jamesh1467 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:01 pm
I've created draft standards, or at least a lot of a draft that would probably be very helpful. Plus, a lot of the research. I'm happy to share once I know it will be taken seriously.
But its not about the work of creating standards really, is it? I am guessing there's dozens of people willing to step up and do the work to create standards once its clear this could happen..........the primary thing blocking California from creating standards is something else isn't it?
There are not “dozens of people willing to step up”. I suspect most readers are tracking the threat level to their practice, nothing more. Hopefully, you did not put to much effort into drafting standards.
jamesh1467 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:01 pm
… our lack of a moral compass as a profession is making us weak, to the point we are flirting more and more with extinction.
I pulled the next quote from another current thread to remove any semblance of being anecdotal or hypothetical - this is not the proverbial "few bad apples" - as folks are fond of restating. As you have confirmed below, the numbers speak for themselves.
desert turtoise wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:18 pm
... a LS who proposed to perform a Topographic Survey of improvements
and encroachments along one side lot line and rear line. He states in the agreement that he would "re-establish the record boundary". He applied record angle and distance from an what appears to be an extensive alinement of harmonious points along the front right of way to calculate the rear corners. He did not find the rear corners....The other rear point that was also calculated at record location by cited surveyor was exactly in agreement with the neighbor's surveyor.
The cited LS reiterated he did not propose a boundary survey. He represented his survey graphically at a blown up scale, showing the fencing and improvements in relation to the lot line without listing dimensions to improvements. ...Also, what constitutes a "record boundary" was never discussed by anyone.
...
The Board "expert" said all four lot corners should have been found as part of the topographic survey. Borpels cited the LS for negligence per sect. 8780 b, for not having found all four lot corners and not basing his topo survey on such. ...Rather, a record boundary and topographic map would be provided." The neighbor's survey stated that the procedure by the cited LS "is usually sufficient to produce a basic site plan". The owner who hired the cited LS testified she was satisfied with the work under the contract and did not have any expectations he would set points or survey into other neighboring lots.
...
Only Soapy Smith – likely tried his hand at land surveying - could retell this story any better. Nobody could honestly argue a member of the public understands "re-establish the record boundary". It sure sounds official.
There is no such thing as a “record boundary” in connection with a field survey [except maybe a tentative map - which is presumed to result in a subdivision map]. Plenty of folks have been rightfully cited for providing record boundaries and/or not finding existing monuments [even in brush].
A “record boundary” is a nonsensical three card monte - confirmed by their CYA notes. Some folks in our community made up "record boundaries" to offer to unsuspecting members of the public, circumvent the filing a map and to pass bad paper for cheap money. The idea of having to mandatorily set monuments - which these land surveyors oppose for obvious reasons - would end their con. It is a peculiar thing. “Record boundary” aka Two Monument Tango is a close cousin to the “I didn’t set monuments” canard as a basis for not filing a record of survey. Notice the quote "
The owner who hired the cited LS testified she was satisfied with the work under the contract and did not have any expectations he would set points or survey into other neighboring lots." These are his words, not mine. A boundary without surveying a neighbors lot? Interesting, noted. The BPELSG does not have to accept a judges ruling. Based on what was written, this would be a good ruling to reject.
The survey scope of work included “Identify encroachments” – clearly a boundary survey is required to identify encroachments. Square that with the fact the surveyor "didn't show dimensions". Why no dimensions? The land surveyors probably read or was told dimensions "establish" boundaries. Another monte is not to annotate the boundary with the thought "it is not a boundary". Why not simply deliver a topographic map if the client doesn't want a boundary? Not dimensioning is more flim-flam. If the boundary is established properly the dimensions are only ancillary. Any readers have thoughts to the contrary?
This particular licensee got lucky in court, and we are expected to accept the procedural failing of the basics as a precedent i.e. search for monuments, evidence, measure, and map. As we see here, we will have professionals waiving one meaningless administrative hearing ruling as though it came from SCOTUS or Mount Sinai on a tablet of stone. The paperwork will be passed among their friends to rationalize their practices and spawn another twenty more like him. Apparently, readers do not find this offensive. Offensive is trying to stop it or regulate negligence out of existence.
Bottom line, not finding an original monument is being argued as being acceptable for boundary establishment.
jamesh1467 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 10:01 pm
To put it in perspective and take DWoolley's facts about enforcement one step further to data that I really didn't want to share publicly, we have removed by force somewhere around 1% (0.97%) of all land surveyor licenses in the past 10 years. That means if history repeats, the board is likely to remove one out of every 100 surveyors by force over the next 10 years. Compared to civils, who remove around 1 out of every 750 (0.13%) of their licenses.
Keep in mind, the BPELSG complaint wash rate is between 60-70%. As among polite society, most criminals commit a lot of crimes before they are caught. In California, approximately 50% of the homicides and aggravated assaults are not solved and only about one in three rapes and robberies are solved.
Crime in California, being generally acceptable, creates a wide open lane for those particular California land surveyors. For them, I suppose it beats walking into a CVS and stealing as much as you can carry and reselling on the street. It also allows them to smile and shake hands with their fellow perishers on Sundays without pulling from the plate [not that they are above it]. To hear land surveyors retell the story, they are helping the poor, poor widows, and orphans that “just need a survey” [to add their $350k ADU to their $1.5M property] - ever so benevolent.
Riddle yourself this, do you think after 10, 20 or 30 years of grifting a respondent decides to go straight after a brush with BPELSG? That has not been my firsthand experience. In fact, note the “celebration” of the decision above "JUDGE BLOWS UP WHAT BOARD THINKS NEGLIGENCE IS", all caps to express rejoice. That fella was so convinced of his righteousness he trotted off to court to defend holding record angle and distance while not finding an original monument (essentially a GIS boundary). Should we take this ruling and allow the GIS folks to make boundary maps in a similar manner, why not? Many times, I have seen licensees in similar situations waving their closed case paperwork as though their practice is now sanctioned. Doubt me? Re-read the referenced post for the incorrect citations of Brown. Tragic, but not uncommon. Sure makes it hard to argue against GIS folks performing land surveying. Flashback, recall a different thread in which I wrote about records of survey not having monuments, boundary establishment notes, calling monuments off without explanation formatted on 18x26 as a record of survey? According to "JUDGE BLOWS UP WHAT BOARD THINKS NEGLIGENCE IS", they got a green light for the practice.
I can already hear the licensees wailing at the injustices of deregulation. For those that feel as though there is no justice in the world, as of late, I am seeing land surveyors paying multimillion dollar settlements for their wrongdoings. I am not seeing the public protection aspects in those cases. Carpenters and laborers doing layout work may prove to be better at, er, land surveying.
DWoolley