A few recent posts have touched on the state of public records, or even what could come of public land records.
I am fortunate to live in a State that leaves that up to each County. And, probably not unique to Oklahoma, each County has its idiosyncrasies. Largely populated Counties have their problems with volume and access; rural and remote Counties have their own unique brand of problems also.
I worked in one of the least populated Counties in Oklahoma, Kay Co., a few years ago. I was pleasantly surprised to see such a 'sleepy' place that had just implemented a GIS oriented database that was light years ahead of everybody else. Pull up an aerial with parcels overlayed, clickety-click on a parcel and a window pops up with all the latest conveyances and recordations that were associated with that particular piece of property. Something that would be impossible undertaking in say, Tulsa County. But with sparsely populated Kay County, it was possible.
I agree that "at the vanishing point" it appears that GIS and property records could somehow ultimately merge. As a surveyor I can see a use for such records. But sadly, I don't really see local governments being able to fund the implementation and maintenance of such a database. Some County Clerks barely can afford toner cartridges.
The lion's share of our work at the moment is utility R/W..statewide. It would almost be prohibitively expensive for me to travel to all of the 77 Counties I work in for record retrieval. I subscribe to a number of second party records libraries that have almost the entire State's land records available..for a price. Record Books, Recorded Plat images, even Recorded Surveys are all available.
I spend a few thousand dollars a year for these services. It is an expense. I don't so much see a future with the Public Offices providing a plethora of digital data. What I do see are second party providers picking up the slack. It will happen. Heck, it's happening now.
Get out the VISA folks, they don't take American Express...
> ...Some County Clerks barely can afford toner cartridges....
I think that there is a lot of support for GIS going to these counties from the state level. In the long run it is cheaper to maintain these records in a GIS than to maintain 98 courthouse record rooms, and at some point it become worth it to make the investment.
> I don't so much see a future with the Public Offices providing a plethora of digital data. What I do see are second party providers picking up the slack. It will happen. Heck, it's happening now.
I'd almost always rather work with paper records, all other things being equal (which of course they never are). In Texas, there are some counties, such as Bexar, that have scanned the entirety of their deed records and made them available on line. Unfortunately, the weak link in the chain was the prison inmate who transcribed the handwritten Grantor/Grantee indices and the technician who assigned the page numbers to the scanned images. As a result, about 10% or more of all old documents are practically invisible in the online records, either because a name was so completely mangled by the transcriber that the remains could not be identified, or because of low-bid, low-quality pagination of scans.
The insidious thing is, of course, that once a large amount of money has been spend on a digital archive and it performs at 90% efficiency, the remaining 10% tends not to get remedied. I'd think this would be just as true in the private sector as the public, possibly more so.
The other problem with the for-profit sector is that they will as a rule not have much incentive to digitize low-demand records such as those from the 19th century that surveyors refer to regularly. If all you want are, say, deeds since 1988, there are a number of counties ready to serve you via the for-profit vendors. Otherwise, you are SOL. I think that will tend to be inherent in any for-profit digital archive.
Once a public records data base has been created and maintained, once the maps have been scanned - all using public tax dollars, it should be made available for the simple cost of duplicating.
It actually benefits the County because it cuts down on the requests for information AND it benefits the public in general by providing the land surveyor easy access to critical reference material. As public servants that should be their job.
The States could greatly assist the effort of disseminating public records by providing a server and portal, where every county uploads data, consistent in nature, to an interface that they do not have to design or maintain.
I know this will fly in the face of the surveyors in non recording states that have a monopoly on private records for one reason or another, thus giving them a competative edge against other companies.
The States could greatly assist the effort of disseminating public records by providing a server and portal, where every county uploads data, consistent in nature, to an interface that they do not have to design or maintain.
That's a great idea, one I'd like to see in Utah for the poor rural counties. Otherwise it's gong to be a long time to never before we get easy access to the records we need to do survey work. We have a start with our statewide PLSS corner record site. Next we need surveys and hopefully it will grow from there.
It was a break though in my county when they decided they will email stuff for the same charge as copies in the recorders office. I can get all plats and deeds on the computer (since about 1993) via emails. If you need something only in the books you must go there and copy it yourself. I can't get a copy of the abstract books in any form, not even my own digital picture, they won't copy or scan them period, so it's a 30 mile trip one way to access them with your eyes only.
They need to quit looking at serving the public as a source of revenue. It isn't - by the time you consider the true cost of the employee's time...they would actually be ahead avoiding the request all together. Good luck getting them to see that.
Despite that, times are changing, however slow.
You nailed that one!
> Once a public records data base has been created and maintained, once the maps have been scanned - all using public tax dollars, it should be made available for the simple cost of duplicating.
I have no problem paying money to fund the maintenance of an archive. I would prefer that they be self-funding as much as possible instead of subject to some future austerity in budgeting. Having said that though, I do agree that one of the primary functions of government is the keeping of public records such as those that pertain to real property and (in theory) it would be better for the State to assist local government with the information infrastructure.
On the other hand, the State I'm familiar with tends to purchase on the basis of low bid and without the most sophisticated specifications. It probably is smarter to let the counties have a go at it to see what works and doesn't and then make it available statewide.
I have to admit that was the optimist in me. My state is not capable of doing very many things correctly at any cost that is remotely close to reasonable. I'm hopeful that it is different in the free states.
I would have to say if there were any money to be made from privatizing records and vital statistics there will be one scungili to show up and give it a try.
The model to keep in mind is the MERS system of registry. Wiped out untold county revenue from proper assignment, then killed them on the backside with unbillable property tax revenue and distressed properties. no ???
