If record title and the writings are the absolute determination of boundaries and we are to reject the agreement doctrines shouldn't it just be simple to program the record into the GIS and have some measurement technicians just mark it out. This would protect the lenders and innocent buyers of the record. You'd effectively eliminate the courts as the technical application of the record and the measurement technicians would be the ultimate adjudicators. Think of all the money and effort we'd save. Let's just push the courts out of the picture as we've got plenty of folks that know better than the common man and thousands of years of holding court. It so simple a cave man could do it.
The ultimate victory over private land ownership would be achieved as those that know best (not the landowners) would be in control. If the line goes through your house that's been in place for 50 years I suppose you just own part of a condominium complex. The record says so. Think of the stability we'd have after everything got properly aligned to the record. It's a lot easier to move the earth than bend the record. All the reconstruction would be a boom to the economy.
Be careful what you wish for, it may actually happen. GIS is here to stay and, in many cases, it is seen as authoritative information (even by some surveyors).
[sarcasm]It would be much simpler to go the route of just completely pitching out the record documents. After all, they have no meaning even if they can be easily placed on the ground. I really don't see why so many states even require pulling the deed as well as adjoining deeds in the process of conducting a boundary survey.
Have a GIS tech look at the aerial photos and pick fences, mow lines, and average green spaces between houses to fix the lines as the landowners obviously intended. Digitizing these lines would be much quicker (saving tax dollars) than actually keying in a property description for a parcel. After the initial sketching is complete, periodic new flights of the areas could be used to adjust the lines as needed for any new fences or newly purchased mowers with wider decks.
In that way we could eliminate measurement technicians, professional land adjudicators, some attorneys, title companies, Professional Land Surveyors, the deed room in the County Clerk's office, any permitting agency that requires boundary locations.
That is a great deal of people out of work, but we will finally have 'fixed' floating boundaries.[/sarcasm]
"In that way we could eliminate measurement technicians, professional land adjudicators, some attorneys, title companies, Professional Land Surveyors, the deed room in the County Clerk's office, any permitting agency that requires boundary locations.
That is a great deal of people out of work, but we will finally have 'fixed' floating boundaries."
Actually as one with a definite libertarian view, most of that sounds pretty good to me. People should engage in productive work that increases wealth and not just regulation that shuts most things down, wastes resources and drains the tax payer.
As far as boundaries go landowners would probably do much better than one might think if they knew that they where responsible for their boundaries. Surveyors shouldn't exist just to employ people, they should fulfill a need. When too may folks dread the arrival of a surveyor because it is likely to unsettle their peaceful neighborhood there is something amiss. Just following the settled law would solve most of these issues. Landowners own the land and should have the domain over their boundaries. If they want to save money and establish their boundaries between them without a survey that's their choice. I'd rather see them get it done more precisely but who am I the tell them what they must do. I don't think the problem is as much what will happen in the future but what has already happened, what is already settled and shouldn't be disturbed.
The Bahr vs Imus case is not that large or complicated to understand. You might could make it last a couple of weeks in a college course at the most. Of coarse you can lead a mule to water but you can't make him drink.
It is apparently a wide world out there.
I can't say as many folks I know of have 'dreaded' seeing me arrive on site. It may be because I try and speak with the neighbors before starting. They are always nicer to someone they 'know'.
I also can count on one finger of one hand the number of times folks have lawyered up based on me finding original monuments (or their easily defined mathematical location) that were in disagreement with occupation. A talk with the affected parties about the situation and what options are available (before putting up neon posts with signs saying "YOUR FENCE IS IN THE WRONG SPOT") really works wonders on getting things resolved in a peaceable manner.
What is really amazing is the number of people around here who actually only want what is in their deed - no more no less. Just a week ago, two small outbuildings were moved before a closing went through. All it took to resolve the matter was to walk the neighbors property with him and show how every piece of the puzzle fit together.
I agree with all that. A surveyor needs to communicate with those that their work will affect. I too have had adjoining landowners that want things straightened up, in my case usually to aliquot lines from the PLSS.
But at the same time I've had adjoining landowners that wanted their fences that have been in place for decades left alone. I just try to sort it out according to our law and find a way within the law to make it work. Most of the time you can make it work and have happy clients.
I've also arrived and started setting up and about got lynched, all due to what the last surveyor did to them without ever contacting them. At a minimum a surveyor should respect landowners. Let them tell you their story, might not all be true but usually you will learn a lot about their neighborhood.
Here's where that goes...
[msg=193999]GIS tech takin' care of biznez[/msg]
Does ESRI still have that boundary net? I went to a scare session... I mean seminar with Rich Vannozzi a few years ago. He showed some least squares network where you would input monument coordinates, record distances and who knows what else to output a boundary layer that was a bit closer than digitization.
Was it GCDB by chance???
Is that essentially how tax maps are done?
