Pros would include:
Higher quality surveys, traceable land divisions, increased monumentation, better notice to parties, better GIS, eventual move to national cadastre, more competition
Cons: review by government employees, higher costs, more competition. more liability.
Ok, I get that. I was talking more about surveys/plans that create new lots.
Cons
none
Dtp
I reside in a state (Washington) that records boundary surveys and specifies rather broadly what is necessary to be shown and the standard by which it is to be presented. I have filed hundreds of maps and my current policy is that all boundary surveys are filed for record. No exceptions.
There are several reasons for my decision.
1. Its pretty much the law and I value my reputation and licence.
2. It is relatively inexpensive. $154 recording fee. This is for ever and ever and ever, a good value for my clients who should consider that I may not be around next week.
3. It is an opportunity for me to perpetuate information that I have in my files that is not in the public domain. I have almost 50 years of company survey records surrounding me, some of which predate the recording statute. I have obtained many-many maps and records from others that also should be perpetuated and someday will when all this gets transferred to the DNR.
4. It is a forum if you will to perpetuate and broadcast to my brethren in the industry the standards that I uphold. And to enter into the record the location of points set by others (located by me) that are not in the public records. It frustrates me to no end when I keep finding corners set by Brand X or Y who seemingly never records a map either pocketing the fee or undercutting those of us who comply with the law. You know who you are.
5. It allows my peers to determine if they have better information or data and opens the door for communication with me about that. More than once I have filed corrections to documents because of this and I view this aspect as a value and not a burden.
Over the years the folks on the other side of the counter at the Recorders desk have always been helpful, professional, and have been open to suggestions about their "checklist". No one is perfect, when I find a record that is mis-indexed I notify them and it gets fixed. When I have blundered (like the time I forgot a north arrow) they saved my bacon and refused to record my map.
Respectfully,
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
"FWIW - I've surveyed for over 25 years in a non recording state and seen two pincushions...maybe I'm just lucky."
Perhaps your State doesn't just hand out licenses to any one who applies? I have encountered dozens, if not hundreds of pincushions... I have seen the same surveyor pincushion his own monument!
HUGE CON
I have loosely followed the discussion to this point. With very few exceptions everyone seems to think recording every plat is a terrific idea.
Great. Wonderful.
Now, take a plat down to the Register of Deeds office and actually try. Here we have this little thing called a "review officer". When the rules were written they were in place to keep piss ant bureaucrats from demanding all kinds of things on every survey done in the county. The idea was if a plat was all of an existing property and it did not create a new street or change an existing street, the plat was to be recorded without further requirements.
The rules were also written such that it was "suggested" that a certified property mapper would be designated as the review officer. In our 100 counties the figure I saw was 95% were .... humm..... right, Planning officials not certified property mappers.
So what has happened is the planning officials now have nearly unlimited power to require nearly anything they want. I had one idiot hold up a simple plat for more than 6 months. He was demanding that I put a note on the plat that the property was not approved for well or septic. I told him that note would not appear on my plat unless and until it was true. In this case it was not true. My client did not need a well or septic permit and had not filed for the permit.
The reason the planner wanted this note? He knew the chairman of the planning board worked at the health department and that he got to put money in his pocket every time someone asked for a permit.
That is why I am opposed to mandatory recording. If we had a system where any PLS could take any plat to the Register of Deeds office and record for a "nominal" fee, I would be fine with it. As is, petty bureaucrats with their own agenda can hold up projects for any reason or no reason at all.
We even had one case where the zoning officer got caught turning down zoning change requests only to have his girlfriend go behind the original requester and ask for the same change. They pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars. He was taken to court, and lost the case. The punishment? The county put a letter in his personnel file.
Watch what you ask for, you just might get it.
Larry P
> I reside in a state (Washington) that records boundary surveys and specifies rather broadly what is necessary to be shown and the standard by which it is to be presented. I have filed hundreds of maps and my current policy is that all boundary surveys are filed for record. No exceptions.
> There are several reasons for my decision.
> 1. Its pretty much the law and I value my reputation and licence.
> 2. It is relatively inexpensive. $154 recording fee. This is for ever and ever and ever, a good value for my clients who should consider that I may not be around next week.
> 3. It is an opportunity for me to perpetuate information that I have in my files that is not in the public domain. I have almost 50 years of company survey records surrounding me, some of which predate the recording statute. I have obtained many-many maps and records from others that also should be perpetuated and someday will when all this gets transferred to the DNR.
> 4. It is a forum if you will to perpetuate and broadcast to my brethren in the industry the standards that I uphold. And to enter into the record the location of points set by others (located by me) that are not in the public records. It frustrates me to no end when I keep finding corners set by Brand X or Y who seemingly never records a map either pocketing the fee or undercutting those of us who comply with the law. You know who you are.
> 5. It allows my peers to determine if they have better information or data and opens the door for communication with me about that. More than once I have filed corrections to documents because of this and I view this aspect as a value and not a burden.
>
> Over the years the folks on the other side of the counter at the Recorders desk have always been helpful, professional, and have been open to suggestions about their "checklist". No one is perfect, when I find a record that is mis-indexed I notify them and it gets fixed. When I have blundered (like the time I forgot a north arrow) they saved my bacon and refused to record my map.
>
> Respectfully,
Yep!
100% agree
HUGE CON
Well Larry I hear ya and I agree wholeheartedly. Plat review and plat review officers should be done away with. Any surveyor should be allowed to file any map he wants for a flat $25 fee. The fee should cover the cost of scanning. That's it. There is no reason for a review at all. We have a court system and a board to handle problems with plats. This doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater though.
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
> > It is absolutely common for people here to simply refer to a record of survey for a block breakdown. They may check the mons, but if they differ by a few hundredths, they don't reinvent the wheel.
>
> So, in other words, you work in an area where permanent survey markers have not been traditionally used? Imagine working in a metes and bounds state where boundaries were typically actually monumented and tell me why the original subdivision plat isn't sufficient.
Of course "permanent survey markers are used". Why must we argue to the absurd. Of course, none are really permanent, none seem to be able to survive any sort of road project.
But, in this area, the land being sold often predated the setting of the permanent monuments. A paper plat was made, lots were sold. Perhaps something permanent was set at the block corners (perhaps a stone later obliterated or buried under concrete), but the corners of the lots were marked with wooden stakes, sometimes after the sale. In this climate, a wooden stake might last 10 years, but probably not. (Yes, some last 50 years, but that is not the norm.)
And the blocks were often not laid out all at once. So, you have to use evidence to uncover and follow the trail of the original surveyor. If you do not record that, what happens if the next surveyor doesn't find what you found? Do we laugh and call them names? Or do we lament the hit our profession's image takes? Or, do we record our findings?
I say that recording makes it likely that you and the next surveyor will agree. They are more likely to come up with the same answer, because they have your evidence, and can follow your thinking. They may not agree, but they can at least contact you rather than create a mess of a block.
Non-recording sometimes seems like this:
1. I work hard and gather all the evidence, and set monuments at the boundary.
2. When the next idiot comes along and doesn't happen to see things my way:
. A. I pillory him.
. B. I denounce his monument (even though I don't know if he had a better reason).
. and C. I declare that only 4 people are qualified to survey this town.
This happens here in WA, as well. There are areas where a surveyor has local knowledge and simply refuses to record a survey, and if they do, they limit the information to the degree as to make it impossible to follow. This is purposefully done to limit the usefulness to the next surveyor.
I know that is NOT what Kent is advocating. I know that any of us would be thrilled to have Kent survey our land, or follow in his footsteps.
HUGE CON
What is it about the south that it's such a cesspool of control freaks?
Is it the humid three shirt July days?
I've never had a problems like that getting maps checked through the County Surveyor's office.
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
> > > It is absolutely common for people here to simply refer to a record of survey for a block breakdown. They may check the mons, but if they differ by a few hundredths, they don't reinvent the wheel.
> >
> > So, in other words, you work in an area where permanent survey markers have not been traditionally used? Imagine working in a metes and bounds state where boundaries were typically actually monumented and tell me why the original subdivision plat isn't sufficient.
>
> Of course "permanent survey markers are used". Why must we argue to the absurd. Of course, none are really permanent, none seem to be able to survive any sort of road project.
>
> But, in this area, the land being sold often predated the setting of the permanent monuments. A paper plat was made, lots were sold. Perhaps something permanent was set at the block corners (perhaps a stone later obliterated or buried under concrete), but the corners of the lots were marked with wooden stakes, sometimes after the sale.
I think what you're saying is that permanent markers were NOT typically set by the subdivider to mark the lot corners, that the lots were largely protracted creations. This is a much different situation than where permanent markers were set. In your protraction scheme, you are in effect filing corner records to supplement the subdivision plat by which the lots were sold.
HUGE CON
Is that "three shirt" or "T-shirt", Dave?
More likely wife-beater, I'd guess.
Anyway, what you say is true, I'm the nasty big-gubmit beercrat and I'm sweet as I can be, as you know.
Don
HUGE CON
We were in D.C. on a warm June day. The tour guide said, "this is nothing, you should come in July when it gets over 100 with high humidity, those are true three shirt days!" Meaning you have to change your shirt three times during the day.
HUGE CON
It sounds like your Professional Society needs to push through legislation to eliminate the red tape. Is that realistic in your neck of the woods?
HUGE CON
not at all likely.
CON -invasion of privacy issues
I used to think it was a good idea (Pro) as far as the surveyor controlling their work and making less competent surveyors step up to produce better plats to the standards of the state and their peers. Most plat recording was promulgated by tax assessors and really did not care about survey standards. Then the GIS bunch rode into town control of "surveys. Not good. The small numbers of unethical surveyors are still going to operate regardless of recording or not recording.
I am in a non-recording state but one's who laws are based in the civil law (Napoleonic code) that has a strong element in origin of recording documents. Surveys are recorded with boundary work. It is not mandatory but it is done. New subdivisions or boundary issues are recorded.
Yes, some surveyors may have records of the older surveyors but you can access them through having an amiable working relationship with your peers. Fortunately here, some of the old and more important survey records were donated to the clerk for recording.(Actually, there is a direct portal to his work archive). There has been one surveyor here thatches gruffly denied access to any of his records. Of course, his work is suspect at times. He has a revolving door that takes on new associates . A few years ago, I called him to give him a heads up that one of his associates had surveyed the wrong lot. About a week later, he called and thanked me and told me that I could have access to his records at any time that I wanted. [sarcasm]Whoop de Doo.[/sarcasm]
Another survey here will have a computer ready for me when I arrive to search his records looking for older surveys of his firm or past records that they have acquired. How many would let their competition into their office for such access? How is that for peer review?
So I have become CON through the years.
But one of the main reasons that I have against recording at his time is the invasion of privacy assure. Surprised no one else has mentioned invasion of privacy for the client.
Clerks and other governmental agencies are power hungry. Information is their fodder.
If Mr./Ms.John/Jane Q. Public orders and pays for a private survey of his domain, why should it become public knowledge. If one was to buy a nice piece of property at some auction or from some other avenue to ownership? Then pay for a survey afterward, why should it be recorded to divulge their assets. There is some basis to invasion of privacy protection in the constitution from various amendments. I think that the government cannot require surveyors to publish client’s info without their permission.
CON -invasion of privacy issues
The problem with 'privacy' is that a survey of my property impacts 2 other private owners and 2 public right of ways. The remote controlling corners effect hundreds more. I've surveyed where the fabric of the PLSS is in tatters and every survey goes in a drawer, not likely to seen by the other parties. As a young man I watched the stone at our northeast corner change character and location every time a suburban pulled over because of it.
As a former republican with libertarian tendencies I am all for privacy. When that impacts those around me I know they deserve rights and respect as well.
CON -invasion of privacy issues
EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!
HUGE CON
> It sounds like your Professional Society needs to push through legislation to eliminate the red tape. Is that realistic in your neck of the woods?
Exactly like Rambleon said. Not at all likely. The planning folks love having the power they do. Do something to take away even a tiny bit of that power and they will fight tooth and nail to stop you.
What they don't seem to realize is that if I record a plat that violates the law, the board can revoke my license. I can lose my ability to earn a living.
If a planning official breaks the law what happens? Nothing. Not one thing. So why should they care about the law? They don't. That is the essence of the problem.
Larry P
HUGE CON
> If a planning official breaks the law what happens? Nothing. Not one thing. So why should they care about the law? They don't. That is the essence of the problem.
>
> Larry P
Well said. Fight the power.