The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageMinnesota City Kicks Out Google Street View

Posted Jun 25, 2008 by  Michael Billy (TRA) in Internet | 7 comments | 564 views
Next in Internet
Related News
Advertising
The private city of North Oaks, Minnesota -- home to more than 4,500 people -- has demanded that Google remove all images of their community from the company's Street View feature.
For those new to the idea, Street View is an interesting little gadget that is part of Google Maps. It allows users to see images of the area surrounding many streets throughout the United States.

North Oaks, however, will not be one of the areas you are able to view.

In January, the North Oaks City Council sent a letter to Google requesting that the images of their city be removed from the site and the files destroyed. Otherwise, they would cite Google for a violation of the city's trespassing ordinance.

The images were removed shortly after Google received the letter.

According to StarTribune.com:
North Oaks officials stressed that they needed to enforce the city's law against trespassing, whether it be a motorist who isn't aware of the rules or the Internet search engine behemoth.

Why is it that the city is so picky about their roads? Well its really quite simple: They are all privately owned.

The North Oaks website says that "Approximately 4500 residents call North Oaks home. Because residents' properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only."

The site also points out that "The City owns no property. With residents owning the roads, the North Oaks Home Owners' Association owns the park and recreation areas and trails throughout the City."

There have been issues in the past where people became angry that Street View captured an image of their license plate, or caught them coming out of a strip club, but in these cases the incidents occurred when the pictures were taken from public roads. Nothing could be done because Google was within their rights in these instances.

The case of North Oaks, however, is different because it is a completely privately run city.

This just goes to show how privacy issues can be handled much better when private property is involved as opposed to communal property. It is also interesting to see that a city of 4,500 people can pay for roads without having a government involved.
article:256574:18::0
5 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted Jun 25, 2008 by  Cynthia T. [Picasso]
    #1
    Good report Michael.
    Sounds like there might be some good lessons to learn from this town.
  • avatar Posted Jun 25, 2008 by  Chris Hogg
    #2
    It is also interesting to see that a city of 4,500 people can pay for roads without having a government involved.

    That is interesting. It's kind of like privatized communism. "The people own the land" (sounds like communism) but the government has little interference (privatized/capitalistic).

    It is very unusual for the people to own the land with seemingly little government involvement. I've never heard of such a thing, either, where the city is private and can tell Google to get lost. Trespassing and land ownership claims in this town must be a nightmare to figure out.
  • avatar Posted Jun 25, 2008 by  Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
    #3
    Being from Minnesota, and having friends that live in North Oaks - it is true that they own the roads.....which isn't all that uncommon really. There are many town home and PUD's in this state that own the roads and parks contained therein. They still pay property taxes to the county like anyone else.
    North Oaks is a very affluent area with many homes priced in the millions. It is also a "gated" community as there is a guard station at the main entrance - though I have never seen a guard sitting there.
    I am certain that the people living within this community, many of which are worth millions of dollars, don't want there private property displayed for all the world to see. There are some unbelievably gorgeous places there, with mighty high buck "toys" sitting in and around the estates........
    But they aren't really a "privatized community". They pay a homeowners association fee which goes towards the maintenance of the roads and parks, their golf course and riding stables, etc.
  • avatar Posted Jun 25, 2008 by  Michael Billy (TRA)
    #4
    @ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
    They pay a homeowners association fee which goes towards the maintenance of the roads and parks, their golf course and riding stables, etc.


    The website says: "The City owns no property. With residents owning the roads, the North Oaks Home Owners' Association owns the park and recreation areas and trails throughout the City."

    That makes me think that the individuals own their pieces of the roads, while the HOA pays for parks, recreations (golf, stables), and trails. Even if the HOA does pay for the roads it is still a privatized community because it is a voluntary agreement.
  • avatar Posted Jun 25, 2008 by  Michael Billy (TRA)
    #5
    @ Michael Billy (TRA)
    The website says: "The City owns no property. With residents owning the roads, the North Oaks Home Owners' Association owns the park and recreation areas and trails throughout the City."

    That makes me think that the individuals own their pieces of the roads, while the HOA pays for parks, recreations (golf, stables), and trails. Even if the HOA does pay for the roads it is still a privatized community because it is a voluntary agreement.


    I stand corrected. The site also lists the responsibilities of the HOA which include:

    "Maintaining all roads owned by members of NOHOA:
    Snowplowing
    Resurfacing
    Street name signs
    Street sweeping"
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Chris V. (cgull)
    #6
    This city should be blocked from using Google Maps, they don't deserve to use them.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Michael Billy (TRA)
    #7
    @ Chris V. (cgull)
    This city should be blocked to use Google Maps, they don't deserve to use them.

    That would be a fair retaliation from Google. Although satellite images from the town are still on Google Maps because there was no trespassing involved to obtain those photographs.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?