Shutterstock

California affirms that cities can't withhold digital mapping information.

Back in 2007, the Sierra Club requested a copy of what it thought was a public record from Orange County, California, covering information like the location and addresses of 640,000 land parcels in the county. The local government held the information in a geographic information system, or GIS database, a much more modern equivalent of the old spreadsheet, or the older-still stack of printed papers. In exchange for handing over a copy of the digital file, which can be used to map data, the county requested a $375,000 licensing fee.

As you can imagine, the Sierra Club balked – both at the price tag and the suggestion that this taxpayer-funded database of public information wasn't available under the state's open records law. Six years later, the California Supreme Court this week agreed with the Sierra Club [PDF] that digital mapping data is public data, too.

To underscore the strange nature of Orange County's logic, local officials had offered to hand over all of the information on printed paper. But they argued that GIS files were "computer software," and therefore exempt from the state records law (and open to a revenue stream that would help recoup the costs of maintaining the database).

"When the government already has [the information] in that format, there’s no excuse for withholding it from the public in that format," says Mark Rumold, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Sierra Club. "It’s another question if the government has to go through tremendous cost and expense to produce them, to get them into a particular format. But when taxpayers are paying for the record to be created in that format, and there’s tremendous informational value that can be gleaned form those records, there’s really no excuse."

According to the court's ruling, over 80 percent of California counties already consider GIS databases public records.

The central issue isn't simply about property data. Much of the public data held by local governments – on parking tickets, building code violations, crime incidents – contains a spatial component, and so might be held in this kind of GIS file. Put information in that format, and it also becomes much more valuable... which is also why Orange County seemed to believe they could charge a lot of money for it.

"There’s tremendous value, not just in GIS databases, but in any type of public record when the records can be read by a machine," Rumold says. "There’s tremendous amounts of analytics that can be done. That’s true across the board, whether it’s for property records of IRS tax return information, or anything else."

Scott Prokop / Shutterstock.com

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. Life

    The ‘Marie Kondo Effect’ Comes at a Weird Time for Thrift Stores

    Netflix’s hit show has everyone tidying up, but that's not the only reason second-hand stores are being flooded with donations.

  2. A photo of a DART light rail train in Dallas, Texas.
    Transportation

    What Cities Are Getting Wrong About Public Transportation

    Cities could get more people walking, biking, and riding transit, according to a new report, if they just know where to look for improvement.

  3. A photo of President Donald Trump showing off U.S.-Mexico border wall prototypes in March 2018.
    Perspective

    This Isn't a Border Wall: It's a Monument to White Supremacy

    Like Confederate monuments, President Trump’s vision of a massive wall along the Mexican border is about propaganda and racial oppression, not national security.

  4. a photo of a transit bus under a freeway in Los Angeles, California.
    Transportation

    Los Angeles Passed a Historic Transit Tax. Why Isn’t It Working?

    Voters who supported L.A.’s Measure M may like transit, but they don’t seem to want a city that’s built for it.

  5. Inscriptions on a Confederate monument in Linn Park in Birmingham, Alabama.
    Equity

    Alabama Can’t Make Birmingham Display Confederate Monument

    The legal decision was monumental both for its dismantling of a pro-Confederate law and the implications for cities’ rights in the face of states’ rights.