The conflict arises because hot air balloons proliferate in the desert due to ideal "floating above it all" conditions that also allow the balloons to hover directly over the working farm, which has become an unwilling tourist destination. (photo: The Desert Sun)The owners of the olive farm, the Marrelli family, requested the hot air balloonists not travel over their living quarters at all, a beautiful compound in the Napa Valley style reminiscent of wine country, and also asked that the balloons stay the requisite 500 feet up when they do have to pass over the orchards. This seems like a simple request, especially since the Marrelli family ascertains that the balloonists have made their home a stop on the tour of the Valley, often coming down to the roof line of their residence so passengers on the balloon flights can converse with the family and take endless photos of the property, people, and product!
Where do my rights begin and your rights end? For the Marrelli family, it seems that the public assumes the right to respond to that question: if the balloonists aren't hurting anyone, they have the right to ... .
No, they don't. The property is completely fenced off from ground approach, with security gates designed to permit invited guests onto the property, while keeping unwanted intruders outside. Unfortunately, there is no way to fence off the airspace, but why would anyone assume the right to trespass from the air when it's obvious that trespassing from the ground is a criminal act?
Responses to the Marrelli's family letter are quite firm in the opinion that the Marrelli family should not receive special treatment, including being allowed to post a Letter to the Editor that is, in the responder's opinion, much too long and violates the newspaper's Letter to the Editor stated policy! The Marrelli family, however, rightly states in their letter that they have already received far too much negative press from the local media, most of which is based on erroneous information, and simply want to set the record straight. Quid pro quo?
One balloonist claims that he is now bankrupt solely because he is not allowed to float over the farm. Of course, it follows that he's suing the Marrelli family for his failed business, although there are no legal documents currently on file that the Marrelli family lawyer can locate through the legal system. Thus, the trial is taking place in the media: if the headline is big enough and the accusations made repeatedly, the lies become the truth in the peoples' minds. The rights of the family to protection from an air invasion is obfuscated by the barrage of accusations about "big business" cheating "the little guy" out of his right to make a living.
After all, this is America, and anyone has the right to violate your rights and try the case in the media. Sadly, far too often the violator wins the case, but this time, I hope the Marrelli family's right to privacy from above is affirmed when the case goes to court and the "little guy's" lawsuit is denied.
1 comment:
What most people fail to understand is that you own the airspace up to "a reasonable amount." The law is on the Marrelli family's side, as balloons are not FAA sanctioned craft and their house is not, from what you say here, on the path of a runway. "The landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land." Sounds to me like the balloonists are interfering with their US rights and any court would decide in favor of the property owners.
*finali
Post a Comment