Open Records Decision No. 318
July 7, 1982

	Re:  Availability under the Open Records Act of names and present addresses of 
former residents of public housing development

Ms. Leila Alvarado
General Counsel
The Housing Authority of the City of Dallas
2525 Lucas Drive
Dallas, Texas  75219

Dear Ms. Alvarado:

	You have requested our decision under the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, 
V.T.C.S., as to the availability of the names and present addresses of former residents of 
a public housing development.  The development, known as Roseland Homes, is 
managed and owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Dallas.  It is currently 
undergoing extensive renovation, and as a result, many of its residents have been 
relocated.  The request seeks the names and present addresses of those individuals.

	In Open Records Decision No. 268 (1981), we said that certain information in the 
custody of the Seguin Housing Authority was available to the public, specifically, a list 
of addresses of housing units operated by landlords participating in a subsidy program; a 
list of owners and managers of these units; and the total amounts paid by the authority 
under the subsidy program.  The decision rejected the city's contention that the 
information was excepted from disclosure by a common law right of privacy, pursuant to 
section 3(a)(1) of the Open Records Act.

	The information being sought here identifies individuals who formerly occupied 
subsidized housing.  Many of them are current residents.  In Industrial Foundation of the 
South v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), the Texas 
Supreme Court recognized two kinds of privacy which are derived from section 3(a)(1).  
Constitutional privacy in information exists only within one of the protected “zones of 
privacy” described by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 
(1973) and Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976):  matters relating to marriage, 
procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.  424 
U.S. at 713.  Information excepted under a claim of common law privacy, on the other 
hand, must:

contain highly intimate or embarrassing facts about a person's 
private affairs, such that its publication would be highly 
objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

540 S.W.2d at 683.  In addition, the information must “not [be] of legitimate concern to 
the public.”  Id. at 685.

	This office has held that the Supreme Court's strict standard for common law 
privacy requires the disclosure of, inter alia, the home addresses of public employees, 
Open Records Decision No. 169 (1977); most of the information contained in the 
licensing files of an engineer, Open Records Decision No. 157 (1977) and a physician, 
Open Records Decision No. 215 (1978); certain financial records of individuals, Open 
Records Decision Nos. 246 (1980), 201 (1978); the names and qualifications of 
applicants and nominees for public positions, Open Record Decision Nos. 277 (1981), 
273 (1981), 264 (1981), 257 (1980); and most medical information relating to 
individuals, Open Records Decision Nos. 262 (1980), 260 (1980), 258 (1980).

	In our opinion, it is clear that the information requested here is not excepted by a 
constitutional right of privacy, since it does not relate to one of the “zones of privacy” 
indicated by the United States Supreme Court.  As to common law privacy, we are 
unable to conclude that the circumstance of an individual's residence or former residence 
in subsidized housing is a “highly intimate or embarrassing fact” whose “publication 
would be highly objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”  However “private” 
such information may seem at first glance, we do not believe it may reasonably be said to 
meet that exacting standard which the Industrial Foundation case requires that we apply.  
Neither does disclosure of the present addresses of such persons fall within the narrow 
category of information excepted by constitutional or common law privacy.  As a result, 
it is our decision that the names and present addresses of former residents of a public 
housing development are not excepted from disclosure under any provision of the Open 
Records Act.

Very truly yours,

Mark White
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General

Richard E. Gray III
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Walter Davis
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger