What would be the reason for a city subdivision plat reviewer to require me to remove our company logo? Every other plat in town has either a company logo or a "Prepared by" note. Could signing a plat without our logo be considered substandard practice? Do liability insurance providers require the logo to be there? Why would anyone want the reader of a subdivision plat to not know who prepared it or how to contact them?
Thanks for any opinions.
RoadBurner, post: 422306, member: 6168 wrote: What would be the reason for a city subdivision plat reviewer to require me to remove our company logo?
He couldn't find any real problems. What's he supposed to do, return your plat with no comments?? You put the guy in a real jam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
Does he want to put his logo there?
I'd ask him to show me the rule/regulation that says no logos shall appear on a subdivision plat. If there is no such rule/regulation - tell him to pound sand.
It's not prohibited in California, and is certainly the standard of practice. It isn't mandatory either and, occasionally, someone will choose to not include the information.
When your company logo is registered with the State BOR under your company firm name, it is a part of the information required by the BOR to be on all documents that you sign and seal.
0.02
RoadBurner, post: 422306, member: 6168 wrote: What would be the reason for a city subdivision plat reviewer to require me to remove our company logo? Every other plat in town has either a company logo or a "Prepared by" note. Could signing a plat without our logo be considered substandard practice? Do liability insurance providers require the logo to be there? Why would anyone want the reader of a subdivision plat to not know who prepared it or how to contact them?
Thanks for any opinions.
Just say NO...
I had a new Planner want everything spelled out. No T. for Township, no N. for North. I just told him no I wasn't going to do that. Now I always have a misspelled word so they can find something that needs to be corrected.
Is it obscene? Something like a pair of goats attempting to add to their collection of kids? Does it involve a burning marijuana leaf? Does it contain a Latin phrase that translates to something you wouldn't say in front of your grandmother?
I hate it. Happens here all the time. 'We want the lines to be that line weight not bold like you have them' 'make this line dashed'
I got into an argument with an attorney last month over this bc he wanted to just get the map filed and I wouldn't do the change they wanted bc in my opinion it made part of a lot look severed from the rest of the lot and could mislead people down the road. I asked for the number of the head of the board so I can call him to explain and the attorney said he wouldn't give it to me bc he didn't want me to talk to him bc the matter was settled.
Believe me my voice was raised and not happy. I told him I wouldn't file a map signed by me that was in my opinion 'wrong'
It doesn't stop at plat review. It's all the power tripping beurocrats.
I argue with my father bc around here if you own a house on a lot and buy the lot next to you and file under the same name, the tax assessor will see the same name and combine the lots. Without asking.
Now when you go to sell that lot you bought, even 2 weeks later, you cannot because it's 'all one' now. What was a perfectly conforming, buildable, lot now has to go through the lengthy, pricey subdivision process all because some lady at a desk saw two neighboring lots owned by the same name and decided to erase the line between.
I argue that if this was fought and went to court there is no way this would stand and someone could sell that lot just as they had bought it.
RoadBurner, post: 422306, member: 6168 wrote: What would be the reason for a city subdivision plat reviewer to require me to remove our company logo?
The best person to ask would be the city subdivision plat reviewer. I can't imagine what the reason might be, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. A lot of comments reviewers make are suggestions only (they should use different color pens for requirements and for suggestions, they don't). Ask with an open mind, and if you don't like the answer just calmly and firmly state that you like the logo as it is, and that it will stay. And you have a great day, sir.
I ran into this once in my home town. The reviewer, an engineering tech, said that my logo constituted advertising. I provided copies of several maps that had recently been filed in the city by other firms, all of which had company logos on them, some with tag lines like "Civil engineering, planning and surveying." Mine was a bare-bones logo with my address and phone number. The issue got bumped up to a senior civil engineer, who stopped the madness.
Everything in my title box is required by State Statutes in our minimum standards.
I do my best to gently educate reviewers. Things only escalate when they refuse to limit demands to things with a logical and or legal foundation. My seal, my product.
thebionicman, post: 422562, member: 8136 wrote: My seal, my product.
I think most of us feel that way, but it can become a problem when you and the agency get into a standoff but your client wants the map filed so he can move ahead with his project. In those instances, the agency has the upper hand.
Jim Frame, post: 422571, member: 10 wrote: I think most of us feel that way, but it can become a problem when you and the agency get into a standoff but your client wants the map filed so he can move ahead with his project. In those instances, the agency has the upper hand.
My local city government comes up with a new note almost every month they want pasted on plats. A lot of them are outside of the realm of surveying; like building code requirements, drainage structures or paving requirements. It wouldn't be so bad I guess, except that the "short form" plat is required to be legal page size. There's hardly enough room to get in there what a surveyor needs to say, but the plat IS our survey.
A good example: in Oklahoma surveyors are required to state whether a corner was found or set, size, etc...I had a planning commission reviewer ask me to remove the notes because they were immaterial to the plat. I explained why otherwise and the notes remained.
Jim Frame, post: 422571, member: 10 wrote: I think most of us feel that way, but it can become a problem when you and the agency get into a standoff but your client wants the map filed so he can move ahead with his project. In those instances, the agency has the upper hand.
Thats what the Board and Attorney General are for. I will not produce a map or description tailored to the whims of someone acting beyond thier authority. If i let it ride so one client can get approval, im setting up every future client to be browbeaten into submission. That doesnt 'protect the public'.
RoadBurner, post: 422306, member: 6168 wrote: What would be the reason for a city subdivision plat reviewer to require me to remove our company logo? Every other plat in town has either a company logo or a "Prepared by" note. Could signing a plat without our logo be considered substandard practice? Do liability insurance providers require the logo to be there? Why would anyone want the reader of a subdivision plat to not know who prepared it or how to contact them?
Thanks for any opinions.
Is your logo that David Mann piece? Could be anti motorcyclist?
thebionicman, post: 422578, member: 8136 wrote: If i let it ride so one client can get approval, im setting up every future client to be browbeaten into submission. That doesnt 'protect the public'.
I appreciate the sentiment, and if the issue is significant enough I'll follow it every time. But things like logos have little to do with protecting the public when it comes to professional land surveying, and there are times when "pick your battles" is the best advice.
Jim Frame, post: 422584, member: 10 wrote: I appreciate the sentiment, and if the issue is significant enough I'll follow it every time. But things like logos have little to do with protecting the public when it comes to professional land surveying, and there are times when "pick your battles" is the best advice.
When we allow reviewers to force unnecessary revisions at the expense of our clients they have been harmed. It also feeds the habit of requiring things without legal foundation. Once you allow that to start there is no end..
