In the first case, the electric car, I’d contend ultimately gas taxation may need to be revisited as we have more efficient vehicles. Indeed, states like Massachusetts are already doing this, looking at taxing driven miles versus gas gallons purchased.

In the second case, property taxes are a function of improved property value. The property may be private but regardless as good citizens we are to contribute our taxes.

Failing to share the improvement to the property is little different than failing to contribute to the gas tax, due to either an electric car, cycling, or brewing your own ethanol. I don’t see how you can complain about one while exalting the other.

Taxman in Hidalgo was forcing INDIVIDUALS to pay for things on their PRIVATE property.

Car guy was impinging on public funds and escaping taxes. Recalcitrant Hidalgo residents were hurting no one and using no one else’s taxes.

How can you not see the difference?

However, once you do open the door to satellite surveillance of property, there does come a point where we abut the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. The satellites are here and their resolution is ever increasing; we better start preparing our arguments as to the limits of surveillance, or kiss good bye to backyard trysts (among other activities).

Marijuana was just an example of something that would be easy to spot from the air, and so far as I know there aren’t any law enforcement satellites in use in the US, though the Bush administration was pressing to use them for Homeland Security and such. Not sure what the status of that is now.

@Achance

I’d say aerial observation (in optical wavelengths) is a reasonable expectation, and the actual device used to do that observation doesn’t really make a difference. But I’m not a lawyer, and I certainly understand that satellites give people a “big brother” vibe that planes/helicopters don’t. In any case, I imagine at some point in the near future the gov’t will attempt to use satellites for such purposes, and we’ll get to see what the courts say.

Sort of off topic (since as I said, the google pics in the article are almost certainly taken from planes), but its an interesting issue.

Second, the images are a snapshot in time usually a couple years old. No government is going to rely on google earth/maps as the only point of reference. They would still need physically observe that what they saw was indeed a permant structure and not say a tent, a new swingset, or any other temporary items.

Third, as Simplico stated, this isn’t new.

Fourth, Aerial is no different than sattelite these days. A airplane can image from well out of your hearing/sight.

A good book that covers this and other issues with remote sensing is “Spying with Maps”. It’s a little dated now, but it’s a very intresting read.

But now today you are complaining about the local government enforcing taxes on private property improvement? I’d contend it is these people who aren’t honestly declaring structures they obviously had some part in constructing, that are the tax evaders.

I don’t understand your rhyme or reason between the two articles.

Makes sense to me, people are up there flying around all the time, so if I’m a property owner I don’t really have any reasonable expectation that they won’t glance down and see my 500 acre marijuana farm or whatever.

I can’t speak for Google’s methods in obtaining its imagery; however, if a government entity is going to use satellite imagery, even commercially obtained and publicly available, it should absolutely not rely on stock photos. The agency should obtain the date/time of the imagery pass in advance from Google and inform the citizens of when the surveillance will take place.

At any rate, if it is not a matter of national security and the enforcing body does not have a warrant, I am still adamantly against this practice.

And the images are legally taken and made publically available. I think its a stretch to say having the gov’t look at publically available pictures of your property taken by another entity is an invasion of privacy.

Yes, absolutely, people should not break the law.

The problem with this program is that the government is using space-based assets to spy on its citizens. If they used an aircraft to enforce the building codes, one could see the airplane and know that he/she was being observed as much as he/she would be able to see the housing inspector driving by. Similarly, an average citizen can afford the equipment to detect a hiding state trooper who is enforcing the speed limits with radar.

What’s next?
-An analysis of how much healthier your lawn is than your neighbor’s during a drought? You must have watered it. Here come the green police.
-There is evidence of recent digging in your yard. Someone comes in to make sure you did not bury any guns. Oh, you are planting a garden…Well still you didn’t have a “Call before you dig survey.” Pay a fine.

It does annoy me that I follow the rules when others do not and I pay for it; however, it is worth not having my privacy violated.

Also note that using arial photography to assess property values in rural areas is pretty standard, and what the TX county was planning on doing anyways. The only difference here is that using Google allows them to save money, and thus presumably lower everyones tax rates.

What? This makes NO sense.