Yes...I am a greedy SOB!!
Agreed. I just always considered a "recording state" as being one where recording is mandatory.
Yes...I am a greedy SOB!!
The problem with that is everyone eventually kicks the bucket, even Surveyors. Then all those records may wind up in the landfill.
So now future Surveyors find your rebars and have no idea how they got there. That happens here too, except sometimes they are tagged so at least you know some surveyor set it for some unknown reason. It could be an established monument that was relied on in good faith but it's a lot harder to tell (and serve the interests of justice) if the rebars or pipes are untagged and the current generation of owners often have no idea.
We have at least one county in California that operates that way, Marin (north of the Golden Gate Bridge north of San Francisco) and it is controversial having Surveyors benefitting from non-compliance. In some cases they purchased the records so the current generation isn't necessarily benefitting.
The state issues the license, it is a privilege to practice, so it isn't unreasonable for the state to require filing of surveys.
Pro
I am a big advocate of mandatory recording laws. In MA we are required to prepare plans for planning board endorsement when ever we create new Property lines, either as "Approval Not Required" or "Approval Required" depending on various issues.
When we go to record the Register's certificate basically speaks to Mylar thickness, size of lettering, is there a north arrow, and a graphic scale. And a 3.5" box for the Registers remarks, if any.
As for Larry Phipps example, well that's not a recording issue, and it's an isolated incident that needs correction. It's not an argument against required recording.
As for privacy issues, give me a break, those are NOT YOUR PROPERTY LINES! They are shared wit your neighbors and it's only proper that when a survey is made the results are published/recorded to provide NOTICE to the world of your claim. What good is hiding your claim in a drawer ever going to do for you?
We should be required to record more than we do in MA, I like the CA requirements. It makes your work public, and since you are a Public Servant that's where it belongs, where everyone can see it.
I am somewhat dubious about surveyors that cloak their work in secrecy.
Again, Cons? None!
Dtp
Pro
>
> As for Larry Phipps example, well that's not a recording issue, and it's an isolated incident that needs correction. It's not an argument against required recording.
>
> Again, Cons? None!
>
> Dtp
Don,
You know I like and respect you man. On this matter we disagree. I can't call it an isolated incident when it extends across virtually the entire state.
"...not an argument against required recording." Ok, what do we do when the review officer refuses to "approve" the recording of a plat as required by law unless and until you do things that are not required nor allowed by law?
Suppose the review officer decides that the review fee will be $1,000 for every review of every plat. Then they find a reason to turn down a plat every time it it presented. I had one idiot that demanded I change "A" to "B". It made no difference but rather than argue I made the change. On second review I was told to change "B" to "A". I think you can see where this is going. The review officer has unlimited power to do anything they want without consequence.
Now before you tell me to report this sort of thing to the County Manager or the County Commissioners, I did exactly that. Was told that they wanted to get zoning for the county and they had no intention of doing anything with the planner while they worked on that. That was better than 10 years ago and guess what. No zoning and the planner is still doing anything and everything they want.
Did I mention that certain parties seem to get things approved that don't come within miles of meeting the rules but others can't get anything approve no matter what is proposed? Sorry, off my soap box now.
Again, on this matter we will disagree.
Larry P
I would ask that your CCRs eventually get filed...
Ok, but I would request that you fill out the Certified Corner Record documents (which us Florida surveyors are required to do) and instruct the executor of you last will and testament to send them in when you kick the bucket to help the next generation of surveyors.
Pro
> > As for Larry Phipps example, well that's not a recording issue, and it's an isolated incident that needs correction. It's not an argument against required recording.
> Again, on this matter we will disagree.
Even if it's not be an isolated incident, it's merely an argument against substandard implementation of the recording requirement, not an indictment of the requirement concept itself.
When people speak of California's recording requirement they're usually referring to the Record of Survey statute. Records of Survey comprise the core of the retracement survey records in the state, records that most of us value highly. (Subdivision mapping is a different animal over which local agencies have a lot of discretionary control, and there are many examples of ignorant and/or petty local officials who impose unreasonable but practically unavoidable requirements that the applicant must meet in order to get a subdivision plat filed.) The County Surveyor has only limited review authority over a Record of Survey -- if a practitioner is convinced that he meets the standard of practice, he can force the CS to file the map despite objections. There's a provision for the CS to require a note to go on the map describing the matters at issue, but he can't legally prevent a ROS that meets the nominal requirements (size, material, legibility, etc.) if the submitting surveyor insists. (One doesn't go the note route casually, but I've done it.) There are also provisions to limit the review fee, though this continues to be a problem in some counties. Not enough to justify scrapping the filing requirement, but it's an area that needs work.
With regard to the idea that a surveyor can't make a living when recording is required because he'd have to give away his secrets, I don't buy it. Either the market will support the survey profession, or it doesn't value the services enough to support it. Suddenly changing from no-recording to recording would certainly cause disruptions -- possibly catastrophic for some individuals -- but the market would adjust over time.
It's a matter of public policy. If you believe that surveyors are ethically bound to serve the public interest, the mandatory recording question is a no-brainer.
Pro
> Even if it's not be an isolated incident, it's merely an argument against substandard implementation of the recording requirement, not an indictment of the requirement concept itself.
>
Jim,
You are talking about what should be and I'm talking about what is.
If we lived in a perfect world where we didn't have uninformed jackals reviewing our work, I would be right there with you. But I don't live in that world.
> ... The County Surveyor has only limited review authority over a Record of Survey -- if a practitioner is convinced that he meets the standard of practice, he can force the CS to file the map despite objections. There's a provision for the CS to require a note to go on the map describing the matters at issue, but he can't legally prevent a ROS that meets the nominal requirements (size, material, legibility, etc.) if the submitting surveyor insists. ...
We don't have County Surveyors. The individuals reviewing our plats usually have zero experience with anything other than planning rules and regs. Often, the ones I have had the misfortune to run across seem to have not read even those basic rules. Mostly they just want to make things up as they go along. Hence we get the good ole boys network. If the reviewer were required to be a PLS, I would be happy as a can be. If that were the case I could report illegal actions to our Board and we would get a resolution one way or another. As it is, there is no one to whom these people report. So we are stuck with no reasonable path to record plats that aren't specifically subdivision plats that get a full review.
> With regard to the idea that a surveyor can't make a living when recording is required ...
I have never been one that wanted to keep my information secret. Any surveyor who asks me for information gets the full records, usually including CAD and coordinate files.
Larry P
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
Right.
If all original monuments are found, including pertinent corners, and are original, then no ROS is required. (Some exceptions, but this is generally true.)
Pro
It sounds like your entire state has an issue with cronyism, the survey recording headaches are merely a symptom from what you describe.
Pro
> It sounds like your entire state has an issue with cronyism, the survey recording headaches are merely a symptom from what you describe.
Not an unfair characterization. But now, do something about it. Ah, there in lies the rub.
Larry P
Pro
Sounds like you need state society support, board support, public support, and legislative support to get the laws changed so that a PLS is reviewing your surveys. Sounds like a worthwhile effort for the future of the profession in your state.
Yes...I am a greedy SOB!!
As other surveyors likely do across Florida, I find and reject or accept monumentation nearly every day. Not having other surveyor's maps available to me I typically do so not knowing who set what or when. However, what I accept and what I reject, will depend on many factors having absolutely nothing to do with who set it and on what date; those being about the only 2 items not discoverable through diligent field work or research. Also, I fail to recall where in the order of importance of evidence those items fall.
Having successfully defended one of my boundary surveys before the Florida Supreme Court, it's not like I just recently entered the business/profession of surveying and have little experience to know of what I speak. And, with 7 years being in charge of all boundary surveying on 2 million acres of forest lands across multiple states not including Florida, I believe I can say with some degree of confidence that Florida is no more rife with shoddy surveys than are other states. Nor do I have any reason to believe Florida has a greater amount of property boundary litigation clogging the courts. I personally believe it all comes down to discovery and interpretation/evaluation of evidence weighed by comparison to and in conjunction with the deed. In Florida, it just so happens that the only way to obtain what is needed is through time consuming work. Lots of it. However, the end result is likely just as defensible.
I will admit that it's very possible you and many others on this site are way better people than I am, however I never went into this business to serve. I am a simple man and freely admit that I am in business simply to make a living. Others may choose to do this because they want to make the world a better place. God bless them. They have my everlasting appreciation as well as all the attaboys I can muster up. When I am dead and gone some other surveyor will just come and take my place. I just happen to have 2 sons who are also licensed surveyors, so perhaps one of them might want to take up the torch; and then, who knows, he might just be more charitable to lazy surveyors who don't want to do all the hard work.
I would ask that your CCRs eventually get filed...
I always have
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
Us metes and bounds fellows have to do such things as pull adjoining deeds, and make decisions based on things besides bearings and distances.
The worst pin cushion I ever saw was in western Kentucky. A local firm create a 5 acre lot that became a truck stop. Some fellow came down from Indiana and rejected every single corner because it didn't fit the math by a foot or two.
Yep.
If a mandatory recording requirement is going to lead to that nonsense, I have to say not just no, but hell no.
