access to public information about land ownership

[Adventure Mapper]

Recently a few people have asked me for maps that show land ownership so that they can avoid trespassing (or at least know when they are doing it). The difficulty of getting this data varies from easy access on-line to difficult access by formal request for a CD/DVD. In the Columbia Gorge area I have never found it to be essentially unavailable as it is in Orange County, CA. These amicus brief refer to a case currently before the California Supreme Court in which the Sierra Club is trying to stop Orange County from charging $375,000 for copies of land ownership data.
here and here Some of the interesting parts are quoted below.

So far I have been able to get LiDAR data for free although it is not always on-line and it is not always easy. I don't think government agencies are trying to prevent access to this data. It is just that the software tools for pubic access are still being developed.

The maps we use for hiking are based almost entirely on public information. The Sierra Club and amici curiae are defending our access to that information. (Of course, copyrighted maps like Green Trails, Tom Harrison Maps, and Garmin maps are an entirely different matter. These are not available for free because they are not created by public agencies. They should not be copied except as allowed by their authors.)

II. AMICI CURIAE’S REASON FOR FILING
Amici Curiae work frequently with GIS-compatible data related to land parcels that is created by public agencies, and they are concerned about the potential harm that could come from rescinding the public domain status of this data. If Orange County, and perhaps all California counties, were allowed to sell their GIS-formatted parcel basemap data at prices higher than the cost of duplication, then citizens, private organizations and government agencies would be limited or excluded from access to this vital informational resource.

Like all states, California’s Public Record Act ensures citizens’ access to information created and relied upon by state agencies. See Cal. Gov. Code § 6250 et seq. Unlike most states, however, California’s commitment to transparency is so profound that this right of access is enshrined within California’s Constitution. Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3, subdiv. (b). The primary concern of this right is access to government information. Id. (“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business[.]”) (emphasis added). The right to access this information exists regardless of the format in which the information is stored. See Cal. Gov. Code § 6252(g) (describing “writings” available under the California Public Records Act “regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored”); Cal. Gov. Code § 6253.9(a) (state agencies must “make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information”). § 6254.9, too, reiterates the government’s requirement to make public information available, regardless of format: “Nothing in [the computer software exemption] is intended to affect the public record status of information merely because it is stored in a computer.” Cal. Gov. Code § 6254.9(d).

[kepPNW]

I don't think government agencies are trying to prevent access to this data. It is just that the software tools for pubic access are still being developed.

Well, not wholly. Collection of the data is incredibly expensive, and there are those who feel that some degree of cost recovery ought to be included when it's shared. (I don't fall into that camp, for the record.) A colleague of mine, at Portland Metro, took it so far as to get a specific exemption from the state's Public Records law for GIS data, so that they could bundle it up as a quasi-commercial product. And the truth is, most of those wanting such data will use it to great financial gain themselves, because as you suggest the software isn't generally available.

[Guy]

A colleague of mine, at Portland Metro, took it so far as to get a specific exemption from the state's Public Records law for GIS data, so that they could bundle it up as a quasi-commercial product.

So I don't know enough about this to form a definite opinion but on the face of it this sets off alarm bells for me.
A public agency funded by "the public" then charging "the public" for the data it collects.

[kepPNW]

A colleague of mine, at Portland Metro, took it so far as to get a specific exemption from the state's Public Records law for GIS data, so that they could bundle it up as a quasi-commercial product.

So I don't know enough about this to form a definite opinion but on the face of it this sets off alarm bells for me.
A public agency funded by "the public" then charging "the public" for the data it collects.

My immediate gut reaction, too. The Oregon legislature was persuaded otherwise. And I think others were too.

At the time (early-90s?), there really was no way for 99%+ of "the public" to make use of the data. The only ones wanting it were consulting shops, who then leveraged the public investment to make major amounts of money. Which, not coincidentally, was more often than not by doing taxpayer-funded studies! So the thinking was that since that's what it's being used for then they ought to be contributing more than the cost of duplication towards its collection. Even a "data wants to be free!" guy can sorta appreciate that logic. It's all circular, though. No matter what, "the public" is paying for it.

I think that over time, more and more of the data has escaped. And most jurisdictions now supply it through online interfaces sufficient to meet many public needs. It's just the wholesale data dumps that tend to have very high "duplication costs" these days.

[Adventure Mapper]

DOGAMI sells beautifully rendered LiDAR based maps that could be considered to be art works. They sell the raw data also but there are other free sources.

One disturbing trend is that public agencies are using ESRI file geo-databases rather than shapefiles, e.g., BLM road closures. There are a number of free or cheap ways of viewing and processing shapefiles but as far as I know ArcGIS is the only way to do anything with a geo-database. New versions of Global Mapper will open a .gdb but they say you must have an ArcGIS license. I have tried to use QGIS to open .gdb without success. I'd like to know if anyone has done it.

[raven]

It does not matter if the cost of collecting the data is "terribly expensive" for distribution of the data after it has been collected. If data are collected for one purpose irrespective of other potential uses by or for a government -- which means the people in the region governed -- then the marginal costs of other uses of the data are only the costs of distribution. The government requires tax data; land use planning and zoning require mapping; other uses should be unfettered once the data is used for those purposes.

Would Metro collect the GIS data in the absence of wider distribution? Clearly yes, for it has been. I know of no data collected by Metro to sell rather than use internally or for other local governments; if so there would be a valid argument that that data, and only that data, have cost of collection recovered.

In economics, the collection costs are fixed costs. The costs associated with serving an additional user marginal costs. There is an argument that the education of the electorate implies that the distribution costs be subsidized. I know of no economic argument for jacking them up because at best doing so distorts the tax structure.

[kepPNW]

No disagreement here, raven. I was just shining a light on a little history, there...

I'm pretty sure the clincher was that (at the time) the only folks wanting the data were ones who in turn were trying to sell (the utility of) it back to the public. That could just be my interpretation, but that's how I recall it.

[Adventure Mapper]

One argument for charging for data is that the public would not approve of the expense if there wasn't a way to offset some of the cost. If the agency is not allowed to charge for the data it simply won't be generated in the first place. This may be true for some LiDAR data but certainly not for land ownership where the data must be maintained in any case.

There are certainly private contractors who make a profit using public data but there are many non-profits such as The Sierra Club that use public data to advocate for the protection of public lands. For example, LiDAR data can be used to show where road building has caused landslides.

[kepPNW]

One disturbing trend is that public agencies are using ESRI file geo-databases rather than shapefiles, e.g., BLM road closures. There are a number of free or cheap ways of viewing and processing shapefiles but as far as I know ArcGIS is the only way to do anything with a geo-database.

How about ArcExplorer?

http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisexplorer/ ... e_data.htm

[kepPNW]

One argument for charging for data is that the public would not approve of the expense if there wasn't a way to offset some of the cost. If the agency is not allowed to charge for the data it simply won't be generated in the first place.

Yeah, now that you say that, I think they were arguing that, as well.

There are certainly private contractors who make a profit using public data but there are many non-profits such as The Sierra Club that use public data to advocate for the protection of public lands.

Twenty years ago, hardly anyone could afford to work with it other than government and government contractors. Of course the barriers to entry have lowered tremendously since then, but as you've noted they're still not low enough for most folks to gain entry at what they'd consider reasonable cost.