has jurisdiction there. :)
@stevelehto
2 жыл бұрын
For the time being, yes!
@AzraelThanatos
2 жыл бұрын
@@stevelehto I believe that doesn't work, despite what various companies have said, there's treaties the US is one of the signers of that the moon is, essentially, public land for everyone.
@toolbaggers
2 жыл бұрын
Since nobody knows what Latin actually sounded like, Steve could be speaking perfect Latin and nobody would know.
@realtijuana5998
2 жыл бұрын
KOO-yus est SOH-loom, EHY-yoos est OOS-kway ad KOY-loom et ad een-FEH-roes For bonus points, try _sine die_ and _prima facie._
@PilotPlater
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you Steve
@anthonybertone2336
2 жыл бұрын
I love this, thanks Steve
@graygrumbler4253
2 жыл бұрын
I moved to Maryland in 1981. Soon after starting work here I remember a discussion about airspace above your property and how the Maryland courts ruled on the matter. Essentially, from the ground up its 100 feet and above that its an easement to transit. 100 feet or less its absolutely yours.
@imjashingyou3461
2 жыл бұрын
So how does one erect a 200 foot building then?
@aevangel1
2 жыл бұрын
Should be 4,000 min.
@davidtanner665
2 жыл бұрын
@@aevangel1 I live in a radar test area. Seen many planes flying nap to earth, including very low B-52s.
@StephenMannUSA
2 жыл бұрын
What the Causby decision did say was that a property owner ONLY OWNS THE AIRSPACE ABOVE HIS PROPERTY THAT HE CAN REASONABLY USE. 49 USC §40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace (a)(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. Only the FAA may regulate flight. Only the FAA may create a no-fly-zone. Any local or state regulations over flight would be contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Absent a definition of airspace in this regulation means from the dirt up. No federal court has adjudicated airspace ownership, and because of the supremacy clause, no state or local authority has jurisdiction to change it.
@ttww1590
2 жыл бұрын
In New York selling and trading the air rights above land has been twisted to by-pass zoning restrictions.
@billwood7408
2 жыл бұрын
Nice episode. We took a balloon flight a few years ago and the pilot used the field on a friend's property as a launching spot (these are large 5+ acres properties in rural Maryland). One of the friend's neighbors did not like the balloons going over his house and had threatened to sue. The pilot assured us the homeowner had no legal recourse, but it sounds like perhaps he did because if the wind blew the right way we may only have been 100' above his house when we were crossing his property (the wind was favorable that day and we didn't enter into his air space).
@thomaspc0
2 жыл бұрын
It's interesting how your property line runs to the center of the road. My property actually ends about 10 feet from the road. It is mine to mow, but the city runs pipes beneath it, which they must maintain. They recently came and replaced some of the sidewalk pieces that were in need of replacing. This included the final ten feet of some driveways in the neighborhood that needed replacing. They are also, for example, responsible for any water pipes up to that point.
@sky173
2 жыл бұрын
So when I, a professional drone operator, am practicing my flying above my 100 acre lot and some idiot in a Cessna 208 does a high-speed flyby at 200ft AGL and goes down because he hit my aircraft, I can blame him... After all, he was flying so fast and low I didn't hear him until it was too late. He was over my property.
@walterwhite2270
2 жыл бұрын
I like it when Mr Lehto gets worked up...it is funny and entertaining.....
@HomeEF
2 жыл бұрын
Wow this is so good information, thank you !!!
@djm.o.d.9376
2 жыл бұрын
great video, and well explained.
@willj1598
2 жыл бұрын
I once bought a house adjacent to an air force base and their was actually a deed restriction on my use of the airspace above my house. I take that to mean it was my airspace but my use of it was limited. The big question is, do you own a column of airspace the exact size and shape of your property for it's entire length or do you own an ever- widening wedge with sides emanating perpendicular from the surface of the earth? If the former, who owns the resultant interstitial spaces between the columns?
@Galatzo
2 жыл бұрын
Your observation one day will be a problem And what about the celestial bodies transiting our zenith, do we have to pay coproperty tax for them?
@alexsherel3344
2 жыл бұрын
Someone owns everything. Be it individual, corporate or government/public access.
@cjjohnson1821
2 жыл бұрын
I do, but will sell if approached.
@alexsherel3344
2 жыл бұрын
@@Joxman2k how could you say wedge? I don't get your thought process. When all your nextdoor neighbors wedges overlap tours what then. Please just tell me you were joking bout the wedge. And by wedge you mean come right? I can't tell if your real or not😂
@willj1598
2 жыл бұрын
@@Joxman2k it's as good a proof of flat earth as any, it would certainly solve my question. But then it creates a new question, who owns the airspace adjacent to the vertical column of airspace owned by the occupants of this flat earth?
@casucasueq4479
2 жыл бұрын
"Let me put it to you this way: Try building something taller than three stories in the Tiangjin province, and see if his name turns up on your database then."
@bigkoppa5816
2 жыл бұрын
How quickly can you transfer his money to the cage at the Bellagio?
@Angelum_Band
2 жыл бұрын
This is one of best legal videos regarding property.
@flockshot1967
2 жыл бұрын
This is one of your best videos. I love the easement decision by SCOTIS. They were smart enough to set no altitude limit, so the argument can continue forever. The FAA regulations make no mention of easement, but i think easement is a good word to use. As someone who has enjoyed aviation and now fly drones, this argument comes up all the time. I usually starts something like, "my neighbor has a drone, can I shoot it down?" The argument will continue as lawyers will continue to have the ability to argue in any direction they so choose. Job security on this issue is assured for yawl.
@ptrinch
2 жыл бұрын
9:40 It would be interesting to find out what happens if you get pulled over for speeding on a public road that goes through an easement on your own property. And to pull the string a bit more... if someone else gets pulled over for speeding, shouldn't you get a cut of the fine?
@quesohusker
2 жыл бұрын
It would not be interesting. You would pay a fine.
@almostfm
2 жыл бұрын
Speaking of easements: In California, every beach with a couple of exceptions for military bases and a nuclear plant is a public right-of-way from the mean high tide line (basically, where you'd expect the sand to get wet) on out. Some wealthy landowners have tried blocking off or posting guards to keep people off their "private" beach, but the California Coastal Commission is empowered to levy fines of up to $22,000 per day for keeping people from walking on "their" beach.
@daletyler5344
2 жыл бұрын
there are public access points like every half mile along the PCH that go between these multimillion dollar homes. some home owners have plant bushes to block them and others have built false walls that look like garage doors.
@tubedude54
2 жыл бұрын
That's the entire coast of the united states I believe. the feds own from the high water line outward into the oceans.
@scottfranco1962
2 жыл бұрын
There used to be private beaches when I was a kid (I'm 65). One such owner in LA had the city come out and rip out the fences with tractors after they refused to remove them.
@clocksurfer
2 жыл бұрын
I remember years ago, studying for the real estate broker exam in my state, that buying a parcel of land includes above & below, just as you say. I left real estate years ago. Now I'm an aviator, and I know that the FAA regulates aviation use of the national airspace system (not property owners). Funny thing - many people and entities still seek to exclude aviation above their property. I think maybe we haven't seen the end of the discussion.
@markmatthews9494
2 жыл бұрын
A big topic of discussion in my local area is property ownership to the center of non-navigable rivers, creeks, etc. It appears as though boaters can pass though while in the boat but are trespassing if they step out in the middle of the river.
Пікірлер: 2,5 М.