Re: [PLUG] City Lawyer: We Don't Store Data on Hard Disk

[Edmund Goppelt <webmaster@hallwatch.org>]

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 01:51:44PM -0400, Barry Roomberg wrote:
> > If the City isn't lying, then why won't they say what is preventing
> > them from copying their database records to CD?  It seems to me they
> > have nothing to lose and everything to gain by explaining what the
> > technical hold up is.
> 
> Because there is a political motivation not to give you that particular
> bit of information.  This is what is critical in the assement of taxes, right?
> If you plot all these values you will be able to determine that they have
> been BSing concerning their usage of them, which in turn will make
> their life very difficult.
> If you spider their site, and call them on it, then they will say the
> values change all the time, which will invalidate your analysis.
> 
> They are setting you up for a no-win situation.

Wow!  What you say makes a lot of sense.  I'm going to forward a copy
of your email to my lawyer. For the life of us we couldn't figure out
why the BRT was fighting us tooth and nail on the EQID when they've
given us all the other data fields we asked for (on CD of course).

> You really need the formula that drives the creation of these
> fields, or you need to know how often they are refreshed.  Most
> likely you will never have access to all the source pieces of data
> that drives the creation of the field.

Already done.  In another part of the law suit we ask that the BRT be
compelled to release the software they use to calculate assessments.

We're on shakier ground here legally, because there is some question
as to whether computer software is a public record under Pennsylvania
Law.  The City lawyer is claiming that the CAMA (Computer Assisted
Mass Appraisal) software we asked for does not exist.  According to
her CAMA is an "intangible process" not software.  Read her brief:

http://www.hallwatch.org/rtkasuits/suits/brt/briefs/choksi_response

The reason I wanted to see the BRT's software was because I had
serious doubts about the fairness of the 2003 assessments. Some
neighborhoods received substantial increases, even though they were
already adequately assessed or even overassessed by the BRT's own
criteria.  For example, two-thirds of homeowners in Olney, a
struggling working class neighborhood, were increased despite years of
stagnating--or even declining--home values.

The City Lawyer did not explain how it is possible for the BRT to do
its work without using CAMA software the way other large cities do.
By law, the BRT's 45 residential assessors must reassess each of the
City's 450,000 properties every year.  In effect, what the City Lawyer
is claiming is that each assessor does 10,000 properties a year by
hand.  That's a huge amount of work.  I don't see how they can do it
without software.

Background on my law suits against the BRT is available here, if
you're curious:

http://www.hallwatch.org/rtkasuits/suits/brt

-- 

Ed Goppelt
http://www.hallwatch.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug