Editorial: No special treatment

Monday, May 23, 2005 | 9:23 a.m.

Because the names and addresses of all homeowners are considered part of the public record, they are easily obtainable from county assessors' offices. This would change under Assembly Bill 142. For their protection against criminals seeking to retaliate, law enforcement officers and judges could seek court orders to keep their names and addresses confidential.

Earlier, citing the need for everyone to be protected in this day of stalkers and identity thieves, we suggested keeping all names of homeowners confidential. The intent of making names and addresses public was so that property owners could compare their tax levies with other similar properties to ensure equitable treatment. This can be done simply by knowing addresses. Names are not necessary.

While we understood the need for protecting police officers and judges, we thought it was unfair to extend confidentiality to some people but not others. The unfairness of this bill, which has passed the Senate Government Affairs Committee, only got worse as it was amended.

The amendment would permit journalists to have access to the names, but only at the discretion of assessors. This would put journalists in a special class, giving them power over and above that of the readers they serve. Journalists have never had more legal access to public records than any citizen. This is the way it should remain. And giving discretion to assessors to decide whether journalists would use the information in an "authorized manner" sets up legalized censorship, and would allow assessors to favor certain writers and stonewall others.

There are only two choices here: Either eliminate the publication of all names from the assessors' roles, or kill the bill.