Group Sues Santa Clara County, CA for Reasonably Priced GIS Data

About Directions

Special Announcement

Newsletter Sign Up

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

myteams.dot.ga.gov (88)
planetgs.com (78)
www.thegisforum.com (68)
www.spatialsciences.org.au (32)
manomano.livejournal.com (31)

Our Points

Thursday, October 12. 2006

Group Sues Santa Clara County, CA for Reasonably Priced GIS Data

The Associated Press reports that the California First Amendment Coalition is suing Santa Clara county California over its "government monopoly" on the base map. The group feels such action voliates the Public Records Act and the fees prevent all but the richest business players (from real estate, utilities, etc.) to acquire the data. Santa Clara states that the data is copyrighted and proprietary, though I'm not sure how that impacts the price it charges.

The AP story describes GIS this way:

The technology can be used much like the popular Google Earth tool, which allows users to examine detailed maps based on satellite images.

Posted by Adena Schutzberg at 06:57 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on this. As I understand it, FOIA requires counties to make their data available, but also allows them to charge enough money to recoup their costs. But the law is vague on exactly how much they can charge. Some counties interpret the law to mean they can charge as much as it costs to put the data on a CD - others interpret it to mean they can charge for the labor put into generating and maintaining the data. Several counties I work in charge upwards of $10,000 for a complete data set. Other counties charge about $20 for a comparable data set.

#1 Ben Slater on 2006-10-12 15:32 (Reply)

There is far more benefit in giving away data than trying to charge for it...the idea a government might "compete" and "make our money back" for the geospatial products is absurd.

I challenge any such program to open their books and demonstrate they covered anything close to the cost of the reproduction program...much less the acquisition cost.

Data should be viewed as a sunk/consumable cost. Just like copy paper, gasoline, or utilities.

#2 Archie Belaney on 2006-10-15 13:51 (Reply)

In my experience regarding GIS Parcel Data for California, I believe if the county owns the data, they should make it available at cost of copying the data to disc and shipping. If the data is owned by a commercial vendor, then let market forces dictate the pricing.

Regards,
Steve Laine
Laine GIS Consulting
1223 King St
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.460.1617 ph/fax
831.600.6437 cell

#3 Steve Laine (Link) on 2006-10-16 17:16 (Reply)

Fascism, Fascism, Fascism

#4 Clinton Gallagher (Link) on 2006-10-17 10:44 (Reply)

Gallagher,
would you care to elaborate?

Steve

#5 steve laine (Link) on 2006-10-17 11:27 (Reply)

Unfortunately the typical governmental entity that is responsible for creating and maintaining the data does not have a budget source and must compete with other business in the government for dollars to operate. While some counties see the full value in their GIS data, charging for data may be one of the ways for this office to show a return on investment to the county commission.

#6 Jim Hall on 2006-10-17 15:05 (Reply)

Santa Clara County originally spent about 650k to have their GIS land base digitized from 250 mylar maps from the surveyor's office- I should no, I was part of the team that constructed the map, back in 93-94. The county probably spends more than 300k for GIS employees alone, and who knows how much on IT infrastructure, software and hardware upgrades annually... Santa Clara is doing a lot of work for the Community utilizing the GIS data they are maintaining.

Why isn't anyone screaming about Orange County? - their argument for maintainance does not hold water,since SoCalGas is footing the bill.

My 3 cents worth...

#7 steve laine (Link) on 2006-10-17 15:18 (Reply)

A blogger just found this reading GeoWorld's December issue: http://openjump.blogspot.com/2006/12/quarter-million-dollar-shapefile.html

I knew I read it here first!

#8 anon on 2006-12-20 16:23 (Reply)

Don't we allready pay for this with our taxes? Why should we have to pay twice? State and local government work to serve the public.

#9 Mike on 2008-09-11 02:30 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your opinion of the quality of Google's "new" U.S. dataset?

	November '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30