California Surveyors Forums

The incompetence of government employees is reaching new highs.

Case 1.
A downtown retail center whose ~30yo buildings front the public right of way being a 10 wide sidewalk.
Recently the city determined that since the doors of the businesses open into the sidewalk door easements were required, one being 2ft wide the other 1ft wide both ~ 300ft long. Simple strip description right. WRONG. Had to be a metes and bounds description. Obviously no one in this city's engineering dept, and others, ever read Wattles or Brown, but these uneducated people, in a position of power, are telling competent licensed Surveyors how to write the legal description and worse is the Surveyor's name is on the legal not the name of the incompetent government employee.
This is not a one time occurrence, it's happened to us at more than three agencies.

Case 2.

Simple site grading plan for a fast food restaurant with a drive thru.
Any competent Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor knows that curb grades are shown at points of horizontal control (angle points, BC's EC's) and vertical control (high or low points not at a horizontal control locations) ONLY. Well now a city engineering plan checker is requiring grades shown on the plan somewhere in the drive thru curves and tangent curb locations. There is no change of gradient at these random locations. Why is the city plan checker requiring grades at these locations? Answer given the CE that prepared the plan "He just wants to see more grades on the plan."

I guess the days of government hiring based on qualifications is a thing of the past. What makes it worse is these government employees are not interested in being educated.

I am also getting tired of title reports (title co hired by national client) that in the exceptions "C. Except those portions lying within public right way." and requests for documentation go unanswered. Two of the cases of this the assessors map provided and the deed do not agree on the RoW location.

Edward. So what you are saying is that it's useless to try and educate a government employee.

Not quite

Edward M Reading wrote:Not quite

Land Butcher, and that government reply in a nut shell is why the people voted out the status quo in the last national election. Jp

Proud7191 wrote:Land Butcher, and that government reply in a nut shell is why the people voted out the status quo in the last national election. Jp

That wasn't a "government reply" that was a reply from a land surveyor that has worked in the private sector for over 38 years who is tired of his broad brush attacks on all "government" employees. I've worked in the private sector for 38 years and the public sector for 2. Guess what? There's not a big difference, there is the same ratio of good, hard working people to lazy people in both sectors. It's easy to take pot shots at government, it's harder to be a discerning, thoughtful person that doesn't lump everyone together for judgement.

Mr. Land Butcher: Your frustration is understood.
Mr. Reading: your frustration is also understood.
I thought of the same shouting at the clouds meme also... ventilation is OK by me.

Mr. Reading, My employment status is much like yours, 20 years private, 12 years public, and I stand by my statement. We now work for the public and should listen, and be sympathetic to their concerns and not mock them by putting up a meme of a man yelling at the clouds. I would like to see more people out spoken and critical of processes not less. I now live and work in a conservative small town where the public employees still work for the people. But coming from a large metropolitan area I also saw the other side where the public employee was working for their own enjoyment first with no loyalty to their employer, the public.
Peter, thanks for being the mediator, I too, can see both sides.
Jp

outline:
1. problem
2. discussion
3. proposed solution

Mr. Butcher you got 1, and 2... you need to work on number 3.

Yelling at a cloud has been my reaction many times. Very glad I don't have close neighbours (and my wife is forgiving).

When I worked in the public sector we took staggered lunches so someone in Engrg was there to help the public. We also answered the phone.
In recent years all I get is "leave a msg". I have waited days for return calls from a public employee. When I was doing a lot of field work I would leave the following in my message "I am out in the field until 3PM please return my call after 3pm, nope they would call about 8:30am repeatedly.

As for #3.
As soon as this small project is done we will be visiting the city engr and plan checker and discussing unneeded grades on a plan, I'm betting that if we can even talk to these govt people our words will fall on deaf ears and all responses will be lame excuses to justify their requirement. If I am wrong I will let you know. The city inspector already got PO'd at me because I told him plan issues were to be resolved by the job superintendent and the civil engr and I was neither one. I'm just a hired hub pounder in this case.

.... who is tired of his broad brush attacks on all "government" employees....... it's harder to be a discerning, thoughtful person that doesn't lump everyone together for judgement.

In response, Multiple agencies and govt employees are the issue here, so naming individuals, if they even give their whole name, and agencies would not be applicable and could subject me to legal action for slander. Conversely, I have heard govt sector employees broad brush the private sector for the shoddy work of a few private surveyors.

We have rules, and they should apply equally to both private and govt, but as Michael Pallamary has stated numerous times San Diego continues to destroy monuments and replace none and I am sure they are not the govt agency ignoring the rules.

I only had to read the subject line to know who started this thread. I concur with Mr. Reading's take on your constant bashing of government employees while continually ignoring incompetence on the other side. As pointed out, there are good and bad people on both sides.

Regarding your Case 2, you state that there is no change of gradient between the random points. Do you have a curb profile to show that to be the case or is the contractor just supposed to assume that it's a straight grade between each point? Just this week we had a situation where the engineer used spot grades on their plans for a widening project around a curve and when the contractor went out to build it, they had issues with the grades reversing at unexpected locations. I think the surveyor probably didn't shoot enough survey points and when the engineer extrapolated the points for their spot grades, there was too much error. The contractor is now going back to the engineer to ask for a curb profile. So to summarize my point, maybe your planchecker's request for additional spot grades or a curb profile is not an unreasonable request to help the contractor construct the thing.

When I worked in the public sector

Was that prior to Prop 13, by any chance? Back when agencies could staff up as needed by raising taxes?

While I believe that Prop 13 needs to be changed -- I'm kind of partial to the split roll idea -- I'm not opposed to putting reasonable limits on taxing ability. Public agencies have predictably dealt with budget constraints by using attrition and low-man-on-the-totem-pole layoffs rather than business process re-engineering, which sometimes results in fewer staff members available where they're needed to serve their clientele. And a big part of the budget crunch is due to the combined effect of CalPERS mismanagement and spiraling health care costs, so it's not fair to lay the blame for reduced service levels on agency line staff. Many hands contributed to the current situation.

Regarding your Case 2, you state that there is no change of gradient between the random points. Do you have a curb profile to show that to be the case or is the contractor just supposed to assume that it's a straight grade between each point?

If you had read my post regarding Case 2 you would have seen "Simple site grading plan for a fast food restaurant with a drive thru."
In all my years of surveying I have yet to see a curb profile for a on site grading plan. Street plans have profiles.

land butcher wrote:

Regarding your Case 2, you state that there is no change of gradient between the random points. Do you have a curb profile to show that to be the case or is the contractor just supposed to assume that it's a straight grade between each point?

If you had read my post regarding Case 2 you would have seen "Simple site grading plan for a fast food restaurant with a drive thru."
In all my years of surveying I have yet to see a curb profile for a on site grading plan. Street plans have profiles.

shouldn't all of that be covered in the Design Review/Approval phase?
but that is none of my business

Are there corner cutting private sector surveyors? Yes, and the JPPC and State board jumps all over them. When is San Diego going to quit destroying monuments without replacing them?

Jim Frame wrote:

When I worked in the public sector

Was that prior to Prop 13, by any chance? Back when agencies could staff up as needed by raising taxes?

While I believe that Prop 13 needs to be changed -- I'm kind of partial to the split roll idea -- I'm not opposed to putting reasonable limits on taxing ability. Public agencies have predictably dealt with budget constraints by using attrition and low-man-on-the-totem-pole layoffs rather than business process re-engineering, which sometimes results in fewer staff members available where they're needed to serve their clientele. And a big part of the budget crunch is due to the combined effect of CalPERS mismanagement and spiraling health care costs, so it's not fair to lay the blame for reduced service levels on agency line staff. Many hands contributed to the current situation.

Yes it was.
Not sure what you are referring to as a split roll idea, but inc's can change names, be bought and sold but the properties held by inc's are not reassessed.

Public agencies will spend more money than you give them no matter how much you give them. Since the govt fiscal year is July 1 during the spring every govt agency projects it's spending and if they have an excess they find a way to spend it.

CalPERS mismanagement = nice way of saying their past and currant "Pie-in-the-sky" investment returns are smoke and mirrors.

Maybe the issue is conflict of interest, elected officials approving govt employee contracts. Case in point; the last time John Moorlach ran for reelection as a County Supervisor the govt employee unions spent $3.2 million of their members money in a failed attempt to keep him from being reelected. Yes, he didn't like the union contacts.
When a private pension plan is underfunded the benefits are reduced to the retirees, the courts have ruled that govt pensions cannot be reduced no matter how insolvent the pension plan is. Why are govt employees, that contribute no more than private sector, guaranteed such lavish retirement benefits at earlier ages then those of us on or looking forward to SS. Calif and CalPERS is not the only govt employee retirement plan $Billions in the red.

Legal descs. It has become common practice for govt agencies to require the legals to be metes and bounds so they can follow the required closure calcs.

I just read a legal desc prepared by an employee of a large city license No 8XXX. It's a additional ROW take on 2 streets and 2 returns. No bearings, only distances are the distance from the corner of the lot to the POB and the 2 curve radius', no existing street widths even on the plat.

I have to wonder how he did a closure.

Im guessing it might be a regional thing, as far as I know it is not common practice to require metes and bounds. The agency that requires specific way to write a legal is the State Board of Equalization for the creation of a tax zone.

If a description meets the outlines of Wattles or Brown, it works for me.

The lost art of land surveying.