4 ms·

Or to play the other side, why would anyone want to hide from public knowledge that they own a property? All property records are public. You can go to the cit

Or to play the other side, why would anyone want to hide from public knowledge that they own a property? All property records are public. You can go to the city or county and get the names of who owns any property in that area. But now 30% of those properties are owned by companies who's owners can't be identified. So actually the public is losing access to something they already have. There is public benefit to the land registry being public. That is being lost.

chii 7y ago
> There is public benefit is there? IF you're a celebrity, your place of residence could be identified if these records are public (just takes time/work to collate/search the data). If you want to hide the property from your spouse in a divorce, the data may compromise it and force you to lose the property in a settlement. I can see that the data is useful in some circumstances, but i feel the data should be available only for law-enforcement purposes (and taxation purposes), not available for general inquiry.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Land is finite resource nobody created. It is one of the ridiculous things we put up for ownership.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    Please share a better way that can work.
    - chii 7y ago
      There's the theory that it's possible to tax land value at 100% (and remove all other taxes), and it'd be a more efficient tax. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
- phkahler 7y ago
  You can find celebrities if you want. The paparazzi does. Your other example of hiding property in a divorce is actually an argument in favor of not allowing this. IANAL but is that legal? If it is legal, and you want to say morality is up to the individual, then it's not an argument either way.
  - matthewheath 7y ago
    It’s not usually legal in many jurisdictions. Soften called “deliberate asset deprivation” or similar.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Buying land isn't like owning some stock. The government has the right to tax you for the land, to buy and sell land, etc. So ownership of land in your community is a matter of the government, sure... But it's also a matter of the people. If the government sells a public park to a private company, wouldn't you want to know that the LLC was owned by the Mayor's brother? Don't forget that journalists (the 4th estate) are a check and balance on the government. Don't be so quick to give away your rights because you don't see an immediate benefit.
balfirevic 7y ago
> Or to play the other side, why would anyone want to hide from public knowledge that they own a property? So you're saying... if I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to fear?
- unreal37 7y ago
  No. I'm saying the ownership of land is not something that has, for centuries, been hidden. So if you are going to argue "we should be able to hide the ownership of land", you need a reason.

chii 7y ago

> There is public benefit is there? IF you're a celebrity, your place of residence could be identified if these records are public (just takes time/work to collate/search the data). If you want to hide the property from your spouse in a divorce, the data may compromise it and force you to lose the property in a settlement. I can see that the data is useful in some circumstances, but i feel the data should be available only for law-enforcement purposes (and taxation purposes), not available for general inquiry.

Ericson2314 7y ago
Land is finite resource nobody created. It is one of the ridiculous things we put up for ownership.
- phkahler 7y ago
  Please share a better way that can work.
  - chii 7y ago
    There's the theory that it's possible to tax land value at 100% (and remove all other taxes), and it'd be a more efficient tax. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
phkahler 7y ago
You can find celebrities if you want. The paparazzi does. Your other example of hiding property in a divorce is actually an argument in favor of not allowing this. IANAL but is that legal? If it is legal, and you want to say morality is up to the individual, then it's not an argument either way.
- matthewheath 7y ago
  It’s not usually legal in many jurisdictions. Soften called “deliberate asset deprivation” or similar.
ggggtez 7y ago
Buying land isn't like owning some stock. The government has the right to tax you for the land, to buy and sell land, etc. So ownership of land in your community is a matter of the government, sure... But it's also a matter of the people. If the government sells a public park to a private company, wouldn't you want to know that the LLC was owned by the Mayor's brother? Don't forget that journalists (the 4th estate) are a check and balance on the government. Don't be so quick to give away your rights because you don't see an immediate benefit.

balfirevic 7y ago

> Or to play the other side, why would anyone want to hide from public knowledge that they own a property? So you're saying... if I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to fear?

unreal37 7y ago
No. I'm saying the ownership of land is not something that has, for centuries, been hidden. So if you are going to argue "we should be able to hide the ownership of land", you need a reason.