Comment by fit2rule | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fit2rule | Hacker News Reader

One thing about America that a lot of folks don't understand is that - even if you have paid off your property debts - you don't actually own that property until the title has been cleared and transferred to you.

EVEN IF you have paid your mortgage in full, in many cases, there will not be clear title to the property - and thus, you cannot legally own the property.

Title Insurance companies know this, as do most banks. This is why there is a ~$70 "Title Clearance and/or Reconveyance Fee" that has to be paid at the end of the mortgage - by the borrower - to the Title Insurance company.

America has a huge backlog of uncleared title. In some counties, there are 2 or 3 or even up to 12 generations of title to get cleared - from the earliest title transfer, to the very latest - before someone can have clear title to their property.

So, like the original author of this article, I suspect that there was some Title Lineage evidence in all that stack of documents, which someone didn't want to have discovered .. for some reason.

The lesson learned: ALWAYS CLEAR TITLE ON PROPERTY YOU INTEND TO PURCHASE.

So, published 3 days before the OP's post (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7017552): http://www.wral.com/historians-lament-destruction-of-frankli...

Which says the records were burned because they were full of mold, a health hazard, and had already been designated for destruction in 1964.

This wasn't a nifty little storage room full of rare old materials, it was pile of boxes in a basement with a leaky pipe.

It's sad for sure that a few really cool documents were lost, but they needed to be destroyed to remove the mold threat -- I doubt it was economically feasible to clean or restore the lot of them, and it'd have been dangerous to have folks rummage through them to find things worth restoration (can you remove mold from a ledger book?).

    the records were burned because they were full of mold, a health hazard

This sounds exactly like the perfect kind of lie that the general public would believe. A plausible sounding health/safety reason. I'm not an expert, maybe it's true, but it rings false to me.

Surely historians, librarians and archaeologists have faced mold before and have methods to deal with it.

Sadly in this litigious world where states and companies have suffered huge financial claims related to mold it's not hard to understand a mid tier local government official panicking after talking with a local attorney.

Are we really entertaining the notion that this was a subversive, opportunistic political power play?

Mold threat?! Hahahahaha, this is what archivists do. We rescue and restore shit. We fumigate books with bugs living in the pages. We are to this day still piecing together charcoal smudges from the infamous 1973 St. Louis fire, to reconstruct scraps of salvageable information from WWI military records. We fight with archives in Eastern Europe that are staffed to this day with corrupt former KGB members who would rather stonewall you than give you your great-grandfather's shtetl records even when you are willing to pay them for access.

Even in the very worst case scenario, all we need is a hazmat suit and a digital camera and a couple of hours so the data isn't 100% lost -- as it was lost in Franklin county.

This

The mold talk sounds like a petty excuse. Like we live in a world with no protection masks.

This is mold, not Fukushima debris

Mold is the new terrorism.

Mold can be considerably more dangerous than a lot of the artifacts of Fukushima that people have been worrying about.

Source?

So, cool, of course materials can be rescued and restored. Should have been obvious. Thanks for the synopsis of your job!

"How much does it cost to rescue and restore" could be a relevant question. Especially considering that the state tagged all of it for destruction 50 years ago, I doubt they were keen to spend money on hiring a team of archivists to swoop down and resurrect ledgers of old tax receipts.

Moldy old books generally get thrown away or burned. Doesn't mean there's some great conspiracy to cover up land grabs and political intrigue, as was the supposition I was providing counterpoint to.

"Moldy old books" THAT ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, CREATED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND STORED IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS do not "generally get thrown away or burned". (Fascist and communist states excepted.) They get restored, preserved, indexed, and hopefully digitized.

I mean, if only there were some national umbrella group of archives that had entire departments of people devoted to techniques for preventing and restoring damaged materials, who published their findings on paper and online for free, who hold regular disaster planning and archives management conferences, who promote best practices, who are extremely active on social media and could have helped if only the state had bothered to ask them about the mold situation OH WAIT THERE IS http://www.archives.gov/preservation/emergency-prep/disaster...

. . .

(All that being said, I do agree that the key factor in this travesty was probably ignorance rather than malice, as it is in so many situations. But given the state's history and the unusualness of this act, the blogger's skepticism is definitely warranted. And just to reiterate, the Heritage Society was willing to take the records in for free. They were the initial volunteers cleaning out that yucky basement, too. I don't think even the state is trying to play the "expensive" card.)

They were marked for destruction 50 years ago by those publicly funded officials. That they remained is something in itself.

The blog post says they'd secured space and funding for restoration; it's curious then why they left everything in the basement if they had the space set up. And, calling the state archivists (knowing they were out of their league) suggests they were far out enough that reading SOPs and tweeting folks wasn't going to cut it.

I can certainly see a case where the state group, with what can't be unlimited funds, did a cost-benefit analysis and determined that it wasn't worth it. That makes sense to me -- maybe I'm not intimate enough with the industry to know what really happens.

I'm surprised with the hostility here; I acknowledge that your profession is very important to you, but seriously, this isn't an attack.

> "How much does it cost to rescue and restore" could be a relevant question

Nope, it's purely a FUD question. Considering questions like this may be part of balanced reasoning, but you need to ask them to yourself first and spend a modicum of time thinking lest you just help derail the truth over a non-concern.

How much does it cost? Camera + N99 mask + shower -> $100 total

Although you'd probably want to opt for the deluxe package - scanner + cartridge respirator + long hot shower -> $300 total

I'm sure multiple members of an "archival society" would have individually come up with these resources if that's what was required. And I'm sure Google would have happily hauled, scanned, and properly disposed of the records just to put them behind their adwall.

And to the extent that there was a higher figure for institutional overhead, then before just being destroyed, there should have been a period of public notice and access for a volunteer can-do team to take the simple approach.

"Designation for destruction in 1964" is a textbook example of how discrimination is still perpetuated here. We try so hard to be a progressive state (ex: RTP) but the fact is our heritage includes the enslavement of a race, and individuals today still say things that make Don Yelton look tame.

>This wasn't a nifty little storage room full of rare old materials, it was pile of boxes in a basement with a leaky pipe.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It appears that it was both.

The blogger does claim inventory was incomplete, so some of the documents may not have or should not have been designated for destruction. She also claims that some materials were salvageable and that there were inconsistencies with the assessment of the mold's danger.

The procedure moved along a bit too efficiently to really satisfy the basis of either side of the story.

It's sad for sure that a few really cool documents were lost, but they needed to be destroyed to remove the mold threat.

The "mold threat" argument is so utterly vacuous -- it's hard to imagine that anyone making it can really be taking themselves seriously. And this pooh-poohing of the documents as being merely "cool" reflects a staggering degree of ignorance about the value of primary documents in historical (and legal) research.

At the same time... it's not hard to imagine county bureaucrats thinking pretty much exactly in these terms. "Wha, a buncha photographs? Old title papers? Whoze goona be innersted in that? Someones gonna get SICK from all that ICKY mold and we might get SUED!"

Yep -- that must have been exactly what they were thinking.

Your third paragraph is the thesis of my argument.

As is obvious from the archivist who has gleefully and thoroughly lambasted me upon her holy pike of preservation persecution, the layman may know painfully little about the costs and logistics involved in preserving such materials.

Whatever the real storage & retrieval costs may have been -- this whole "panic incineration" thing still doesn't make any sense. At all.

[IANAL]

In the US, ownership of real property tends to be more complex than that, and that's what really drives the need for clear title.

The conveyance of real property is further complicated because it is regulated primarily at the state level and there are many and varied laws among the states.

In general, due to their heritage in English Common Law and origin at a time when land was granted by the sovereign, real property is conveyed with all previous restrictions on its use and disposal intact [except in such cases where the restrictions are illegal, such as prohibitions on the sale of the property to persons of particular races, religions, etc.].

This means that a violation of a particular covenant [deed restriction] gives the person conveying title [or their heirs or assigns] the right to take back the title. It is misleading to think of the ownership of real property as consistent with Lockian notions of private property. Restrictions on digital media and software licenses are probably better analogies, and it may be worth noting that these restrictions are not unprecedented in so far as real-property law provides precedent.

Ultimately, the title to real property is never clear - you can't prove that no claims exist only that none have been found.

And that's what's motivating the purported goings on in Franklin County. For all the years they were locked up, those records were not included in any title search. The existence and use of such records would undoubtedly slow the sale of real property in the area. Furthermore, the likelihood that claims against title could be brought forth against current title holders increases significantly.

Given that the records date from the antebellum period, the 800 pound gorilla is not so much the descendants of former slaves as Native Americans. North Carolina was only a generation or so off the frontier and less than that from the Trail of Tears, and while the heirs and assigns of individual former slaves are fragmented, the heirs and assigns of the various Native American nations such as the Cherokee are organized and have legal standing under Federal law to challenge property title. [1]

[1] In the 1980's the Seminole Tribe acquired a reservation that was subsequently developed into Tampa's Hard Rock Casino in exchange for giving up a claim upon land in Tampa's Central Business District where a Native American gravesite was unearthed. http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/from-graves-to-o...

This is not the case in states where a mortgage is simply a lien on the property. You receive a warranty deed, which includes a title search, and you own the property (fee simple in legal parlance). If you have a mortgage on the property, the mortgage company has a lien that can be foreclosed.

In title theory states, when you mortgage the property, the mortgagee holds title until the mortgage is paid off.

If someone has allodial title to their property then government cannot tax it. They can only tax property they own and rent out, which is almost all land in the U.S. that hasn't been purchased or confiscated from land owners.

If record of that allodial title is destroyed or lost, then you will have a difficult/impossible time proving you own your land.

In many jurisdictions in the US, won't adverse possession make much of those old title problems moot or at least make current title fixable without having to sort out the past mess?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com