AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Claim gov't taken property occupied by surveyor’s mons

5 Posts
3 Users
0 Reactions
752 Views
DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP
(@derek-g-graham-ols-olip)
Posts: 2054
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I do not know of a similar case in Canada.

It would be good to have a follow up by the specific State's Professional Surveyor's Organization IMVHO.

http://www.charitableplanning.com/cpc_1965553-1.pdf

Cheers,

Derek


 
Posted : March 18, 2013 7:37 am
DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP
(@derek-g-graham-ols-olip)
Posts: 2054
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Looking a little further I find here : http://www.californiasurveyors.org/moncon.html

Survey Monuments are Protected by the Law

The law protects monuments which are critical to the protection of private property rights and public infrastructure of California. Below are relevant sections of law pertaining to survey monuments. Click the links below to review the laws or visit: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Business & Professions Code §8771
Streets & Highways §732 & §732.5, §1492.5, §1810.5
Penal Code §605
1985 BPELSG Opinion
2011 BPELSG Opinion

Was there not a 'dust up' with a 'fornia city massacring survey mons ?

Derek


 
Posted : March 18, 2013 8:18 am
Bruce Small
(@bruce-small)
Posts: 1573
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Lengthy, but after all other arguments failed, the one that stuck was the taking of the area of the monument. Not the area encompassed by the monuments, but the actual area of the physical monument. Wow.


 
Posted : March 18, 2013 9:45 am
Ric-Moore
(@ric-moore)
Posts: 841
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

"...monuments were located as much as 2 feet below the surface of the ground..."

So, were the monuments set at the 566 foot level? Or was the ground above the monument at the 566' level?

What are the chances that anyone today would agree that whatever is marking the 566' level is still at 566'?


 
Posted : March 18, 2013 11:23 am
DEREK G. GRAHAM OLS OLIP
(@derek-g-graham-ols-olip)
Posts: 2054
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Ric-

And the NRCAN/NOAA lassies and laddies have been 'fertilizing' or stomping down the ground to get differing elevations:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography-boundary/spatial-referencing/height-reference-system/conversion/5288

Cheers,

Derek


 
Posted : March 18, 2013 11:57 am