California Surveyors Forums

Thanks for posting!

The case is a terrific read for the discussion on construing the law and legislative intent.

Anyone know the tract number. I'd like to overlay the lots on google earth. 300 ft is a long way.
People want to live on these hill side homes and most hills are not stable, an area called Panorama Heights here, orange cty, is so unstable I don't there is a door up there that closes. LOL

don't know the track number, but if you punch in the address in google earth, and then cycle back the images (goes back to 1994) you can see the road way movement on the ends... really cool!

I kinda cruised thru the legal blah blah and IMO the lawyers used the wrong basis for their argument.

I see the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (defendant) won summary judgment at the trial level which means the Trial Court found there were no material questions of fact to resolve in a trial. The Plaintiff's appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed the summary judgement.

Good Job, Dave Woolley.

No, I have not read the case, I look for the procedural part first when looking at cases. Cases where they reverse are somewhat more helpful because they will really drill down in explaining their reasoning but that's just my impression from reading a lot of cases looking for their thinking on a particular doctrine.

I didn't see anything about prohibiting the posting of public records in the recent Rules thread. I did read prohibitions against posting advertisements/solicitations, copyright protected materials (I suppose that wouldn't apply if the person posting owned the copyright), and the work product of others.

Where the work product of others has also become a filed/recorded public document seems like it might be a gray area to me. It would seem that posting a filed map with the identifying logos & names redacted to protect the innocent (and the guilty), as has often been done in the past, would be acceptable. Perhaps a clarification from the Administrator on that point is called for.

I know, I know, I am retired and have absolutely NO affiliation with CLSA at this point. My only contact is occasionally through this forum and some messages from a few (not many) members at this point.

I did want to point out that when I was chair of the Legislative Committee for several years, one of the topics we took up was property rights related to land movement both horizontally and vertically by mother nature (not water rights). A very difficult question not addressed directly by law particularly The Cullen Earthquake Act. Lots of moving parts, particularly when you consider improvements moving while streets and utilities may or may not be. Or they are moving w.r.t. one set of improvements on a parcel but not w.r.t. improvements on the next. And on and on.

My approach at the time was to set CLSA up as an (the) expert to provide the legislature with professional opinions on this subject so that it could be effectively addressed by legislation. Ralph Simoni effectively facilitated our involvement.

Chuck Karayan was the lead and wrote a report to Loni Hancock on the subject. (attached). If I recall correctly Ian Wilson also stepped up to the plate. I hope my retired memory is correct on the people involved.

If I recall correctly we were trying to get it included in legislation as a subject to be included in the legislative review process.

I may be off point on this thread but I still think it is an important subject for Professional Surveyors to be involved with the legislature.

BTW, I was of the opinion that a good starting point was to begin to associate the effect on property rights both avulsive and imperceptible to that of water rights.

Well, won't be the first time I've been kicked out of the library for putting thumbtacks on people's chairs. But I don't exactly need to have the Board's crosshairs on my forehead either. This is all disappointing actually.

Leave it all as is. This forum promotes growth in our profession, for all of its drawbacks. Introducing new rules will kill it. Guaranteed.

Where the work product of others has also become a filed/recorded public document seems like it might be a gray area to me. It would seem that posting a filed map with the identifying logos & names redacted to protect the innocent (and the guilty), as has often been done in the past, would be acceptable. Perhaps a clarification from the Administrator on that point is called for.

Can someone elucidate the reason for banning the posting of a public document in a discussion forum, or redacting identifying information? If a map is filed with a County Recorder, isn't it meant to be disseminated to the public? You can't libel someone by publishing their own work, and copyright isn't an issue because of the fair use rule. If that work happens to be embarrassing to the creator, I'd say they missed that boat when they filed it. So why the prohibition or call for redaction?

LS_8750 wrote:Well, won't be the first time I've been kicked out of the library for putting thumbtacks on people's chairs. But I don't exactly need to have the Board's crosshairs on my forehead either. This is all disappointing actually.

Leave it all as is. This forum promotes growth in our profession, for all of its drawbacks. Introducing new rules will kill it. Guaranteed.

I'm with stupid -insert up arrow here.

In this age of PC some people have become so thin skinned they can't see themselves in the mirror.

I know I ruffle some feathers and I do it to make people think about the direction something is taking nothing personal. I have been around long enough to see when that inch is going to take the whole arm and body.

A profession like ours needs a open board for debates and transfer of knowledge from old farts entering the age of dementia to the youngin's. Excessive PC will stifle that like it is stifling the 1st amendment.

If you have a complaint, call the surveyor

What if you don't have a complaint? What if you want to use the map to demonstrate a particularly astute approach to a problem? Or simply to illustrate some uncontroversial matter? Why the big deal about banning and redaction?

It seems to me that the rules are way too broadly drawn.

There is no evidence that anyone has posted the work product of another with the expressed intention of "maliciously" damaging the reputation or business of another. It could well be that reputation and business of an individual is damaged as a byproduct of the posting and subsequent discussion. In the event there is damage to the individual that is without merit, then that would be an unfortunate circumstance. I have seen no posting from anyone that suggests they are reckless and welcome discussions that would be in violation of the Ca Board Rules as they relate to professional conduct. It is probably more than prudent, to insure that no innocent party has their reputation and business damaged. So while I see the policy value, I also entertain the notion, that the membership suffers when their free speech is muzzled. We cannot discuss great examples of how we ought to be mapping as well as mapping problems we would do well to avoid.

I don't make the rules. I just post here

If he/she had some objection to that, then it seem prudent to honor those wishes and find some other manner to display your intended objective.

This is where we part company. If it's a public document, there are no legal restrictions to its publication as long as copyright fair use (which would only pertain to things like logos) isn't violated. In my opinion, the rules of the board should reflect that reality instead of imposing additional restrictions without notable benefit.