Air Combat: Precita Park and the Civic Politics of Drones

/ Todd_Lappin

park.png

Well, since we already live in the future, this was probably inevitable…

While Bernal neighbors conduct an ongoing conversation about the social norms associated with the presence of dogs in Precita Park, Neighbor Ruby reports that some Bernal residents are also trying to sort out the social norms associated with the presence of drones in Precita Park:

Thought you might be interested in an event that transpired [on June 25].

My partner Mary was at home when she heard an infernal noise emanating from Precita Park. We live on the park, so so threw on a jacket and raced outside.

There were two middle-aged guys there flying a drone!

She scolded them furiously and announced, “We don’t’ allow drones in our parks!”

They argued with her but she didn’t back down and finally they left, drone in hand. She said the drone made such an infernal noise and was so threateningly military-esque that all the dogs in the park were cowering.

Now, on a purely factual basis, there is no posted prohibition on the use of drones in Precita Park. (Yet.) There is, however, is a sign saying that dogs must be on leashes — which is generally disregarded. All of which may indicate that Bernalese prefer governance by implicit codes of personal responsibility and good neighborliness, rather than by explicit rules or legal regulations.

Or maybe not.

Regardless of who’s right or less-right in this scenario, the incident is an innnnnteresting harbinger of a civic conversation we are likely to have sooner rather than later — as neighbors, as a city, and as a nation.

Will we take a liberal attitude toward the technologies of future? Or will we establish drone equivalents to the Locomotive Acts of the 1800s, “which required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph in the country and 2 mph in the city – as well as requiring a man carrying a red flag to walk in front of road vehicles hauling multiple wagons”?

Either way, if you’ve enjoyed the discussion about canine leash policies, enforcement, tolerance, responsibility, shared space, and dog poop in Precita Park, you may also enjoy having a forward-looking conversation here about the politics of using remotely controlled flying machines in Precita Park as well.

Or maybe not.

UPDATE (promoted from the comments):  Neighbor Mat, the pilot of the drone involved in the incident above, describes a different version of encounter:

Well there certainly is two sides to every story. I’m one of the “middle aged men” who was flying the drone that day.

Before even touching the obviously spicy debate of whether I should or shouldn’t be able to fly a drone in a park by my house, I’d like to point out how ridiculously overblown her explanation of the situation is. The Funny thing is that I have the entire thing on video from the drone.

First of all, the conversation lasted all of 30 seconds (actually exactly 23 seconds) and I immediately said, ok, thats fine I’m your neighbor and I don’t want trouble. I did take the time to tell her that no this is not a military device, and no I can not remotely come close to seeing in her window.

Secondly this comment on the dogs “cowering” is just ridiculous. There was not a single dog remotely close to us. And in fact here is a screen shot from our footage that clearly shows that. I’m a Bernal dog owner myself, and if I thought that I was remotely disturbing somebodies pup I would immediately shut it down. http://s28.postimg.org/gqf2ibvh9/park.png

I’m not going to spend my entire day arguing with people on whether drones should or shouldn’t be allowed in Precita park, but I just wanted to point out that the original message really makes the situation out to be a lot different than it was.

The woman that confronted us completely had her mind made up that this was some sort of military device and that we were the enemy. The fact is that we are two of her neighbors using our day off to do something creative with ourselves and capture some cool and interesting footage of our neighborhood. If she is afraid of her privacy or neighborhood being violated, I think there are bigger battles to fight than two long haired guys sipping coffees and taking selfies with a go-pro on drone.

As for the topic of the noise, yes the drone makes a sound. The model that we were using maxes out at 82db and of course dissipates as it flies away. A gas powered lawn mower is about 100db. There is no question that the noise levels of a multiple bouncy castles full of children or Cesar Chavez at any time of time are much louder.

PHOTO: Image of Precita Park captured by Neighbor Mat’s drone, at the time of the incident described in this post.

91 thoughts on “Air Combat: Precita Park and the Civic Politics of Drones”

  2. We are going to need some kind of data on the exact level of infernalness of the noise before we can draw any conclusions.

    • It’s not a drone, it’s a quad-copter. What is the difference? One takes off, roams the skies for hours, and lands without human interaction (though DOES require a person to fire a missile). The other is basically a radio-controlled toy with four propellers instead of the standard one. Don’t be that idiot that mistakes the two.

      • I agree, but it’s semantics worth reiterating. IMO, the term “drone” should be reserved for those devices capable of either delivering “death from above” or reports to a government agency.
        To the best of my knowledge flying them for personal use in SF is still a legal grey area, but I’d definitely move to a more secluded location not just to avoid the hassle, but for the safety of others.

  6. People used to fly radio-controlled airplanes in the parks. And launch small rockets. The old radio-controlled airplanes made a lot of noise. The rockets were probably pretty dangerous. Unless we think these folks had some nefarious political intent, why is a drone different from what used to be considered very normal?

  7. Gotta say, most drones are pretty quiet. Especially when compared to other sounds of the city (street cleaners, motorcycles, boombox-segway guy). The idea that someone would walk up to someone in a park and say “We don’t’ allow drones in our parks!” seems like more of a knee jerk response.

  9. The leash-less dawgs are all a-bark,
    HARK! — there’s a spy in the sky above the park!
    Out from the cafes, out from the homes,
    the Bernalites look up and see DRONES.
    They’re buzzing up a storm of infernal noise,
    military-esque these ain’t no toys.
    Camo-clad controllers, moms and dads with strollers,
    in the same damn Bernal bubble,
    you know there’s gonna be trouble.
    Some say it’s fine,
    some say it’s good,
    taco-copters to deliver my take-out food!
    but you know you’re gonna pay
    when your taco lands
    in some un-picked poop
    in the playground sands.
    So welcome to the future
    and expect to see more
    How do you like dog crap
    with your Al Pastor?

  10. Well there certainly is two sides to every story. I’m one of the “middle aged men” who was flying the drone that day.

    Before even touching the obviously spicy debate of whether I should or shouldn’t be able to fly a drone in a park by my house, I’d like to point out how ridiculously overblown her explanation of the situation is. The Funny thing is that I have the entire thing on video from the drone.

    First of all, the conversation lasted all of 30 seconds (actually exactly 23 seconds) and I immediately said, ok, thats fine I’m your neighbor and I don’t want trouble. I did take the time to tell her that no this is not a military device, and no I can not remotely come close to seeing in her window.

    Secondly this comment on the dogs “cowering” is just ridiculous. There was not a single dog remotely close to us. And in fact here is a screen shot from our footage that clearly shows that. I’m a Bernal dog owner myself, and if I thought that I was remotely disturbing somebodies pup I would immediately shut it down. http://s28.postimg.org/gqf2ibvh9/park.png

    I’m not going to spend my entire day arguing with people on whether drones should or shouldn’t be allowed in Precita park, but I just wanted to point out that the original message really makes the situation out to be a lot different than it was.

    The woman that confronted us completely had her mind made up that this was some sort of military device and that we were the enemy. The fact is that we are two of her neighbors using our day off to do something creative with ourselves and capture some cool and interesting footage of our neighborhood. If she is afraid of her privacy or neighborhood being violated, I think there are bigger battles to fight than two long haired guys sipping coffees and taking selfies with a go-pro on drone.

    As for the topic of the noise, yes the drone makes a sound. The model that we were using maxes out at 82db and of course dissipates as it flies away. A gas powered lawn mower is about 100db. There is no question that the noise levels of a multiple bouncy castles full of children or Cesar Chavez at any time of time are much louder.

    • LOOK AT ALL THOSE COWERING DOGS!!! I’m sorry our neighborhood has become so conservative.

    • You are a lot more polite than she deserved. People like her need to STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO. I would have told her to STFU and get the fuck out of my face.

    • Three cheers for you, Mat. I don’t have a drone/UAV, but if I saw you I’d want to geek out with you about it and ask you a bunch of (fun, non-confrontational) questions =)

      The original story was told with a sense of style that made me think the situation was a bit overblown. Glad you are standing up for yourself!

  11. It is hard to draw conclusions with such incomplete information. The first thing I reacted to was the phrase “infernal noise.” How bothersome a noise is, is a very subjective issue. What is OBjective is the noise’s actual loudness. There are clear and definitive noise ordinances in SF. Higher decibel limits are allowed during the day because, well, we are a civilization where things are built, and demolished, and moved and all sorts of noises are the result. Because a sound bothers you doesn’t make it illegal. Example: I live across the street from an elementary school, and I assure you very few things are as un-ignorable as the screams of elementary schoolchildren at recess. But you know what? They are kids having fun. Very loud fun. You learn to love it or you leave. I love it.

    The second thing that grabbed my attention was the admission “She scolded them furiously.” That is something that should cause neighbor Ruby and her partner to really, seriously consider how society functions. There is way WAY too much furious scolding going on in our neck of the woods lately.

    I doubt that any R/C aircraft is capable of exceeding the daytime decibel limits in SF. Read the noise ordinance.

    While legally (and conscientiously) using a chainsaw to salvage wood from a tree removed by the city (for the record, it was Berkeley), I once had a red-faced, frothing-at-the-mouth man storm up to me and scream that I was disturbing the peace and making life intolerable and that the police were on the way. I knew the noise regulations for Berkeley and I actually own a decibel meter, because it tends to be an issue with power tools. I also know the futility of arguing with such people. I ignored him and finished my work.

    So here’s a tip for the furious scolders: If that man had come up calmly and said “Hey, I have a sick grandmother/newborn infant/migrainous wife who is trying to sleep in the middle of the day, so even though I know you aren’t breaking the law, could you please do that another day?” I would’ve gladly said “Sure, I’m sorry to hear about that. When would be more convenient for you?” And that’s not a hypothetical, because that exact thing has ALSO happened before. IMHO, it seems like the way things should unfold. Why not give someone a chance to voluntarily–and with no legal compulsion to do so–try to find a workable compromise?

    WHY is “furious scolding” your first reaction to something you don’t like? Morality aside, it is just plain ineffective. It IS a very telling choice of words in that “scolding” summons the image of a nanny, as in “Nanny Culture.”

    Maybe there were other factors in this encounter that we don’t know about, but based on her own summary, neighbor Ruby’s partner owes two men an apology.

  12. Why does furious scolding Mary get to decide SF park policies? I say bring on the drones.

  13. Mat’s post appeared after I already hit “Post.” His account makes it clear that the noise was probably not the scolder’s primary concern. So… the portions of my long-winded reply that deal with how people interact with each other still apply.

    But if PRIVACY really was the major concern, that’s even simpler:

    1) spies and peepers usually AVOID making noise; and
    2) absent any proof, it is a little arrogant to assume anyone would want to spy on you. I don’t worry about being spied on, because I’m not that interesting.

    Sounds like the point at which the woman became a part of their video was when she left her house and “furiously scolded” them.

    Drone? Come on. Do we have to corrupt and misuse another word into meaninglessness?

  14. 1. Don’t use the term drone. Use quadcopter or radio controlled chopper or such.
    2. Drones are small Military jet planes and are armed for the most part.
    3. There is no “no radio controlled aircraft” in the park sign. There is, however, a “No off-leash dogs” sign posted.
    4. No one seems to mind the “infernal noise” coming from the bands and events that happen in Precita Park (both the permitted ones, and the Precita Eyes associated ones). Or the infernal noise made by the bouncy houses that the kids are playing in.
    5. Sigh. San Francisco. Sigh.

  15. You can do whatever you want in the park so long as it is not illegal. Flying a RC helicopter is not illegal.

  16. This is the same neighborhood which used to have dirtbike races in someone’s backyard. Hardly seems possible, right?

  17. I was walking with my daughter by Holly Park a few weeks ago when a drone flew overhead. I’ll admit that it gave me a bit of a start… but then I got to thinking how odd that I’d now forever remember “where I was when I saw my first drone” and she’d be more likely to remember “that one time she actually saw a hawk.” Interesting times we live in, for sure.

  18. It seems that NIMBYism governs our airspace as well as our streets. I, for one, welcome our airborne overlords.

  19. As the (26 year old) wife of the alleged ‘middle aged man’ (ahem, 31) I could not be more fired up about this entire discussion. I contemplated writing in last week when I was surprised and disgusted with the animosity he encountered while trying to take photos and do something that is a. completely legal, and b. JUST FOR FUN. If you’ve seen the gorgeous sweeping shots they can get, you would want to run out and rent one yourself TODAY.

    Firstly, the 29 and 31 year old photographer and enthusiastic musician friend were confronted aggressively both on top of Bernal Hill AND in Precita Park and told things like “You’re not welcome here!” “Take your noisy toy somewhere else!” “WE the neighborhood do not support this!” and “That’s a military air craft!”.

    I am here to say, THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND.

    We are your neighbors, taking footage for personal use of the beauty and majesty that is Bernal, not the government spying in your windows watching you in your bubble bath.

    This is not f*cking Pakistan, this is a go-pro strapped to the equivalent of a child’s helicopter. It is perfectly legal, and you can rent one for $50 a day. It can’t see in your windows, it’s not coming for your dogs and your children.

    We all have free will and Furious Mary and her ignorance will not take that away from us.

    • But, but, but think of the children and puppies!!! You know why there are no dogs in that shot? It’s because they were all cowering in fear over that infernal decibel blasting military-grade spy-majigger.

      In all seriousness, this is quite silly and I suggest you come to our side of the hill and fly your quad-copter in Holly Park or in my backyard for all I care.

    • Ugh, you’re not winning any points for you and yours. The reference to Pakistan is where you really showed your stripes …. We’ll all be better off when you grow up a little.
      And if no one’s said it yet, welcome to San Francisco, where your neighbors give a fuck.

      • Confused. In what way is she showing her stripes? Is Pakistan not the location of the most consistent and deadly use of drones by our government? Is this not a fair way to contrast the reality of military UAV use with the her husband’s use of an RC copter in the park?

      • I’m sorry, but *you* didn’t win any points here either. The “furiously scolding” neighbor really needs to dial it down a notch and be a true neighbor. Meaning, ask questions first, engage in friendly dialogue. Has worked for 40+ years for me. Cheers.

    • Man, i wanna get me one of these children who’s got $50 a day to spend on a freakin toy! Have that little guy buy his old man some lunch…

  20. I would like to meet with the people who claim they can speak for the neighborhood and interview them about how they became elected, which office they actually hold, what the voting procedure was, and how is it that I can vote in the next election.

    • Apparently if you’re home at 2 in the afternoon, you can speak for everyone in the entire neighborhood!

  22. I think the drones are sort of cool. They take awesome shots from historically unobtainable angles unless you had $20,000 and a helicopter. It sort of feels like back in the 80’s when computers went from being only available to government and BIG business to being available to the average person. Now great sweeping film shots can be captured by my neighbor, and aren’t limited to big Hollywood film makers. Although, I also let my dog run off leash, so what do I know

  24. we have a quad copter…. Mark is a photographer and it seemed like a good xmas gift -we fly it and take zoom pics it was $100 on woot. I think of it as a goofy gadget and surely nothing that would spy….ours would die if one of the off leash dogs went for it. I know there are more sophisticated ones and I think the photos they take are peter pan-ish. (think,wow,I can fly) once overhead they are not too noisy…good not to let fear run us…and to ask our neighbors “wow,what is up or what are you doing?

  25. This seems merely kinda funny and stupid until you remember that “Neighbor Ruby” is exactly the kind of person who actually shows up to planning and zoning board meetings in SF. Important political and planning decisions in this city are made to appease the whims of crazy neighborhood busybodies. 😦

    • That’s not quite the truth. I’ve attended quite a few meetings since moving to Bernal, and I’ve encountered many neighbors who show up to express their support for something. We have lots of great people here on the hill to go along with the nuts.

      • I want to believe you are right. I know almost everyone on my block and I couldn’t ask for better neighbors.

        Still, these issues are a wake up call. Even here on our beautiful hill, I can’t be too complacent.

    • Dr. Memory, you’re exactly right. “Ruby” gets in the way of reasonable, moderate policy around important issues like housing affordability. Progressive moderates like me are tired of the right wing goofballs flooding the comments on sfgate, and the progressives-run-amok like Ruby. Most San Franciscans are in the middle of the bell-curve, slightly scared of entering the conversation due to the unreasonableness of the extreme voices.

      And yet, we must engage.

  26. Wouldn’t drones be great to catch dog owners not “cleaning up” after their off leash dogs?

  27. “Bernalese prefer governance by implicit codes of personal responsibility and good neighborliness, rather than by explicit rules or legal regulations.”

    This is such a San Francisco comment. “I’m unable to follow rules so, instead of securing support to change them, I’m just going to ignore it.”

  30. Taking these comments as evidence the popular opinion seems to be a big shrug for those using “drones” in public parks. Individuals shouldn’t assume they represent an entire community and take this type of action into their own hands.

    As the price of excellent quad copters falls well below $500 I’m afraid people will either have to get used to seeing these on a regular basis or get the city to actually put a real ban into effect in the same way Berkeley has.

    • Parks are for relaxation, peace, and quiet. If I am enjoying the park I don’t want a drone to wiz buy, or stop just out of reac and film me.

      • omg. parks are for relaxing. and for playing. and yelling silly things. and napping. and reading. what about the dogs whizzing by? i don’t really like big dogs pushing their slobbery teeth into my 3 YO’s terrified face, but it happens in parks. and i don’t freak out. most dog owners say “sorry about that” and we exchange smiles. we live together.

  31. To me, this is just another flavor of NIMBYism. To instantly fear new things that are not understood, instead of trying to understand, be flexible to new preferences and ways of living. Depressing.

    • So in other words, let something become a problem before acknowledging that it could be a problem.

      • Absolutely.

        I hereby acknowledge that everything has the potential to be a problem.

        Do you not understand the scope of your statement? People drown. Ban water. People electrocute themselves. Ban electricity. People sit in front of televisions until they are too fat for their hearts to work. Ban televisions. (Hmmmm…. tempting. No. Slippery slope.)

        I really hope that the only reason this is such an issue is that ARMED unmanned aircraft have been used by govenments to KILL and spy on people lately, and the average person has somehow confused themselves as to what DRONES are, and what remote controlled recreational aircraft are.

        Before you hit reply, PLEASE google the phrase “Kite Aerial Photography.”

        Are kites next? I have a personal stake in that one…

  33. I was just on holiday stain, near San Diego. The signs posted at the parks prohibit drones. I think this is a good thing.

    • Jeez, I guess I can’t edit my post OR delete it…..

      I was just on holiday staying with a friend near Scripps Ranch, near San Diego….

    • But Byrd, HOW is it a problem? People are taking landscape and architectural photographs. That is a well established art form. They are taking them from the air. Also well established.

      The innovation is the democratization of the process. It is cheaper and easier and more maneuverable.

      How in the world is this bad?

      And how is destroying someone’s personal property a GOOD thing?

      Is this 2014 America? Did I drop through the rabbit hole?

      • How about when a pervert uses a drone above a schoolyard to ogle children? How about when a pervert uses a drone to look in windows and film people disrobing or having sex? How about when you are laying on the grass minding your own business, and a drone positions itself above you and stays there, filming you? How about when you are walking on the hill and a drone buzzes you, nearly hitting you?

        And you have no recourse in these situations.

      • Actually, all of those scenarios are covered by existing laws. So, you do have recourse.

      • Yes, Brandon!

        So Byrd… because a theoretical pervert might find you interesting enough to ogle, we should ban a particular type of toy? A toy that makes itself impossible to use surreptitiously. A toy whose primary innovation is the ability to… elevate itself a few dozen feet. Terrifying!

        Everything you mentioned can already be done with existing technology. Heard of zoom lenses? Is there something more threatening about an overhead camera angle vs. a side shot? The solution is to ban cameras. Or people. Or light. Or kids. Or attractiveness.

        Seriously: do you realize that is not the way world should work? Because something CAN be misused, does not mean it should be banned. Unless that thing ONLY has negative uses, and even then, banning should be a last resort. Are you familiar with the concept of a slippery slope?

        Name one thing in our world that cannot be used in a negative or dangerous way. Anything.

        Also, please link to a news story where hobbyist R/C aircraft have been misused.

      • Surprise! Your permission is not required. Legally, the moon can photo/video you all it wants when you are in public.

        So keep your jacket on. Destruction of someone’s property IS illegal. Getting in someone’s face just seems… unwise.

        To bring it around full circle: It seems like the solution to your non-problem begins with calmly approaching the person and politely seeing what’s up.

Comments are closed.