New York Times Comes to Malibu

I was recently interviewed for a story that will soon appear in the New York Times regarding the recent FAA restrictions of airspace and  shooting video and photographs for high-end real estate listings.

It seems that the L.A. Police Department thought it should check out the situation after one of its officers saw one of these photo shoots in progress. A police officer felt it was his duty to check with Film L.A. to see if a permit was necessary for this type of activity. He was informed that a permit was not required, but he persisted and asked them to call the Beverly Hills board and ask them to notify Realtors that the helicopters were now illegal and not to use them.

Amazing!

The truth is the FAA's stance is no remote-controlled vehicles are allowed for commercial use. It is not considered dangerous, nor is it a safety or national security issue. It is just that no one can be paid to do it. What a perfect example of government red tape and how to shut down an entire industry for no reason.

The NY Times is taking the FAA on, and hopes these types of senseless regulations are removed. I have spoken to companies all over the United States and estimate the loss of jobs and taxes to be significant. Not a smart move. If there were additional fees or permits for this type of cottage industry, it would push the price out of reach. There are no margins for the possibility of fees and permits that could add an additional $1,000 to the already fragile industry.

I have been successfully using this type of marketing for my high-end homes for years, and have found it to be an excellent tool for making a home stand out in today's competitive market. Fortunately, I have already found a way to do aerial photography without the remote-controlled helicopter component. To see an example go to www.billkerbox.com and click on one of the video feeds.