NOTE: Originally posted at EDR (Environmental Data Resources) blog by Rob Barber.

Property Talk

EDR’s CEO brings his unique perspective to address topics of strategic interest, including the state of the ESA industry, business management issues, trends in information technology and global developments affecting environmental due diligence practices.
user generated content zillow

UGC About Properties

5/27/2008 | posted by

Name: Rob Barber
Company Name: EDR
Job Title: CEO
Location: Milford, CT, Hidden

Recently there’s been a lot of chatter about how our industry would deal with a database of user generated content about properties so I thought I’d try to get a discussion going around the topic.  First, allow me to define what the concept is and is not.

Essentially the idea would be to create a second “copy” of the database and then allow the community to make edits to the copy.  Edits might be things like adding additional information about a property, uploading photographs of a site or correcting an error in the record.  However, it is essential to know that none of this changes anything in the original government database.  Instead, we simply end up with two versions of a database.  The first version is the data as it always has been from the government agencies.  The second version, though, contains additional information as provided by the community.

The first question this idea normally raises is “how can I rely on edited infomation contained in the UGC database when I don’t know who contributed that information?”.   This is clearly a very important question requiring significant thought.  My opinion is that this issue can be handled in several ways:

* First, nobody needs to use the UGC database if they don’t want to.  It’s simply another resource available to those who do.  If someone’s preference is to continue on with only the government database information, then so be it.
* Second, anyone contributing content to the UGC database would have to agree to doing so in an open and transparent way.  No hiding behind a screen name here.  Instead, if you’re going to share information witht the community, it should be clear who you are so that others can evaluate for themselves the credibility of the contribution.  In fact, this scenario probably calls for some type of rating system a la eBay so that incentives for accurate contributions are made.  After all, if you’re not willing to stand behind the contribution, then the contribution probably shouldn’t be made in the first place.

A great example of this idea at work is Zillow.com.  Here, the local registrar’s data about your home is put online.  You can then “claim” a home as your own and begin to add to the information in the name of improving it.  Why would you do so?  Well, maybe if you were going to sell you home and you knew that potential buyers would see it on Zillow, you’d want to make sure that Zillow knew about the deck you recently added to the kitchen remodel.

Obviously this is a fairly provacative and perhaps controversial topic so I’d really like to hear some comments from all the EPs, attorneys and lenders out there.  What does everyone think?

3 Comments

1. By

kmc-japan on 5/28/2008
Rob: The only database available in Japan right now is my company’s proprietary product. We routinely find that the base information documents for the database (including maps, government records and property records) are either incomplete or wrong or both. This is due primarily to (1) the lack of required reporting of information to the government; (2) the fact that much of the historic mapping was performed manually; (3) the general lack of documentation pre-1945; and, (4) current government policies which purge public records after a five year period. As a result, our database contains information that is not available to the general public. The PPSI™ report is available as a private service only and comes with a set of disclaimers for the third-party data even after it has been corrected. It is interesting to note that we have been recently approached by several municipalities and Ministries to assist them in preparing an “official” government database.

2. By

agadoni on 5/28/2008
Rob, Here are a few thoughts on some of the many potential issues that will need to be addressed: 1) Contractual: most project contracts include limitations between the consultant and client regarding disclosure or other usage of any data collected during an ESA project. This may involve consultant confidentiality and client ownership of the work product regardless of whether or not the data is publicly available. A lawyer told me that there could be a breach of contract claim if project information is posted and there is a well-drafted confidentiality provision in the contract. Even in the absence of a confidentiality provision, ethical considerations should dictate getting client permission to post in writing before hand. 2) Marketplace: based on recent conversations, lenders generally seem more open to the idea of “sharing data” with the UGC from ESA reports they have commissioned. Owners have expressed concern or are opposed to a public UGC database. This dichotomy makes sense when you consider the differing goals and liability risks of the two groups. However, a consultant may have to choose sides because some owners may not want to use consultants who post data to the UGC database. Posts to the database could damage or destroy client relationships and establish a reputation within the environmental community as a source of potential leaks. 3) Fact vs. Opinion: posting a copy of a publicly available file with appropriate meta-data (who posted, when, source, etc.) may have an upside as a back-up data resource of last resort, especially if that file is subsequently misfiled or is otherwise unavailable in the future. But relying on a public post of unsupported or unverifiable findings, opinions and conclusions concerning environmental conditions on a property seems to contradict the purpose and intent of ASTM E 1527. A poster could be sued for inaccurate, misleading, or poorly worded comments. 4) Confidential and proprietary information: it is my understanding that information may be considered proprietary if it is owned or controlled by the company and provides competitive value due to it not being known or generally available to the public. Some of the information posted to the UGC database may qualify as proprietary information. If the employer of a poster fails to take reasonable measures to keep trade secrets confidential then such practices could undermine future claims for protection of its proprietary interests in other such information. Also, there could be ethical licensing issues for a PE or PG who disregarded an expressed client desire for confidentiality.

3. By

Name: Rob Barber
Company Name: EDR
Job Title: CEO
Location: Milford, CT, Hidden
rbarber on 5/29/2008
Thanks, Alan. All completely legit points to which I’ll add the following two points to the discussion. First, do things change from the EP/contractual perspective if the property in question is NOT a property that the EP just did the Phase 1 on? For example, if you do a Phase 1 on “123 Main Street”, then there’s no question that your relationship with the client takes priority and you are limited in what you can say about “123 Main Street”. However, what if, in the course of the assessment, you learn something valuable about the site at “456 Smith Street”, a property 4 doors down the road. Might that info be useful in a community database while at the same time honor the relationship you have with your client? Second, within the environmental due diligence industry we’re going to have to tackle these issue perhaps sooner than later. I say this in reponse to NAR’s announcement to build a national property database to serve as a library or archive of information overlaid with MLS data. The plan is to compile info about properties, communities and other factors including environmental. My guess is it is only a matter of time before some “masher” contributes a bunch of environmental content to this database that might include opinions, confidential info, etc. How will our industry respond if/when this occurs? Anyone else have any thoughts on the topic?

This entry was posted on Friday, July 25th, 2008 at 2:11 pm and is filed under ●Brownfields - Miscellaneous.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.