|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Cost of GIS Data |
| Date: |
11/19/2002 09:10:11 PM |
| From: |
HealthMaps |
|
|
In the state of WA this is precisely the argument that even (most) local
governments use to make data GIS essentially free. The state supreme court
ruled against a large city who wanted to charge hundreds of $ for pretty
basic GIS data.
This was compounded by dozens for freedom of information act requests which
also did not fall on deaf ears by the Court either.
Public Domain means just that, we paid for it, its ours. Period. No CD ROM
cutting costs, no hourly costs for making files, etc. Just plain hand it
over.
Fortunately the governor's office supports this notion too. Not just with
GIS data but with any state data. Pending privacy concerns with individual
level data, it is available. The biggest hoop is Institutional Review Board
consent for geocoded individual level records, which has proved to be
workable and reasonable.
If our tax dollars made the database, GIS or otherwise ... it belongs to us.
R Hoskins
Olympia, WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Morgan [mailto:rmorgan@aerialsexpress.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:30 PM
To: dar@manifold.net: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: Cost of GIS Data
<APPLAUSE!>
May we quote you, Dimitri?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri Rotow [mailto:dar@manifold.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:16 PM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: Cost of GIS Data
> Parcel data is up to debate. It is more a judgment call to be made by
> politicians. IMO it should not be sold, it should either be free
It's also up to judges as well as politicians. In fact, it is a judgement
call that has already been made by politicians and judges over the last two
hundred years or so as innumerable laws and judicial precedents have set
forth fairly clear standards as to what is "public record" and what is not.
For example, it's a matter of public record if an adult has been arrested
for a crime and has been tried, and it's a matter of public record what the
disposition of that case was and what the verdict was. I'm not an expert in
real estate law, but I am pretty near 100% certain that property ownership
records are in fact public records.
Public records are, literally, in the public domain. You don't need
anybody's permission to report that so-and-so was convicted of petty theft
or that so-and-so was sentenced to 10 weekends of county service for
stealing CDs from the local Costco. You can even put that information into
a database and put it on the Internet. That's the meaning of "public
domain"... you can do with the information what you please. After all, it's
sure not "public" if the only way you can publish the information is in a
manner that it is not likely to be seen or used by anyone.
Given the striking combination of corruption, craftiness, laziness and
parochial interest one finds in some politicians it's no surprise that many
of them find observing the law inconvenient and so one encounters no end of
slick arguments and tricky bureaucratic maneuvers that make sure public
records can't be used or accessed by the public.
For example, if public property ownership is really a public record the
classic example would be to say, "Sure, our property ownership records are
public records... just file an application and once the access committee
reviews your credentials we'll let you look at the microfiche in three weeks
for a half-hour appointment. But, we don't allow any note-taking materials
or photographs."
California happens to have an unusually potent law guaranteeing access to
public records, so if a California jurisdiction has parcel map records in
machine readable format (and, if such records are public records, which I
think they are) they better make sure to make them available without any
funny obstacles. The California law is unusual in that not only does it
guarantee public access to public records, it also awards attorney's fees if
you have to sue to force access to those records. This is in great contrast
to the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which, of course, is
utterly toothless.
> to all, or
> closed to all. "Closed" meaning available under your current policies,
> usually map books and maybe a computer terminal looking up one
> record at a
> time.
>
A good example of an obstacle. In many states, one could get the entire
database without having to be forced to thread it through a needle's eye one
handwritten record at a time.
Making public records available to the public for zero cost (or nominal
copying charges) is good for the economy as well. Any amount of drag you
can remove from your local economy is just one more way of differentiating
your jurisdiction as a more modern, responsive, cost-efficient location in
which savvy citizens and savvy businesses would like to locate.
Trade in real estate is also a big engine
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
