I'm all for de-regulating surveying. It has only been the last fifty years any state had licensing boards. Oh my! Whatever did the public do prior to that???
Let each surveyor compete based on his/her ability and not rely on the government crutch of licensing. As it is, the public thinks anybody that has license is as competent as any other. I wonder if anyone on this board would agree with that?
> They are planning to deregulate land surveying completely.
I do not believe that "they" have any plan for the surveying profession whatsoever. They are looking for places to cut budget. So they are poking all the pigs to see which ones squeal.
All that has to be done to save the LS board in any state is to show that it takes in more money than it spends.
> Whatever did the public do prior to that???
Around here they built their improvements wherever they felt like, mostly.
The reverse question has to be asked. Whatever possessed the folks 50 years ago to get a bee in their pantaloons to start licensing surveyors?
Was a time you could buy a house and lot in Portland and pay it off in a couple years. When it got to be where it took a generation to pay it off the location of the exact boundaries became much more important.
"Let each surveyor compete based on his/her ability and not rely on the government crutch of licensing."
Since when has the public taken ability over price, when it comes to surveying? The only questions I get asked are "how much" and "how soon"? No one ever asked for my resume. Yeah, maybe the public assumes that everyone in the phone book is qualified, which according to the BOR, they are. Take away that, and what do you have? ... you'd see people with handheld GPS and rag tapes advertising as professional land surveyors, and doing "surveys" for $50 ... and 90% of the public wouldn't know the difference until they learn their fence or addition is over the line. But I don't know who'd be the one to tell them this, I'll be surveying in another state by then.
California led the way 119 years ago in 1892.
I am certain
I cannot wait till we remove all the roadblocks to multinational corporations. We will all be so much better off when we are completely raped and used up. sheesh what fairy tale dope are you guys smoking. WE ARE THE GOVERNEMENT. THE GOVERNMENT, WE THE PEOPLE,have decided what we want to regulate and how much. I am sorry if you think your right to conduct business trumps MY rights and MY CHILDERNS' right to clean air, water, to have safe food, medicine, to have quacks removed from practicing law, medicine, massage thearapy and LAND SURVEYING, BECAUSE YOU ARE SIMPLY MISGUIDED IN YOUR VIEW. In a demcoractic republic, it is a legitimate right of the governed to make the decision about the rules of commerce. The desires commerce are not superior to the rights of the rulemakers, that being us, we the people.
I will agree that we are far from perfect in the execution of our ideals. But this is far more appealing to me than the alternative. Who wants to wake up one day at the bottom of the heap only to slap their forehead and exclaim DOH!
I beg to differ
Yes licensed surveyors ARE better. Are they perfect? No they are not. Just because the execution is not perfect is no reason to go back to the stone age. Before different professions were licensed MORE folks were DAMAGED. When enough people are damaged for a long enough period they grow weary of the BS and take action to regulate the activities that is the source of the pain.
Over time Americans have done stupid things, passing a constitutional amendment to ban booze, for example and turning right around and repealing that stupid amendment.
People, who think that deregulating land surveying is a good idea, have not thought the whole thing through.
Being licensed as a surveyor is not a crutch. One cannot become licensed without the proper education, experience, nor should they be licensed. The licensing process for surveyors does not create a protected class. What is creates is a group of professionals that are responsible to carry out their legal duties.
I am certain
No law is going to protect you from those things that you listed. If you put all of your faith in the government to do those things, you'll wind up dead.
Problem?
I not sure that Gunther's logic is that complicated.
Conservatives, generally favor deregulation.
This is the deregulation of our profession.
What am I missing? You favor deregulation until your ox is gored?
Rick
Edit: Good luck to Florida PSM's in beating back this assault.
Thank God for the Florida House of Representatives. Maybe they will vote to defund the EPA and NPR too
Obviously, they have a better idea of what is good for their state than somebody who lives in Scranton, Pennsylvania or anywhere else in the Milky Way galaxy.
Here in Texas, our Representatives are kicking around the idea of mandatory drug testing for all people who receive welfare benefits.
Time to cut the fat.
It's where Florida is headed.
Our new governor just took Florida public education back 10 paces and we were already behind.
But first he mishandled 2.4 billion (with a "B") and let it slip off to California.
Everyone I know, right, left and in between, wonder who elected this nut job.
It's going to be a free for all shortly.
> It's where Florida is headed.
>
> Our new governor just took Florida public education back 10 paces and we were already behind.
>
> But first he mishandled 2.4 billion (with a "B") and let it slip off to California.
>
> Everyone I know, right, left and in between, wonder who elected this nut job.
>
>
> It's going to be a free for all shortly.
Why do two cities 84 miles apart need a high speed rail?
Andy for hat it is worth....
I can add the South Australian experience .....
Politicians said "out with the survey license" until it was pointed out that the government guaranteed the certificate of title that was made from boundary data supplied by qualified professionals.
At the same time,
We had only licensing of boundary surveyors and registration for all the other disciplines.
Set up a co regulatory system between government who implement the act and regulations and professional surveyors board who control . education, post graduate training, licensing and discipline.
Revenue from dues and a plan levy paid by land owner for all new certified plans of survey lodged in our Lands Titles Office funds the surveyors board.
Every one is happy!
RADU
Andy for hat it is worth....
Good point Mr. Young.
oh really
No one is talking about faith. No one is talking about perfection. What is being dicussed is alternative views of how to deal with the problems that face ANY CIVIL SOCIETY. You send to suggest that since some will violate social rules, no matter what, that we ought to have no rules at all.
The fact is that is costs consumers more because services provided by licensed surveyors are regulated by the state. THIS IS A GOOD THING. This is a benefit to the consumer. Does is stop each and every instance of bad behavior? No is does not, but what is does do is provide the consumer with a BETTER chance that theyw will not be ripped off. There is no presumption of perfection in the system.
> Why do two cities 84 miles apart need a high speed rail?
Not arguing for or against HSR, but one can easily imagine an alternative to sitting in traffic "moving" at 6 mph. Heck, an 84 mile jogging path would be better some days.
Re: Rick Scott and Co. and the move to deregulate. Echoing RFB, who voted for these guys?
It is a vapid accusation to say that conservatives are trying to destroy the country, business, and our profession through deregulation. Many of the surveyors i know, who highly value their professional status are conservative to very conservative. One such that I know in my area is a conservative member of the County Board of Supervisors, and another the chairman of the County's Republican Central Committee.
Generally, there is over-regulation in most lines of business and this proposal, like the one in TX is a heavy handed first swipe at doing away with some of it. That surveyors are in the mix shows that those who put the proposal together and those who will act on the legislation will need some education about what it is we do and what is required to qualify someone for the role of PLS, and they will need that education quickly.
But in the short term, surveyors may also have to propose some changes that address funding issues for the Board, like perhaps raising the exam and license renewal fees. As unpalatable as it may be to give more money to the government for any reason, providing a proposal that would help enable the Board to be completely self funded would at least target those funds to an agency that surveyors view as critically necessary.
Calling your politicians stupid [insert your favorite label you often use in derision] and accusing them of trying to destroy the country does not work when you are trying to convince them to see things the way you do. That strategy only works when you have sufficient resources and support to exert sufficient pressure to force them to act in a manner you find acceptable. Surveyors do not have that level of resources and popular support.
oh really
First off I did not say that I was in favor of doing away with licensing for surveyors.
In general this is what our society of regulation does. Ir runs up the costs of services. It keeps start ups out of the market. It prevents new products from entering the market because it isn't cost effective to gain approval.
I can't remember all the details here, but there is some ailment that affects 5 people in the United States. A drug company was working on a treatment for this ailment. However, to get through the third round of FDA approval would have cost $100,000,000. Obviously the drug company stopped trying to get approval because they would have never gotten back the approval costs. Who is protected by such an onerous approval process?
I beg to differ
Exactly right Dane. Licensing came about because people were being damaged. In CA, it was largely land fraud, but also because of the ignorance of some who thought they could survey because there was no law against it. Buy a compass and knot a rope and you have the basic tools of the trade to start laying out lots. Not only did these fly by night "surveyors" not have a clue about the laws governing the boundaries they were laying out, they weren't even passably good measurers. With licensing, at least we can look at the math and figure out what an expert measurer did.
Most business activities require some level of regulation. some, like professions, require a significant amount to ensure competence of its practitioners. But some things can be and have been severely over regulated, as the example of prohibition demonstrated.
There are those who would add regulation upon regulation until it is virtually impossible, or at least very impractical for one to engage in the regulated activity, and there are those who would do away with any government regulation on those same activities, with most of us falling well within those two extremes. Because of that, as a society, we will always struggle to find the balance that both protects consumers/clients and allows room for the business person to conduct their business, or practice their profession in a manner that is not overly burdensome and allows one to earn a profit.
Problem?
Should we also then stipulate that liberals generally favor increased regulation and then infer from that liberals will automatically run to the defense of surveyors?
The problem with this statement, and your's SV, is that it states a broad generalization and attempts to apply it to a specific issue without considering truthful qualifiers.
Conservatives have come out in favor of regulation where there is sufficient evidence of harm to the public or abuse. In some of those same instances, liberals have loudly proclaimed no problem and even more loudly labeled the conservatives calling for regulation very insulting names and making baseless charges of racism (in an issue not involving race in any way) for suggesting there was a problem.