I'll have to take the time to read this whole thread carefully later, but just scanning over many of the responses, it should be clear that there are valid points expressed by those who are distressed that there are records that continue to remain in private hands, and there are valid points held by those who hold and those who use such records.
It was suggested that maybe the best solution is to destroy all the unfiled records. If viewed solely from the surveyor's point of view, that would make things easy, but it is counter to protecting the public (don't confuse advocating preserving old unfiled records with advocating non-filing now).
Many of those records either reflect the original establishment of boundaries on the ground, which are the ones we are supposed to be locating as retracing surveyors, or they provide evidentiary links between original establishment and the marks, monuments, and features that can be found today.
If an unfiled map of an old survey leads a surveyor to evidence of the originally established boundary, and that location is at odds with one or more filed surveys that re-established the same lines improperly, how in good conscience and understanding of your role as a retracing boundary surveyor, would you allow filed but incorrect surveys to prevail over an unfiled but correct survey map that you have obtained. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
If the later filed map indicates lines which have since been accepted and settled on over a considerable period of time, although they are not in the location of the original boundaries, then they may now represent a reasonable alternate location based upon the evidence that surveyor was able to find at that time. Show both and put your dark line on the one you feel is most supportable per the facts as they are now.
In many cases though, an unfiled record may be the key to locating a difficult to locate boundary. The boundary does not belong to the surveyor on the job, the surveyor who first staked it, to the surveying profession, to the local government, or to the State. The boundary belongs to the landowners. Destroying the evidence that allows a surveyor to find those boundaries and facilitate the landowners to now preserve them is diametrically opposite of protecting the public.
I am all for an effective solution, or several effective solutions for making important/useful unfiled survey records part of the public record. the problem is that so far, the solutions proposed have not been fully thought out and tend to come from a point of view that condemns those who have taken upon themselves to preserve these records with the sins of those who initially violated the law by not filing when they were required to.
On one hand, those with the records need to recognize and appreciate that it best serves the landowning public that the existence of the records be as widely known as possible and that they be reasonably available to professionals who would use them for their evidentiary value. In my experience, most who have such records recognize these points and make reasonable attempts to meet those needs.
On the other hand, those who wish to obtain copies of such records to use in their surveys need to appreciate that someone else recognized their value as evidence and took steps to preserve them at a time those steps were necessary. They need to acknowledge that often included significant monetary outlay and a significant amount of initial and ongoing effort to put and keep them in an accessible/useful condition. Many of us are aware of numerous useful collections of unfiled records that were once in the possession of local agencies (County Surveyor, DPW, & others), but were never filed in any official records sets because they did not meet format requirements, or for whatever reason, and have since been lost because someone decided that there was no room for them and did not recognize their evidentiary value. Those records, many of great value, are lost forever because the local agency had no permanent means of filing and keeping them. In such cases, private ownership of such records has proven a more reliable means of preservation. Not ideal, but the best (in many locales) up to this point.
Rather than bichin', demonizing and belittling, why not do something useful like trying to come up with solutions that addresses a wider set of concerns.
Proposing that the Board criminalize the possession of unfiled records, that the evidentiary value be legislated out of existence, that all such records simply be destroyed is neither realistic nor helpful.
Adding to Mike Butcher's response regarding the Legislative Committee of CLSA, I can say that I personally spent several (perhaps several dozen) hours on the matter while it was being considered by Leg Comm. Others also spent a considerable amount of time looking at the matter from various points of view. It was a matter of perhaps several hours of discussion in Leg Comm over several meetings.
When considering whether to promote a legislative proposal, we must consider such things as whether it will do what it was intended to do, whether it serves the profession, whether it serves the public, whether there will be support or opposition from other interest groups, where that support or opposition may come from and what it will be based on, where and how we can garner additional support from other groups, and whether we have the clout to overcome the opposition likely to come.
If a proposal comes to us that has not considered these things, we need to decide whether we have the time and resources to shape it into a proposal that does adequately address those things. The matter of unfiled maps is an extremely complicated one that will require a lot of time invested by several people willing to listen to and seriously consider the views and concerns of perties from all sides of the issue. The proposals we've been provided thus far have all been variations, more or less comprehensive, but formed from one fairly narrow view of one side of the issue. The all volunteer membership of the Leg Comm is simply too busy to take a proposal of such a complicated matter that is formed from one narrow view such that it constitutes merely a starting point to several hundred hours of work to create a possibly viable proposal that stands a chance of both being effective and making it through the legislature's own committees.
Leg Comm reviews 100 or so bills each year and several other matters of interest to the profession. At any given time, there are several subcommittees, with some mebers serving on 2 or 3 at any given time, working on fact-finding matters, proposed legislation, and matters that may at some point become legislative proposals. It's a damn busy committee that gets a lot done, yet we still find time to consider a narrowly considered proposed solution to a braod issue because it's a matter of some importance. The fact that we advised not moving forward with it at this time is not a reflection of Leg Comm dropping the ball or not doing our job. It is simply that someone, or more accurately, several someones need to look at the far broader picture and provide a more thought out proposal. If we weren't all already very busy, some of us might be able to do something with it over several months of meeting with reps of the various groups that would have a positive or negative interest in it.
You can whine that we're not doing our job because we didn't make the recommendation you want, and you can float the same elements of the proposal through different groups and maybe find a little support here or there. Or you can get serious and broaden your perspective, and come up with a solution that looks at the broader issue.
Sierra Club v. County of Orange - S194708
-
MFORD
Evan,
You continue to miss the point the proposed legislation addresses. You continue to paint the picture that the “messenger†is at fault for bringing to light a problem and not offering viable solutions. As you correctly point out unfiled maps can in some cases be the answer to boundary locations. In deference to your opinion and the adhoc committee report, the first legislative proposal was a viable solution to getting those unfiled maps, when discovered, into the public record where they belong. The previously proposed legislation didn’t add any additional requirements to the current codified law that doesn’t already exist. On the contrary, the legislation offered alternatives to the CS to alleviate the current requirement to keeping copies of those maps when submitted with maps for their review.
The principal opponents of the legislation (prior and current) are the holders of those private records They have apparently lobbied successfully, so far, that compensation for their public service is paramount to public access through the CS office or recorder’s offices. (A position that you and the Leg Com have bought into hook, line and sinker.) The CS office’s are in violation of the PRA if they don’t keep copies of unfiled documents submitted to their office. So far you and the other opponents to the legislation conveniently ignore that fact and frame your arguments around the canonization of the private record holders for their public service.
The map filing requirements have been in place since 1891 for the express reason of making those records available to the public. You sated “(don't confuse advocating preserving old unfiled records with advocating non-filing now)â€. That’s an oxymoron, IMHO. Reimbursing those record holders says just the opposite. if you believe those record holders the unfiled maps are more valuable than filed maps. Some of these record holders want hundreds of thousands of dollars for their files. In your spare time look into the value of the records of a land surveying business that has followed the filing requirements laws. Hint, it’s nowhere near what the unfiled record holders say their unfiled records are worth. If you and the other opponents are successful in squashing the current legislation, it is tantamount to advocating for non filing. The public is not served by allowing the status quo to continue.
For the record the transparent reference to the legislation proposed by CEAC, cooperation and support was neither solicited nor offered by those of us responsible for offering the proposed legislation to CLSA. CEAC came up with their proposed language all on their own, which says a lot about our organization. We are the self professed guardians of the land surveying profession in California. How is it that CEAC didn’t bother to contact CLSA for a joint proposal? How effective are we really? It says a lot about how our organization is perceived by related professions.
If, as a professional association, we don’t address this issue, we are, by our inaction, advocating for not following the laws we so piously preach to other professions, (i.e. BALEXANDER - Engineers working with existing Property Corners and Monuments.) Unfortunately some of our predecessors chose to ignore the laws that govern our profession. Equally unfortunate, there are those among us that perpetuate those transgressions for self serving reasons.
You continue to miss the point the proposed legislation addresses. You continue to paint the picture that the “messenger†is at fault for bringing to light a problem and not offering viable solutions. As you correctly point out unfiled maps can in some cases be the answer to boundary locations. In deference to your opinion and the adhoc committee report, the first legislative proposal was a viable solution to getting those unfiled maps, when discovered, into the public record where they belong. The previously proposed legislation didn’t add any additional requirements to the current codified law that doesn’t already exist. On the contrary, the legislation offered alternatives to the CS to alleviate the current requirement to keeping copies of those maps when submitted with maps for their review.
The principal opponents of the legislation (prior and current) are the holders of those private records They have apparently lobbied successfully, so far, that compensation for their public service is paramount to public access through the CS office or recorder’s offices. (A position that you and the Leg Com have bought into hook, line and sinker.) The CS office’s are in violation of the PRA if they don’t keep copies of unfiled documents submitted to their office. So far you and the other opponents to the legislation conveniently ignore that fact and frame your arguments around the canonization of the private record holders for their public service.
The map filing requirements have been in place since 1891 for the express reason of making those records available to the public. You sated “(don't confuse advocating preserving old unfiled records with advocating non-filing now)â€. That’s an oxymoron, IMHO. Reimbursing those record holders says just the opposite. if you believe those record holders the unfiled maps are more valuable than filed maps. Some of these record holders want hundreds of thousands of dollars for their files. In your spare time look into the value of the records of a land surveying business that has followed the filing requirements laws. Hint, it’s nowhere near what the unfiled record holders say their unfiled records are worth. If you and the other opponents are successful in squashing the current legislation, it is tantamount to advocating for non filing. The public is not served by allowing the status quo to continue.
For the record the transparent reference to the legislation proposed by CEAC, cooperation and support was neither solicited nor offered by those of us responsible for offering the proposed legislation to CLSA. CEAC came up with their proposed language all on their own, which says a lot about our organization. We are the self professed guardians of the land surveying profession in California. How is it that CEAC didn’t bother to contact CLSA for a joint proposal? How effective are we really? It says a lot about how our organization is perceived by related professions.
If, as a professional association, we don’t address this issue, we are, by our inaction, advocating for not following the laws we so piously preach to other professions, (i.e. BALEXANDER - Engineers working with existing Property Corners and Monuments.) Unfortunately some of our predecessors chose to ignore the laws that govern our profession. Equally unfortunate, there are those among us that perpetuate those transgressions for self serving reasons.