California Surveyors Forums

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?

Right on, Mr. Reading!

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 1:42 pm I am curious why this thread is a bad thing in your mind Dave. I see this thread as a civil, respectful discussion of a proposed change to a law.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I have no issue with the thread or the discussion. I am actually enjoying it. The discussion takes me back to our roots, Benson.

Almost on the daily, I see field surveys in the form of site plans, ALTAs, exhibits that do not show any monuments, found or set. I regularly review parcel maps, tract maps and records of survey that have insufficient monumentation, poor monument descriptions (can I buy a vowel?), no boundary establishment notes, and a general unwillingness to tag found monuments accepted as control. This "saving the client money" includes substituting "spk" for "spike" forget about whether it was a boat spike, cut spike, gin/gear spike, or any other information that would be remotely in compliance with 8764 (a). If we hit the monument lotto on work product i.e. more than two monuments, it is not uncommon to see "Fd. Mon.", nothing more.

On a similar frequency, it remains common to have a surveyor say they "didn't set monuments" as to why a map was not filed - interestingly, that was never the law. When we encounter an older surveyor's monument with no reference, it is common to hear "I set that before they changed the law". However, there was never a law that said a surveyor didn't have to file a map after setting monuments.

This morning I met with a client having a boundary/encroachment issue, what did I find at the angle point (presumably) of the boundary line? A 1x2 with a lathe marked "property corner". Nobody seems to know who set it.

No, old friend, I very much enjoy this conversation. I mean this sincerely. I can practically path Benson of 1890 to 2023 - it is more clear than a Habsburg chin and for similar reasons.

We would be foolish to think a professional remedy wouldn't be without a struggle - in light of our history. Back in '91, we can be sure Benson hated the idea of licensure.

Carry on,

DWoolley

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 1:46 pm Which states if you don't mind sharing? Is there a pattern? like PLSS states, or eastern states?

Sure Mike, below is a list. I think I counted wrong, there are 24 with laws that say ALL and one that says 70% of the corners... (See my post above for the language):

Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

bryanmundia wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:54 pm

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 1:46 pm Which states if you don't mind sharing? Is there a pattern? like PLSS states, or eastern states?

Sure Mike, below is a list. I think I counted wrong, there are 24 with laws that say ALL and one that says 70% of the corners... (See my post above for the language):
...

I suspect another 20 states didn't see the need to pass a law compelling their surveyors to survey. It would be akin to making a law requiring breathing. It simply wouldn't occur to them a law was needed.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 3:03 pm I suspect another 20 states didn't see the need to pass a law compelling their surveyors to survey. It would be akin to making a law requiring breathing. It simply wouldn't occur to them a law was needed.

The other 25 states have a law that is very similar if not the same to our current language in 8771.

Edward M Reading wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:13 pm Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

I suggest you go back and read the posts on the 1st page of this thread, I believe it will answer all of your questions.

This morning I met with a client having a boundary/encroachment issue, what did I find at the angle point (presumably) of the boundary line? A 1x2 with a lathe marked "property corner". Nobody seems to know who set it

Do you all believe this law will change the behavior in Mr. Wooley's example?

On Mr. Reading's question of what it the "problem"? Do anyone have concrete evidence that not setting a monument has caused great harm to the public?

Is a Record of Survey with no "set" points The problem? One would suspect there is a myriad of evidence that a Record of Survey was based upon + the basis of bearings. If no myriad of evidence - why would one want to hang their hat on such a survey?

Will another law fix this?

Crazy man, again

Thanks for the list Bryan. Nothing seems to jump out as a correlation or useful pattern right off the bat. It is interesting to note that we in CA are the same as basically half the country. I am curious when those states that require monuments did so. If the laws were on the books pre WW2 it would hard to compare them to CA due to the difference in pace of development without monuments etc. (I don't expect you to do that research btw, just musing out loud (errr out typing)).

I still don't see how more laws will save us from law breakers. Its either education, or enforcement of existing laws. I also think most of the bad habits Dave brought up, IE bad descriptions, no explanations etc, are fading away as older surveyors retire. It is rare for me to encounter younger surveyors who do not embrace the idea of more information, more notes, etc. When I do, it is generally an easy discussion to convince them to add at least a few more notes. Baby steps right?

Those who won't add more notes or descriptions are predominately those who could point out that they have been surveying longer than I have been alive. If laws are made in reaction to a fading trend, then we are pushing the pendulum too far in the wrong direction. Is the situation really that bad in OC? As a trend? Who is getting hurt?

It sounds like Dave has already hit on a local solution with the ordinances requiring monuments to be set prior to issuing a building permit. Local problems getting local solutions.

For what its worth, many of those western states that require monuments have very very simple permitting processes. Anecdotatly, a friend did a cross county RV trip and made a point of asking the local officials in the areas he went (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana) what their permitting was like. Most simply asked if he was from California, since where else would he get the idea that government had to get involved with someone building a house or building a road. I bring this up because its useful to remember that laws do not act in a vacuum, and we should look at the totality of the effect, not any individual law in isolation.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:33 pm ...
It sounds like Dave has already hit on a local solution with the ordinances requiring monuments to be set prior to issuing a building permit. Local problems getting local solutions.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Ordinances usually apply to subdivision maps, not the Business and Professions Code. Enacting an ordinance is a heavy lift in many jurisdictions. It was a strong minded City Surveyor in Newport Beach and transfer from NB to Laguna Beach that made it happen. There are about 475 cities in California. Those are two cities out of 34 in OC. This is not a solution.

I expect the same passive attitude towards the law when there is a move to deregulate the profession. In fact, I expect your support - it'll save the client money.

DWoolley

bryanmundia wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 3:19 pm

Edward M Reading wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:13 pm Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

I suggest you go back and read the posts on the 1st page of this thread, I believe it will answer all of your questions.

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

DWoolley wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:56 pm I expect the same passive attitude towards the law when there is a move to deregulate the profession. In fact, I expect your support - it'll save the client money.

I am not sure if this is tongue in cheek or an aside but I feel compelled to state that I see nothing in the posts of Mikey Mueller or any of the other participants in this discussion that leads me to believe they are in support of deregulating our profession.

How many of us have surveyed a property that has already been surveyed and really should be monumented and mapped. Parcels with new buildings, additions, pools, etc. This rule would put an end to this. In difficult areas, the constant re-surveying of parcels due to poorly monumented and un-mapped site surveys, topo surveys, etc. exposes owners to recurring boundary uncertainty issues. I see this as one of the main benefits of this proposal.

When I see old site surveys, topos, etc. I am struck by the abundance of 'footsteps' left behind in the way of crosses, marks, pipes, etc. that seem to have been set as an ordinary part of the work. As opposed to today's maps which suggest setting of points is more of an afterthought than a point of pride. I think this is what the proposal is trying to get us back to.

What is a survey without monuments? Until we can transition to a European-style coordinated cadastre our chain-of-title and deed-based system is totally dependent on monuments for stability.

I believe in Idaho you must justify each and every monument that is not accepted on your map, and all corners not marked already must be set. The stability of boundaries and densification of monumentation that would result from this proposal would be massive.

As Mr. Woolley stated perhaps the reason the original language did explicitly require monuments to be set was that it was assumed monuments were being set during boundary surveys as common sense would suggest...

Surveys are expensive, should we not stop with the constant re-surveying of the same parcels when one should really suffice and be available for future use?

Perhaps a point besides "major" can be found in between "two" and "all" that will end this debate.

Edward M Reading wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:20 pm

bryanmundia wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 3:19 pm

Edward M Reading wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:13 pm Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

I suggest you go back and read the posts on the 1st page of this thread, I believe it will answer all of your questions.

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

Setting monuments creates/promotes civil harmony and preserves/memorizes private and public land rights. Over time, like the filing of records of survey, setting monuments lowers of the cost of land surveying for the public. The proposed law would facilitate this end.

Land surveyors need to distinguish the profession/professional from the "surveying" being performed by contractors and unlicensed folks. Contractors and unlicensed people will not set monuments or file records of survey (the same is currently true for land surveyors. The law would move us that direction). We need to distinguish the profession from everyone else/technology. The requirement for monuments pressures scofflaws that use the excuse for not filing "I did not set monuments". Lastly, this would eliminate the flim-flam "record boundary" often associated with topographic maps and site plans.

Frankly, surveyors that do not file records of survey, perform record boundaries and do not set monuments are indistinguishable from the unlicensed folks like Crownholm, the carpenters, or Operating Engineers - therefore, land surveyors are using their license to hold the public captive and rightfully, can/should be deregulated like that ol' yellow dog.

DWoolley

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:33 pm I still don't see how more laws will save us from law breakers. Its either education, or enforcement of existing laws. I also think most of the bad habits Dave brought up, IE bad descriptions, no explanations etc, are fading away as older surveyors retire. It is rare for me to encounter younger surveyors who do not embrace the idea of more information, more notes, etc. When I do, it is generally an easy discussion to convince them to add at least a few more notes. Baby steps right?

Mike,

I don't necessarily see this law as a one prong approach to saving us from law breakers. In addition to what Dave said above, another viewpoint on this law is public perception. I don't know how it is in the rest of the state but in Southern California we have a lot of surveyors that go unidentified in the public eye. Their vehicles have no signage or identification as to who they are, what company they work for and who the licensee is in responsible charge. If I am driving down the street in my neighborhood or on the way to the home improvement store and see a surveyor, I normally will stop and talk to them for a minute just to see what they are up to. You would be surprised at how many surveyors will go scurrying in the opposite direction as I approach, then once I tell them I am a licensed land surveyor, it is a mixed bag of either concern or excitement depending on the crew/company.

Having monuments in the ground and the public understanding the value of those monuments is an important concept to try and send home. If the public has a better understanding of the cost of placing those monuments in the ground in turn, there hopefully is a better understanding and respect that comes with being a professional land surveyor from the public.

There are other things that could be done to improve public perception as well, a lot of which has been in proposed legislation brought forth to the State Board of Directors from the OC Chapter but for one reason or another it gets shot down by the nay sayers who don't want anything to change. Instead, they would prefer to watch a profession come to a slow painful death because honestly most of them won't be affected by their present-day decisions 10 years from now as they will be retired and out of the working pool.

I ask, how do we gain respect in the public's eye? I think it is by holding ourselves to a higher standard and proving our worth to the public. One way to do that is through providing a tangible item of value that they can see such as a monument. Sure, we can provide them a map/exhibit showing their house and topography along with their boundary lines but not everyone knows how to read a map that has been prepared to a certain technical standard. A monument in the ground is paramount.

I understand that in the vacuum that is this forum, I am somewhat preaching to the choir about this but let's be honest, we have had a huge wakeup call with the Crownholm case. Scope items that 10 years ago fell under the purview of a licensed land surveyor are now being performed by contractors who are self-performing or laborers and tradespeople. Very few citations are being issued by the board but it isn't because they aren't doing their job, it is because it is difficult for us to self-police work that we may not know is even happening out there.

With how quickly technology is advancing, how soon before we lose grips on boundary surveying to GIS? What will be left for us to do as professionals?

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?

Again, what is the problem?

Where are the copious examples of the sky is falling and the public has been harmed . . . and why we should attempt to promptly pass another Three-Signs-type law? Where's the nexus?

Setting monuments creates/promotes civil harmony and preserves/memorizes private and public land rights. Over time, like the filing of records of survey, setting monuments lowers of the cost of land surveying for the public. The proposed law would facilitate this end.

Mr. Wooley, your diatribe has not addressed Mr. Reading question: The Problem. With all due respect, your quote is nothing more than proselytizing.

The crazy guy . . . again

hellsangle wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:02 am Again, what is the problem?

Where are the copious examples of the sky is falling and the public has been harmed . . . and why we should attempt to promptly pass another Three-Signs-type law? Where's the nexus?

I suggest you look at the number of citations issued for failure to file a Record of Survey issued by the board. If there is a law requiring the placement of monuments during the course of a boundary survey it would trigger a record to be filed. It may be a Corner Record or it may be a Record of Survey depending on the situation.

The law/rule breakers are still going to break the law, we cannot completely stop that but by requiring monuments to be set it triggers a filing of your survey in some form or another. It makes it better for the guys and gals and non-binary folks that do a good job and follow the law. It gives us a leg up on the folks that don't file, we can be much more competitive with our pricing (if you want) knowing that a previous survey was filed and monuments were set.

The harm to the public comes in the form of historical data. Right now, it is a crap shoot on if a survey has been filed on a parcel of land, I wouldn't even give it 50/50 odds. I have had countless calls from property owners saying that "they had a survey done 10 years ago and now that surveyor is out of business or is too busy to take on my project". I have had homeowners email me unrecorded exhibits showing everything from boundary lines to the location of the house on the property in relationship to the boundary but no boundary establishment notes or found monuments to help me figure out how the previous surveyor retraced the boundary. Guess what, that property owner/member of the public has just paid for at least two surveys, double what it should be costing them.

Think about this, if this law was to be adopted, 10+ years from now (hopefully) if a property has transferred ownership there will be a previous survey on public record that the new homeowner can use with monuments in the ground. If those monuments are destroyed, removed or obliterated the next surveyor coming in has a survey to retrace in turn reducing the cost of the retracement survey for the property owner. If the property hasn't changed hands, then that current homeowner can utilize my filed survey for a variety of projects. You could use it for a site plan, to add on to your home, for pool construction, etc. The list goes on and on, and guess what, because they have monuments in the ground, they don't need to always call me back out to do a re-survey or re-staking.

bryanmundia wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 7:13 am I understand that in the vacuum that is this forum, I am somewhat preaching to the choir about this but let's be honest, we have had a huge wakeup call with the Crownholm case. Scope items that 10 years ago fell under the purview of a licensed land surveyor are now being performed by contractors who are self-performing or laborers and tradespeople. Very few citations are being issued by the board but it isn't because they aren't doing their job, it is because it is difficult for us to self-police work that we may not know is even happening out there.

With how quickly technology is advancing, how soon before we lose grips on boundary surveying to GIS? What will be left for us to do as professionals?

Bryan,

I think the heart of my opposition to the proposed language is that I don't see it as solving the problem you lay out. I also don't think the problem you identify is a state wide harm to society when viewed in the big picture. I don't think we will ever agree completely on those points, but I would love to see where we agree.

Site maps are perfect for examining this proposed change and what we can agree on.

Can we agree that site maps are mainly a planning tool to allow an agency employee to review an application for compliance with whatever set of rules they think is important?

Can we agree that bad/incorrect sitemaps have two main harms:
1)People getting away with stuff that is not complying with all the planning rules. IE setbacks, sq/ft requirements, etc
2)Encroachments of fixed works over lines.
I can't think of much else, can you?

My view is that neither of those are bad for the community at large. They might be horrible for the neighbor who got encroached on, and I would hope that whoever is responsible for that encroachment has to deal with it, but at the end of the day, those are local harms, that have little chance to ripple out and cause general harms.

Now consider the site map again in the context of setting monuments. The actual physical demarcation of a boundary line is never the reason I get called for a site map. The real reason is that it is a hoop to jump through on the clients way to getting that addition, or driveway or septic system or whatever. Since the site map is not the want, no one will ever want to pay more for it. Adding monument costs to that map will only further the gap between what is wanted and what I can provide.

When society is presented with a need (sitemap), various businesses will offer solutions. The free market system rewards those who do it the most in line with what the consumer wants, in the most efficient manner. Laws are part of the playing field in determining efficiency. With rare exception, laws will act to increase the cost of doing something because anything that is wanted/required universally by the consumer will be included automatically. Think color TVs, or power windows, or rotating microwaves or shiny jewelry. All of those examples let the consumer have the ability to immediately evaluate if what they are buying is what they want. When consequences are far enough removed from the choice, that is when laws have a rightful place to set up some sort of fair playing field for the consumer.

Monument consequences are immediate for the client and neighbor, and long term for the community. The benefit is almost entirely going to be enjoyed years after the initial situation that prompted the site map. Making me prioritize the long term too much will give more room for bad actors to fill the gap between what the client actually wants to pay for and what I am legally required to provide. I will get less work, but the work I do will be a better benefit to the community. I prefer having the room to exercise judgement about how to achieve the benefit at the cost of my client and my business.

Monuments as part of a RoS are a different matter. I think everyone on this board agrees to the following:
1) more set monuments is good.
2) 8771 as is, requires "sufficient" monuments to be shown on a RoS, either found or set.
3) RoS triggers per 8762 have nothing about setting/not setting monuments.
4) not setting a new monument has zero effect on requirements to file.
5) some of those not setting monuments and filing maps are ignorant. Hanlon's Razor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
6) some of those not filing maps are willfully breaking the law and are avoiding setting monuments so there is no "proof".
7) that addressing issues 5 and 6 is something we as a profession need to be involved in.

Now we get to the part that I think will have some disagreement.
A) I don't think this law as proposed will achieve more total monuments being set for all the reasons laid out above.
B) It might help 5, since stupidity needs simple rules, however I am generally opposed to legislating to the lowest common denominator.
C) It will not address 6.
D) The ratio of 5/6 is also likely a regional issue, and probably correlates with age. So lets address it regionally while we wait for the effects of Planck's Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

If there is a law requiring the placement of monuments during the course of a boundary survey it would trigger a record to be filed.

The law/rule breakers are still going to break the law, we cannot completely stop that but by requiring monuments to be set it triggers a filing of your survey in some form or another.

Bryan,

As I learned over 30 years ago from Mr. Wooley's presentation on the Land Surveyor's Act at Fresno State:

More particularly 8762 (b) "(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

Perform a site plan, whether you set or do not set any points, one is required to file a Record of Survey or Corner Record. Period. That is the present law.

The bad actors don't set NOR file anything. I still don't see how this law is going to cause the bad actors to suddenly to start filing. They'll continue to set a dowel, lath, "search point", etc. . . . continuing not file anything!

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

Since no one has answered my previous question succinctly, I'll take a shot at it: In some areas of the state, some surveyors are performing surveys and not setting monuments.

hellsangle wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 12:26 pm
The bad actors don't set NOR file anything. I still don't see how this law is going to cause the bad actors to suddenly to start filing. They'll continue to set a dowel, lath, "search point", etc. . . . continuing not file anything!

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

This is the bottom line. Adding this wording is not going to magically fix the problem.

bryanmundia wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:01 am The law/rule breakers are still going to break the law, we cannot completely stop that but by requiring monuments to be set it triggers a filing of your survey in some form or another. It makes it better for the guys and gals and non-binary folks that do a good job and follow the law. It gives us a leg up on the folks that don't file, we can be much more competitive with our pricing (if you want) knowing that a previous survey was filed and monuments were set.

Bolding mine.

This is where I think there is a disconnect. How am I able to be more competitive with my pricing compared to those that don't file/monument? The "good job" folks are filing maps, which are available to all. The "bad job" folks are not, but they can use my filed maps and monuments. I am returning to my site to set monuments after office analysis of my fieldwork, they are not. They are "saving" map check fees, mylar costs, drafting time, fieldwork time etc. I am not. I fail to see how this law gives me a leg up when I am in competition with a KBA. The only chance I have is to convince someone of the value of my work. When they are being driven to the work by siteplan laws (see above) that is hard to do.

Its like The Investment Game. https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/def ... t_Game.pdf

Once a few rounds are played, the trend of players is to stop contributing, except for a percentage that will always put all their money in because "its the right thing to do". These are the altruistic folks. If I remember my game theory classes correctly, that percentage was generally low like 10-20%. Variations that aligned selfishness with contributing would get people to contribute more, like a rule that said 4 groups would play and only the group with the highest total money would get to keep it. Relating that to the proposed law, all surveyors will benefit from me setting more monuments, even the KBA, but only if I get the job in the first place :)

Getting back to your example. I still don't see how I will ever get a leg up on the KBA by passing laws, unless my community is small enough that their bad reputation catches up with them, or they are forced by actual pressure/consequences to do it legally. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be wonderful to get more monuments in the ground, and more maps filed. I just don't think this is the correct approach.

I believe getting 8771 included in 8766 (a)(2) would be a comprise step in the right direction. Positives are:
1) It would be implemented locally, with all aspects including judgement language, IE sufficeint, or substantially in conformance etc.
2) It would let CSs add a note about bad monumentation on a RS since CS notes are technically limited to items under review of 8766.
3) It would be a modification to a part of the law that is only relating to County Surveyors, so it would hopefully be easier to prevent other interested parties from modifying it in committee.
4) Most importantly it would give CSs the ability to start more conversations and educate folks.

Any CSs mind commenting on including 8771 compliance as part of your review?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

DWoolley wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 7:04 am

Edward M Reading wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:20 pm

bryanmundia wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2023 3:19 pm
I suggest you go back and read the posts on the 1st page of this thread, I believe it will answer all of your questions.

Can someone succinctly state what problem this proposed change is addressing?
Thanks,
Ed

Setting monuments creates/promotes civil harmony and preserves/memorizes private and public land rights. Over time, like the filing of records of survey, setting monuments lowers of the cost of land surveying for the public. The proposed law would facilitate this end.

Just a quick thought...

Maybe we should propose to raise property tax, have a "boundary survey surcharge" in it to raise awareness that monumentation is needed, and have funds available so that monuments can be set properly, for those homeowners who refuse to pay.

This way, maybe a county can administer it, I would be happy to compete of an on call contract providing "PROPER' boundary and monumentation services for the greater public good, based on QBS, and we cut the low performers out of boundary surveying all together. Those would serve the "greater good of society" and the public and their land investments would be well protected.

It will probably initially fail as a tax measure, but it will certainly raise public awareness about land boundary surveying, and we would get a good read on how much the public cares about this. If we are to protect the public, maybe they need an opportunity to weigh in as well. Everyone pays attention to new tax law proposals.

Mikey,

I light of your approach to free market and surveying, would you be willing to forgo the laws governing surveying at the State level all together and rely upon local ordinances to govern the profession? That is what I am gathering from you on your remarks. Hopefully that is not the case.

As Mr. Woolley has already addressed; this is something that local agencies can regulate already yet only two in Southern California have done so and to be honest have been successful with enforcing. Why aren't more agencies doing something already?

I just don't have the energy anymore to run in this circle. Maybe we are better off to be deregulated so we can really see what happens when general oversight and laws implemented to protect the public as a whole are wiped clean. I believe we have somewhat gone down this road a few decades ago and we all know where that ended up. Everything is cyclical, it is naive of me to think that something like this wouldn't come back around again in my lifetime.

CBarrett wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 1:18 pm Maybe we should propose to raise property tax, have a "boundary survey surcharge" in it to raise awareness that monumentation is needed, and have funds available so that monuments can be set properly, for those homeowners who refuse to pay.

It will probably initially fail as a tax measure, but it will certainly raise public awareness about land boundary surveying, and we would get a good read on how much the public cares about this. If we are to protect the public, maybe they need an opportunity to weigh in as well. Everyone pays attention to new tax law proposals.

Good news, Its already state law. Cal. Gov. Code § 27584 Lets a fund get set up. Most counties that do it charge 1-15 dollars per deed and set that money aside in a special fund. Sonoma County used it to do the Kingsbury Line survey between Sonoma and Napa County for example.

Cal. Gov. Code § 27584
The board may establish a survey monument preservation fund to pay the necessary expenses incurred or authorized by the county surveyor in any retracement or remonument survey of major historical land division lines upon which later surveys are based, such as, but not limited to, government section lines, rancho lines, grant lines, rancho section lines, acreage subdivision lot lines, and subdivision boundary lines within such county.

The county surveyor may authorize a city engineer to perform such surveys within subject city or may contract with any surveyor in private practice to perform such surveys. When a city engineer or contract surveyor performs such surveys, he shall submit notes of such surveys to the county surveyor. Such notes shall be of the quality and size as may be necessary to conform to the standardized office records of the county surveyor. The county surveyor shall prepare a map of the survey and make such map a part of his public records within 90 days after completion of his fieldwork.

I was recently thinking this would be a potential change for our Leg Com to take up. I was wanting to tweak that law when I ran into some issues when I proposed using it so set new CL mons in an old 1907 subdivision, and the CS said it was not replacing monuments so he didn't think the fund would cover it. Their position was that the new CL mons were not located on a "land division line upon which later surveys are based" so they did not qualify and he couldn't authorize it. I considered that a very narrow reading of the law, and perhaps I just needed to reword my proposal and have the CL mons a sidenote, but that felt shenanigansy.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

bryanmundia wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 2:00 pm Mikey,
I light of your approach to free market and surveying, would you be willing to forgo the laws governing surveying at the State level all together and rely upon local ordinances to govern the profession? That is what I am gathering from you on your remarks. Hopefully that is not the case.

No. Laws have a place, but that place is not everywhere. I don't believe laws change people. Laws MIGHT change their actions. Making laws that assume people are altruistic or law abiding is what I am against. Signs asking people to slow down don't work. Speed bumps do.

For what its worth, I don't see this as going in circles. I thought this was a great thread where both sides were presenting point and counter point. Regardless of if I convince you, or you convince me, its like the Intelligence Squared Debates (https://www.intelligencesquared.com/) where the debaters are pretty set in their ways, and the winner of the debate is whoever convinces more of the audience to change their mind.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I like that new word "shananigansy"!