Standardizing address has lost some property address information

[kmtracey]

Changes to standardize addresses across newsitems means that the CITY associated with a property (pulled from the shapefile is no longer used). I don't think the zip code is being used either (though it is passed in on newsitem creation, but I think that value passed in is only used when geocoding is done, and these items never need geocoding since we start out with the shape for the property already known). This can cause some odd results. For example this property:

http://columbusco-staging.openrural.org/properties/detail/1903/

No zip code is being shown. It turns out the standardized address code is finding 2 zipcode locations associated with this newsitem (not sure why that is happening), so none is shown.

Also the city shown of "Tatum" is the city location associated with the newsitem, but the actual CITY for this address that was listed in the shapefile was Chadbourn. I guess this property is outside of the official Chadbourn limits so we're pulling/showing the name of the surrounding county area...but those names are not correct for postal addresses. I don't think we should be using those name in preference to a city name we got from the property shapefile (or other base data sources for addresses).

[sarahdooley]

It seems like we may need to store a full address for newsitems, but that will complicate the address display issues from issue #99...underlying areas don't necessarily have the names that will show up as cities in the full address string.