Wis. Legislation to Ban Search By Name
Recently introduced Wis. Assembly Bill 496 is proposing to prohibit the searching of property tax information by name over the Internet. Search by other methods, such as parcel ID number, address, or geography would still be allowed. It appears, subscription-type access would still allow searches by name.
Is there any Wisconsin web mapping site that lets the general public search by name?
(From LIO-Tech)
Update: There are several Wis. web mapping sites that do allow search by name.
Update: WLIA will be getting involved with the discussion and is asking for input.
Many of you are aware of Assembly Bill 496 is being circulated, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday October 9, at 1pm. The scheduling of this hearing took many of us by surprise considering AB 496 was first released on September 6, 2007. In summary, the legislation restricts "taxation districts" from allowing name searches of governmental internet listings of property taxes assessed. This legislation would restrict free county, town, village, and city tax parcel mapping web sites from having a search by name option. Many members have been inquiring on the Associations position on this legislation the last few days, but we have not taken a position at this time. The WLIA board will be meeting in the next few days to consider registering for, against, or neutral to this legislation and attend the hearing on Tuesday, October 9. Since the board represents the membership of the association we would appreciate any feedback on AB 496 that you may have. This is not an official vote of the membership, but you are encouraged to reply and your feedback will be considered when the Board takes action on this in the next few days. Please reply back by Thursday, October 4 using my contact information below.Update: WLIA is taking neutral stance.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason R. Grueneberg, President
Wisconsin Land Information Association
[email to WLIA members on 10/3/2007]
Update: Here's a summary of the 10/9/2007 public hearing:
Over 35 members responded to the WLIA Board's request for thoughts on Assembly Bill 496. We requested your responses so that we could consider them in discussion of whether to register for, against, or neutral for AB 496 at the hearing on Tuesday October 9, at 1pm. Thank you for your responses, they were a huge help in determining how we should respond to this proposed legislation . The responses that were sent in, along with informal discussion board members have had with membership reveal that there is not a consensus on this proposed legislation. Because there is not a consensus the WLIA is registering on AB 496 as neutral for informational purposes. Although a neutral registration does not send as strong of a message as a for or against stance, it does allow us to share some of the common concerns of the membership, and encourages future discussion on this issue with legislators.
In reviewing the membership feedback on AB 496 it is apparent that this is a sensitive issue that members are concerned about. We are encouraging membership to attend the hearing to represent themselves, or their employer. Detailed information on how you can register testimony for, against, or neutral will be sent out shortly. The hearing will be held by the Committee on Urban and Local Affairs on Tuesday, October, 9 at 1pm. [...] If any of the representatives on the Committee on Urban and Local Affairs is in your district, I encourage you to call them and share your thoughts. The following link lists the membership of this committee and the districts that they represent. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/w3asp/commpages/IndividualCommittee.aspx?COMMITTEE=Urban+and+Local+Affairs&HOUSE=Assembly
[...]
Jason R. Grueneberg, President
Wisconsin Land Information Association
[email to WLIA members on 10/6/2007]
Testifying in Support:There's also a scan of the various letters of support & opposition floating around, though I couldn't find a online link to it.
Rep. Parisi
WI Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Yolanda Garza – speaking for herself
Testifying Against:
Recorder of Deeds Association
WI Land Title Assoc.
Testifying for Information Only:
WLIA
Co. Treasurers Assoc.
Registering in Favor:
“CCC” – privacy rights group
Registering Against:
League of Municipalities
WI Newspapers Assoc.
Many of the opponents of the bill focuses on these points:
It will be costly to implement.
Local government is sensitive to the issue and has responded appropriately.
The “one size fits all” approach will not work across the state considering
the large differences in how each county, city etc. are structured.
The language is vague and open to interpretation.
posted by EWUG @ 8:00 PM
6 comments
links to this post
6 Comments:
Search by name? Sure there is. Dane County and Sauk County come to mind right away.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/assessor/NameQuery.cfm
Dane County Assesor's Office, query by last name.
This seems like an asinine knee-jerk response to a legislator (or other elected official) not liking his or her name searchable online. If this bill takes effect you'd simply Google the person's name, acquire their address, and then search by address on the same site!
Almost every municipality here in Michigan uses BS&A's Equalizer software package, which includes a searchable online component. Not everyone that needs property information has a sixteeen-digit parcel ID or address readily available.
My other comment is that we often run into public safety officials, especially police officers, that cringe at the thought of their addresses popping up online. However, as one of my friends that's a lieutenant in a local PD once stated, "If a criminal wants to find your house, he's going to find it out one way or another."
My $0.02 (plus an addition $0.25)
i agree with anonymous!
There could be another angle to this. Not sure what locally is going on Wisc, since I don’t live there.
Could be enough citizens, from a variety of backgrounds and/or different reasons, convinced enough people in authority to change the law.
Some reasons I understand, like a police officer or others who need the "protection" from an easy search online. Personally, I have no problem with the ability to search online. It’s the same as the physical phone book or as anon has said. But, like the phone book, I would want the choice to keep my or others name from being search able.
At the federal level a few years back. A website posted all the people/groups/companies who received some type of farmbill money. It was search able by state, county and (iirr) name. Regardless, if you searched by state or county there was a list of names.
Now, it's not the case. They(some of those who received money) complained and it was fixed. It's now much harder to tie the information back.
Also, the actually geospatial data layer for the individual fields/areas that receive farmbill money. Isn’t available to the public, even though it’s publicly funded, produced, and maintained. Not even a stripped down layer, having all the attributes taken away is available.
KoS
almost every site gives you the chance to opt-out. this is public information. if the government can read my email, why can't I see what the property values are near my house?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home