A hot air balloon fight in the Coachella Valley

[Feuer Frei!]

Interesting story this one:

Nearly every winter sunrise for decades, hot air balloons floated above the Coachella Valley. People on the ground would wave and admire the chromatic airships, while the passengers would gaze down at the date palm groves, the sere desert floor, the plum shadows on the San Jacintos.
Then the Marrellis came to town.
They bought an 80-acre parcel in 1999, double-fenced it and planted it with thousands of olive trees. When the trees were grown and provided a screen, they started building a compound in the style of a "Moorish fortress castle": two sprawling buildings and a bell tower, surrounded by 24-foot-high walls — four feet thick — with turrets on each corner and a deep moat at the entrance.
In a business plan marked "personal and confidential" contained in a court file, they called it Oasis Ranch and stressed the need for privacy, exclusivity and security at what they described as a "getaway" and a "retreat."
Neighbors never met John and Carol Marrelli — who lived on a hillside estate in Del Mar, according to voter registration records — and knew little of the castle; the trees hid all but the barrel-tiled roof of the tower.
Only later would they learn how much the family disliked having hot air balloons fly overhead.
Cindy Wilkinson, who owns Fantasy Balloon Flights with her husband, got her first cease-and-desist letter on Nov. 20, 2007.



Attorneys for the Marrellis alleged that her balloons were flying too low over Oasis Ranch, violating Federal Aviation Administration rules and creating a "public nuisance" and an "invasion of privacy" amounting to "harassment."
"If that was not enough, we received a phone call from our construction superintendent (the ranch is under construction) who indicated that a worker nearly plunged to his death from the 55' tower … when he was startled by one of your balloons flying dangerously close to the property," according to the letter.
The attorney asked that the balloons stop floating over the property at all — even though they had a right to fly at 500 feet or less while taking off or landing — or face "immediate legal action."


READ ON

[Anthony W.]

"You can NOT own the sky."

And apparently these stuck up pricks think they can.

To my knowledge, you can not buy and restrict the use of airspace.

Has anyone ever gone in to see that they aren't doing illegal things under that tree canopy?

Seems like the only other people who go through such trouble to hide the ground are the mass marijuana growers.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

They bought an 80-acre parcel in 1999, double-fenced it and planted it with thousands of olive trees. When the trees were grown and provided a screen, they started building a compound in the style of a "Moorish fortress castle": two sprawling buildings and a bell tower, surrounded by 24-foot-high walls — four feet thick — with turrets on each corner and a deep moat at the entrance.

Sounds like my retirement home fantasy.

FAA says that other than for landing and taking off, a minimum altitude over sparse population is 500 feet AGL and 500 feet from the edge of the walls.

If the balloons are flying below that they are in violation. If they are flying above that, they are not.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Sounds like my retirement home fantasy.

FAA says that other than for landing and taking off, a minimum altitude over sparse population is 500 feet AGL and 500 feet from the edge of the walls.

If the balloons are flying below that they are in violation. If they are flying above that, they are not.

Then I could make a lot of money off the para sails that do touch and go's in the back field

[CaptainHaplo]

Parasailing is significanlty different (regulation wise) compared to Free Flight Ballooning. If your unsure about whether people near you are obeying the regulations (which are designed to protect their - and your - safety), then research them and go from there.

In the case above, if they are not following the regs, they are in the wrong. If they are above the 500' mark, then its a moot point and the landowners can suck eggs.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I thought this was going down the route of a Brit couples attempts to flounce construction laws a few years ago.

The couple owned an area of land and the planning laws are something along the lines of if a building has been standing (without complaint) for x-amount of time it can stay with no further interference from the council, so this couple built their 'castle' hidden by bales of hay in the hope it wouldn't get spotted and demolished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7210056.stm

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

I thought this was going down the route of a Brit couples attempts to flounce construction laws a few years ago.

The couple owned an area of land and the planning laws are something along the lines of if a building has been standing (without complaint) for x-amount of time it can stay with no further interference from the council, so this couple built their 'castle' hidden by bales of hay in the hope it wouldn't get spotted and demolished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7210056.stm

If he hid THAT behind HAY STACKS then he DESERVES to keep it.