Surveyor to Recorder

Surveyor to Recorder

Poll runs till Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:25 pm

I want Direct to Recorder
21
14%
I want the existing County Surveyor review
27
18%
I am in private practice
36
25%
I am in government
15
10%
I am a member of CLSA
43
29%
I am NOT a member of CLSA
4
3%
 
Total votes: 146

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:25 pm

Ladies 'n Gents . . .

Per Saint Pete's suggestion . . . and some of my feeble thoughts . . . composed this survey.

I allowed 500 days for this . . . and due to "debate" if you change your mind you may change your vote.

Please give us your two cents and take the survey.

Thanks!

Phil - Sonoma
Last edited by hellsangle on Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Peter Ehlert » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:25 pm

thanks Phil
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:59 am

Saturday morning 27 Oct 2018 . . .

60% for Surveyor to Recorder
40% for County Surveyor review.

Maybe Chapter secretaries could send this link to their members for more voters!

LOW VOTER TURN-OUT - BAD.

(Last line sounded a bit idjut, huh?)

Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby PLS7393 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:19 am

Phil,
I agree the response is pretty low, but maybe with only 58 votes (at the time of this post), it is saying there are only 58 professional land surveyors active on this thread, lol.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Peter Ehlert » Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:34 am

Odd results. I just noted that I had not made a third selection (member status). I clicked on that and it popped to 59 votes.
reverse engineering says: Effectively there may be only 20 people participating...
such a small sampling seems to vague at this point. dunno.
maybe a forum admin can suck some more metadata out... I believe phpBB software has that capability.

Yes, we all need to pimp this personally as well as the Chapters.
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby LS_8750 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:20 pm

I'm on the fence. Cannot trust surveyors to do their jobs. Just reviewed a little block in Marin and out of a 10 minute review of four or five maps the only thing I ascertained with confidence was that none of those maps had the boundary lines correct. In this case I was disgusted at both the County Surveyor at the time the maps were recorded, and the surveyors who filed the maps.
Last edited by LS_8750 on Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby LS_8750 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:26 pm

I'm on the fence. Cannot trust surveyors to do their jobs. Just reviewed a little block in Marin and out of a 10 minute review of four or five maps the only thing I ascertained with confidence was that none of those maps had the boundary lines correct. In this case I was disgusted with both the County Surveyor at the time the maps were recorded, and the surveyors who filed the maps.

My mind will of course change again next time I go to file a map in some of these Counties I occasionally step foot in.

What I don't want to see is a polluted public record filled with garbage maps and corner records like I see in some parts of the Bay Area.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:56 am

I hear you, Clark!

I am well aware of what you speak of. I have been surveying in that county since 1971.

However, having the “blessing” of the County Surveyor does not make a survey infallible. Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify? Has BPELSG ever given testimony in a boundary dispute? A PPC? It is a court(s) of law that decide.

Contractors must “read” drawings in order to build that which is on paper.
Similarly, a surveyor must “read” a survey in order to determine the wheat from chaff.

Review fees are all over the place . . . with some review procedures/opinions/drafting techniques all over the board like a pachinko game!

It is the surveyor who is on the hook. And if the surveyor broke every law on the books, but prevails in the courts - that is new law. Art. Not a science.

That said . . . just because it is recorded, or unrecorded, does not relieve the surveyor accepting the survey(s) of the duty to vet the survey(s). Junk in. Junk out.

As most know, boundary surveys are more than far mathematical closures and employing the nearest Record of Survey. It is about evidence. And evidence that may not be in the form of a map (recorded or otherwise). ('Course I'm preachin' to the choir, Clark.)

Won’t you reconsider?

Thanks for you listening,

Phil - Sonoma

Edward M Reading
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Edward M Reading » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:57 am

hellsangle wrote:... Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify? ...

Yes.
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:34 pm

Interesting, Ed!
Thanks for sharing.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:40 pm

As of 1 November . . . 575 "lookie lou's" and only 36 have voted?
Thank you all for the response thus far . . . but I find it hard to believe this is not an issue with most private practice surveyors.
Please get this out to non-members too. And just like next Tuesday - VOTE!
Appreciatively,
Phil - Sonoma
PS last poll was 54 votes and they were about 50% - 50%

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby DWoolley » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:45 pm

hellsangle wrote:
However, having the “blessing” of the County Surveyor does not make a survey infallible. Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify? Has BPELSG ever given testimony in a boundary dispute? A PPC? It is a court(s) of law that decide.

Phil - Sonoma


Has there ever been a boundary dispute where the County Surveyor was called to testify?

Yes, I have seen a County Surveyor called to testify. In fact, there is a County Surveyor calendared to testify next week on a private surveyor's record of survey he signed two years ago.

Has BPELSG ever given testimony in a boundary dispute?

Yes, I witnessed a former Registrar testify (ah, Phil, you were there with me). It was related to a negligence allegation stemming from a boundary dispute.

A PPC?

Yes, the former Orange County JPPC Chairman. He testified as the JPPC Chairman concerning complaints filed by the Orange County committee. He was questioned about the process, standard of care, etc.

"It is a court(s) of law that decides"

Are you suggesting all boundary issues go to court, similar to Massachusetts Land Court, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars and 3 to 5 years time - rather than demand competency from the licensees? Furthermore, turn a blind eye to poor practice so as to go along to get along - honest business and the unwitting public be damned? Phil, please do not crawdad away from these questions or simply provide nonsensical (Booley) comments. After all, I took the time to thoughtfully answer your questions. Quid pro quo.

Judging from the poll numbers I may have overestimated the forum readership when I recently said 100 readers. It may be a considerably less, say, 75? 50?

California has a little north of 4200 land surveying licensees. The 50 people polled, not necessarily licensees, is approximately 1% of the licensed population. Any conclusions from the poll would be nothing more than anecdotal, meaningless.

Phil, again, what was a Big Bad Booley referenced in your other thread?

Best,

DWoolley

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:53 am

You're correct Dave . . . another abysmal response. Thirty eight votes!
.
I didn't mean to confuse when I asked if "others"were involved court action. I meant . . in a superior court dispute between two surveyors. (The one "we" were involved with was a Administrative Law court. Not a Marin superior court action between two surveyors.)

Marin is a unique county with regards to boundary determination. I hate to say it . . . but it may be cheaper to file a Quiet Title action . . . and hope the adjoiners like the survey results and fail to show . . . rather than depositions/conflicting surveys/court(s). (Torrens might be nice again. But that is pie-in-sky as is Surveyor to Recorder.)

Another analogy with regards to Surveyor to Recorder: when a dentist works on a mouth, who comes in and "reviews" his/her work? (Maybe in dental school before becoming licensed, that would happen. But not after he/she is licensed . . . and with EVERY MOUTH!)

Thank you all for taking this poll. I just wish more surveyors would give their two cents and vote. (Maybe Landon could link this in the CalSurveyor in hopes of getting a consensus?)

Have a good week, all.

Respectfully,

Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Peter Ehlert » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:15 am

Poll runs till 08 Mar 2020 15:25 --- why so anxious? /humor

thanks Phil, et al
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby Jim Frame » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Another analogy with regards to Surveyor to Recorder: when a dentist works on a mouth, who comes in and "reviews" his/her work? (Maybe in dental school before becoming licensed, that would happen. But not after he/she is licensed . . . and with EVERY MOUTH!)


That analogy might hold up if dental work on one person directly affected the dental health of his neighbors, but that's not the case. Any damage caused by a dentist is confined to the individual patient, who will be aware of the situation. By contrast, a surveyor's screwup affects his client and all adjoiners, thus the requirement that surveys disclosing facts and opinions at odds with the record be made availablefor public review.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:26 pm

Not gonna fly, huh, Jim? LOL
I tried . . .

falcon
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 6:26 am

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby falcon » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:33 am

hellsangle wrote:Torrens might be nice again. But that is pie-in-sky as is Surveyor to Recorder.


I thought Torrens was attempted in some counties and done away with as it simply bankrupted the fund after the first big claim.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby hellsangle » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:40 am

Hello Falcon!
Good point . . . but the point I was making is this: little to no ambiguities. Retrace the Torrens survey and you're done. Liken an adjudicated boundary.
Phil - Sonoma


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest