[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Why is home property information so public?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ask HN: Why is home property information so public?
        
       I get a lot of letters in the mail, texts, and phone calls from
       real estate investors trying to buy one of my rental properties. I
       know they found my info by checking county assessor offices, but
       why is this information publicly published by every county in the
       US?  I recognize that this data is super valuable, particularly to
       brokers and wholesalers, so I'm curious why websites like Zillow
       don't also publish the name of the owner of a property, yet they
       publish all other information about the property and its history?
        
       Author : ginkoutest
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2023-09-03 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
       | Digory wrote:
       | 1. The Public needs to know if they are permitted to be at a
       | place or not. Or even if they can claim it. Homesteading in the
       | US (claiming public land as private land) only ended in 1986.
       | 
       | 2. Because police need to know who belongs at a place, and who to
       | exclude.
       | 
       | 3. The government wants to know who to tax for the land.
       | 
       | 4. Generally, we think the government's information should be
       | publicly available, not hidden.
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | 1. is possible without knowing the owner's identity - "public"
         | (and maybe whether that means federal or state) and "private"
         | seems to be enough.
         | 
         | 2. breaks down when you consider rentals. A tenant might be
         | legally allowed to deny access to a landlord in some
         | circumstances. Tenants are usually not registered in property
         | registers.
         | 
         | For 3., how does the information for taxation have to be
         | public? The government also needs to know my pay history to tax
         | me, and that's not public either.
         | 
         | 4. if it's the government's information _about me_ , should I
         | really get absolutely no say in how it's published?
        
           | pixl97 wrote:
           | >4. if it's the government's information about me, should I
           | really get absolutely no say in how it's published?
           | 
           | This is not the governments information about you... This is
           | the 'publics' information about you and who owns property in
           | their communities.
           | 
           | Stop thinking of the government as some kind of corporation,
           | and instead the executive will of the populace itself.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | beardyw wrote:
       | Because people have been living in houses for millennia and such
       | an idea of privacy would only have emerged in the last few
       | decades.
        
         | 13of40 wrote:
         | In fact, only two or three decades ago it was standard for the
         | telephone service to print everyone's name, address, and phone
         | number in a big book, distribute it to every house and charge
         | you $5 a month extra if you wanted to opt out of the list.
        
           | smugma wrote:
           | <15 years ago a friend went and got thousands of signatures
           | to make phone books opt in vs opt out in SF. He did some sort
           | of stunt where he collected over a thousand phone books and
           | took a picture of them in front of city hall or other public
           | place.
        
           | Gibbon1 wrote:
           | In the past I've tracked down the names of people in old
           | photo's with a viable house number by guessing the city and
           | searching newspaper archives. Then confirm with a streetview.
           | The archives will have articles mentioning people with their
           | street address.
           | 
           | My thought is Americans have become really paranoid compared
           | to people 50 years ago. And people are often under the
           | illusion that people can find out a lot about you with little
           | effort isn't true.
        
             | jfengel wrote:
             | Computers have made a lot of information that was
             | theoretically accessible into pragmatically accessible.
             | There was a kind of semi privacy that is changing. Some
             | have adjusted by insisting that it was genuine privacy all
             | along. Others don't care that semi private is now public,
             | largely because they still feel pragmatically anonymous and
             | unthreatened by what isn't.
             | 
             | Neither is entirely wrong, but the ones with the strongest
             | feelings either way don't do a great job of taking the
             | others into account.
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | The idea of a property register is much younger than a few
         | millenia, though, so that's not a good argument for its default
         | privacy level.
         | 
         | The United States are also younger than even a single
         | millenium.
        
       | LinuxBender wrote:
       | I do not have an answer for your specific question and I am not
       | an expert on this but for what it's worth one can purchase
       | properties in the name of a trust or a business. It will still be
       | public but a trust can be anonymously named in some states. This
       | can have property tax implications depending on the type of trust
       | and the state so review the options in your location with a
       | lawyer knowledgeable in trusts and property taxes.
        
         | bozhark wrote:
         | Trust, business, LLC, foundation, church.
         | 
         | There's many options
        
       | uberman wrote:
       | I think one reason is historically, if you and I own property
       | next to each other but you pay twice the property tax that I pay,
       | the public might have an interest in knowing who I was and how I
       | got a sweetheart assessment.
       | 
       | If you want to obfuscate your ownership i imagine you could
       | create a trust or LLC and transfer and sell your direct ownership
       | to the new entity. This might have some short and long term tax
       | implications and I would consult a tak expert.
       | 
       | Many ranches were i live are now owned by family trusts i assume
       | for inheritance reasons.
        
       | giantg2 wrote:
       | Why would they publish names? It's really no value to home buyers
       | to see the name associated with a listing. In some cases, there
       | are antidiscrimination laws that limit what information should be
       | disclosed to sellers and buyers. Name might be one of those.
        
         | cpursley wrote:
         | All this is available (including names of owners) from your
         | typical government assessors web portal. Or via consolidators
         | where the ownership, zoning, acreage, tax assessments and other
         | data is available via an api call.
        
       | prepend wrote:
       | I don't think the name is important for Zillow site visitors so
       | they don't publish it. The value and features are important.
       | 
       | I imagine Zillow sells marketing databases with actual names.
       | 
       | And of course you can just go to the county assessor to look up
       | the name. But I don't think Zillow even links to their source.
        
         | cpursley wrote:
         | They probably just get the info from data wholesalers who get
         | it by scrapping government assessor databases (ATTOM, etc).
        
       | postingawayonhn wrote:
       | Probably the biggest reason would be so that when you buy a
       | property you can independently confirm the vendor actually owns
       | it.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | benlivengood wrote:
       | Why wouldn't ownership be public? See the recent uproar[0] over
       | the semi-anonymous purchase of land near Travis AFB. This is a
       | clear case where market inefficiency is bad; individual sellers
       | need to know when markets are changing and a single entity is
       | willing to pay above assumed market rates for a large contiguous
       | region. Anyone in favor of strong markets should favor full
       | transparency of real estate ownership and transactions. My fear
       | is that otherwise we'll revert to de facto feudalism where the
       | wealthiest entities can acquire and lease out virtually all real
       | property.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.kqed.org/news/11957208/near-1-billion-land-
       | purch...
        
         | beebmam wrote:
         | Why should real estate have MORE stringent requirements on
         | ownership disclosure than stock ownership?
        
           | tomtheelder wrote:
           | It shouldn't, but real estate disclosure isn't the problem
           | there.
        
           | pc86 wrote:
           | This is an argument to make stock ownership more public, not
           | to make real estate ownership less public.
        
           | kwhitefoot wrote:
           | Why should stock ownership have LESS stringent requirements
           | on ownership disclosure than real estate?
        
       | kanbara wrote:
       | you want your ownership of multiple properties that you dont
       | contribute value to but earn equity in on the backs of renters to
       | be private so you don't get spam? or is there another reason?
        
       | rawgabbit wrote:
       | _Criminals have for decades anonymously hidden ill-gotten gains
       | in real estate, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in March,
       | adding that as much as $2.3 billion was laundered through U.S.
       | real estate between 2015 and 2020._
       | 
       | https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-set-unveil-long-awaited-...
        
       | a_square_peg wrote:
       | The United States has a policy about government data - including
       | weather (e.g. NOAA) and GPS, to be made freely available to the
       | public. Your property data, collected at the county level, falls
       | under this category so they are accessible to everyone.
       | 
       | However, I think Zillow would be prevented from publishing the
       | owner name, since it would probably be classified as Personal
       | Identifiable Information (PII).
        
         | Atotalnoob wrote:
         | If you aren't following any regulations, PII can be published.
         | 
         | You only have to worry about PII if you have to be compliant
         | with a standard that prevents it.
        
       | dan-robertson wrote:
       | Well the tax assessment is public probably so that people can see
       | that the government is acting honestly.
       | 
       | I don't know if there's a particularly good reason for ownership
       | to be public. Some countries only have transaction dates/prices
       | but not names published. Some countries make everyone's
       | individual tax returns publicly available. I don't know why the
       | us found this particular balance.
       | 
       | I assume that Zillow would get a load of angry emails if they
       | published ownership information and it isn't worth enough to them
       | to publish it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-09-03 23:00 UTC)