|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | GISList: If our tax dollars made the database, GIS or otherwise ... it belongs to us. |
| Date: |
11/19/2002 11:25:54 PM |
| From: |
Research .. NucleusGIS.com |
|
|
Great !!
The same tax dollars made the $4 million armoured BMW my Head Of Government
is buying. Should we expect a ride in it ?
Best Wishes to all who said Yes.
----- Original Message -----
From: HealthMaps <healthmaps@attbi.com>
To: <gislist@geocomm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: GISList: Cost of GIS Data
> 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
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
