8771 Update

[Mike Mueller]

If required by law to set monuments, what is the least you would be willing to do?

Is it set two monuments no matter how many courses the boundary has? Is it tying the boundary into existing centerline monuments?

CL mons are not that common outside of urban areas developed post 1945. If a survey has to be tied to CL mons, then I am either using GPS to tie CL mons miles away, or I have to set some. If a tie to something miles away is acceptable, then whats wrong with all the local monuments that were tied to resolve the boundary? If I have to set CL mons, it is expensive and slow considering the encroachment permit, traffic control, etc etc. Or perhaps my definition of a CL mon being something on the actual CL of a street within a monument well that is accessible through a lid and not physically connected to the surface of the road is not the same as yours?

Regarding the set idea. Whats wrong with existing monuments as long as they are sufficient?

Is the issue a definition fight over "sufficient" and "facile"? Then lets address that. Is the issue people believing they don't have to have sufficient monuments shown on a ROS? Or is it that its too hard for most people to understand the PLS Act? Then lets address those problems, perhaps tie 8771(a) to the ROS process better, perhaps by adding something to 8764 that calls out 8771. This is why so many of us were asking whats the specific actual problem being solved with the proposed changes to 8771. Without a specific harm/problem, its very hard to understand if the proposed change will help or hurt.

The bigger issue I see is that when you try to legislate a specific action, it will result in some very silly situations that defy common sense. Its why we use words that are open to interpretation so we can fit the action to the situation.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

With everyone's input on here I am interested:

If required by law to set monuments, what is the least you would be willing to do?

Is it set two monuments no matter how many courses the boundary has? Is it tying the boundary into existing centerline monuments?

One thing that I always think of is how imprinted we are with the language of "follow in their footsteps". Without the placement of monuments how are we leaving those footsteps for the next surveyor down the line? In my honest opinion, some surveyors out there are thinking more like a criminal by leaving no prints or forensic evidence behind to tie me to that job.

I think for the most part surveyors are not afraid to set their monuments, they are more afraid of losing business to those that don't follow the law. My answer to this is simple, those clients that are willing to pay someone to come out and perform a boundary survey for $800-$1200 that are not your clientele currently are still not going to be your clientele if you are required to set monuments by law. Your current clients are not going to magically disappear if you are required to set monuments. I would imagine that most of your clients value your professional opinion and have a good understanding of the value that a truly professional surveyor brings to the table. They are probably educated with a minimum of an Associates Degree or they have been burned in the past by having a poor survey done or no survey done at all. They have the skills necessary to understand that surveying is a profession and not a trade.

The people that can't afford your services now aren't magically going to become your clients if the law stays the same as it is written or even if the law changes.

What monuments I would and wouldn't set depends a lot on project conditions, rather than on a number. It has to make sense.
I love the idea of setting monuments but I can't wrap my head around how to quantify that as a number.

Maybe we need to look at it in this fashion:

All boundary monuments need to be set and or tagged in an actual or accessory location, EXCEPT:
- On Lines not surveyed when a portion of boundary is surveyed
- On points less that three (5? 10?) feet apart (avoiding having to monument every bump)
- When a physical feature (such as building) is accepted as a monument.
- When the area is inaccessible (gullies, under water, recently we had a hazmat area we needed to avoid, and another with a homeless encampment which would have required massive clearing.)
- When it would require an existing accepted monument to have to be obliterated (untagged concrete posts).
- When there are no residential boundaries surveyed (for example, pipelines, certain ROW's.)
- ROW Surveys? I am doing a ROW take RS, I'm not setting a monument on every boundary line "T" into the ROW - even if they are being reviewed and surveyed for ROW takes. Caltrans and agencies don't pay for that kind of effort.
- Private and public easements (make sure this specifically excludes random easements)


I would invite others to add exceptions to be considered and cleaned up.

[CBarrett]

(snipped for brevity)

Brian, can you please restate for the crowd the problem that we are attempting to solve with this change? I lost track of it myself.

[bryanmundia]

(snipped for brevity)

Brian, can you please restate for the crowd the problem that we are attempting to solve with this change? I lost track of it myself.

Well, it is kind of a multi-prong problem, let me see if I can make it clear for everyone based on the discussion in this thread.

Problem 1: 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. 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".

Problem 2: The current language of 8771 does not define what “sufficient” is in regard to the performance of a boundary survey/record of survey/corner record.

Problem 3: Current laws do not require the filing of a record unless triggered by 8762. The public is harmed when a survey is performed, and no record of that survey is filed, requiring another survey to be performed costing the property owner (member of the public) additional and unnecessary costs for a retracement survey.

Problem 4: Monuments that are found as controlling for a corner and being accepted as such are being left untagged causing general confusion with the public as to the proper boundary corner.

My solution to this and the language that I suggest we amend 8771(a) to state is this:

"Monuments shall be set at not less than seventy percent (70%) of all corners of the surveyed property or line and no point on a boundary or line shall be located more than five hundred feet (500’) from a monument. The requirements of this section may be altered when mutually agreed upon in writing by the client and professional land surveyor."

[kwilson]

In general I agree that all Records if Surveys should contain enough monumentation so as to be retraceable. I believe that is already happening based on my viewing of new Records of Surveys being filed. Most surveys contain at least 5 found or set monuments and most have more. There is no guarantee that monuments stay in place. It is amazing how many times I expect to find monuments shown on a map and I find none or a small percentage. We all know why. Fewer monuments = costlier surveys = more profit.

[MikeT]

I like Bryan Mundia's proposed language. I think that's a great starting point.

I'm not sure others have mentioned this, but many times when I've placed property corner and/or property line monuments, they get wiped out by the fencing company, the landscapers, contractors, etc. even after I've taken time to tell folks to protect the monuments and not to disturb them. This is one reason I've suggested setting monuments (offsets, witness points, etc.) in areas that are AWAY from the possible disturbances on site. Setting reference points in the street and sidewalk, of course, are not safe either, but there has been progress recently in monument preservation lately by public agencies. Just my two cents.

[CBarrett]

"Monuments shall be set at not less than seventy percent (70%) of all corners of the surveyed property or line and no point on a boundary or line shall be located more than five hundred feet (500’) from a monument.

The requirements of this section may be altered when mutually agreed upon in writing by the client and professional land surveyor."

I'm sure that you are trying to accomodate the exceptions but that last statement, however, will allow people to set nothing, because there is no limitation to the magnitude of alteration.
At least if I were so inclined that is what I would argue...

Maybe, this section allows for reasonable exceptions if such are documented on the face of the map.

Rationale: You can't just say "set nothing" if you are exceeding 70%, you must cite some sort of a reasonable condition. Maybe "area under construction" or Monument unsuitable for tagging, or describe lack of accessibility - basically explain what is going on if you are deviating from standards... that way if you end up in court, "found nothing set nothing" may be sketchy, but "found nothing, set nothing, corner is in marshy wetland" may be a reasonable professionally accepted explanation.

No boundary line shall be more than 500 feet away troubles me a bit.
I have a survey right now in the desert, and it's a pipeline ROW. Angle points are several thousand feet away from another line, and crosses sections. Everything is more than 500' away from another monument. I don't want someone to start interpreting this in a way that I need to set monuments every 500 feet on nine miles of a ROW.the difference is instead of setting 25 angle points, I may have to set about 100 monuments. This is likely to have an effect on agency and utility work.

Let's discuss that for a bit. do we want to have them change what they are doing, to what degree?

[CBarrett]

Maybe ledgecomm is already doing this, I am only a corresponding member, and I haven't kept up (Sorry).

Let's make a quick list of several major types of RS's and examine what we want to see happen on each, and check against creating at least major unintended consequences... then maybe the language will crystalize a bit more?

I understand the general intentions, but I ham having trouble assessing this in an organized way without breaking it down into logical chunks.

What are RS types or purposes that we usually see:

Sectional surveys
Residential parcels (non tract)
Residential parcels (old tracts)
Residential and commercial parcels (Lot line adjustments and similar)
Commercial and industrial parcels (ALTA triggers)
Early subdivision planning
Right of ways
Control surveys
Centerline Monument Rehabilitation
......
I'm sure I am missing some, I only spent 5 minutes on this, anyone, please add to this.

[Mike Mueller]

Problem 1: 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. 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".

There are two problems identified there: 1A Market Differentiation and 1B) Scoflaws not following existing law
1A would be helped if we had to set monuments at all corners at the cost of widening the financial gap between law followers and law breakers. If that is good or bad, that is debatable, but I would think we could all agree on the pro/con?
1B) would likley be made worse for all the points above discussed IE laws don't change people

Problem 2: The current language of 8771 does not define what “sufficient” is in regard to the performance of a boundary survey/record of survey/corner record.

Once we get too defined we lose judgement. I do not think this is a problem, but rather an intentional inclusion of wiggle room that most seem to agree with.

Problem 3: Current laws do not require the filing of a record unless triggered by 8762. The public is harmed when a survey is performed, and no record of that survey is filed, requiring another survey to be performed costing the property owner (member of the public) additional and unnecessary costs for a retracement survey.

I do not understand your logic here. If I am not required by law to file a RoS after my field survey, it means that 1) There is a map already on file that shows the boundary in question, 2) I recovered enough of the same monuments/evidence from the record map that there is no ambiguity in the location of the boundary, 3) My measurements agree with the previously filed map. What about that situation would make another RoS a benefit? It seems you are conflating someone breaking the law and doing a sitemap or survey that should have triggered 8762, with someone who understands and follows the laws. See point 1B above.

Problem 4: Monuments that are found as controlling for a corner and being accepted as such are being left untagged causing general confusion with the public as to the proper boundary corner.

The benefit of this idea is that landowners can identify their corner. This is only achieved if there is something unique about the corner markers.
Which means we can't make a law that results in every random metal object close to a corner having a tag. The main harm seems to be untagged pipes and rebars in urban settings, so why not clarify that? Even if the change doesn't capture people setting tags on rocks or random stuff, it seems incremental change is better than nothing?

Additionally this topic has been debated alot and any change would have to address the valid concerns brought up, IE How to tag things that are expensive like buildings, destroying/modifying evidence of older monuments character etc. Not being forced to go back to far flung spots not on my subject property to tag some pipe that I end up holding.

8772 would be a good place to address tagging untagged monuments:

8772.2 Tagging Found Unmarked Monuments
Any found unmarked artificial monument marking the terminus of a boundary line which is the subject of a field survey, and which corresponds to a line shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll, and which is shown on a Corner Record or Record of Survey shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged in conformance with 8772.1

I think it would incur little additional costs for anyone already following the law as it would not increase field work if its done as you go, and would not be adding the cost of a CR or RoS unless it was already triggered by other laws. It wouldn't apply to easements or centerlines. It would allow a specific harm to be cited for complaints that some people here seem to want.

Main goals the change would accomplish:
Get tags on ±30-80%(??) of untagged monuments that mark boundaries of smaller sized lots.
Give a specific harm to cite
Limit re-tagging to just subject of surveys, limiting impacts on larger surveys, and not forcing surveys of entire parcels.
Lets "marked" monuments exist as they are, like buildings, or section caps that don't have a LS #.

Main harms expected if enacted:
Less monuments shown on maps, as a way to avoid rule.

Considering the efforts by Mon Pres to get compliance with 8771(d) by public agencies by showing monuments on maps more, I don't think trying to tighten up tagging laws should get too extreme or we will incentivize the harm of not showing monuments.

As always, word smithing by others would likely help.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[bryanmundia]

Mikey,

Too long to quote but here we go.

In response to Problem 1. It seems that you keep addressing this ever widening gap between law followers and law breakers and how enacting a monument requirement would just increase the gap between the two parties. The fact is, those clients that are paying for the "rule breakers" to come survey their property are never going to be a your clients, you already charge too much and there will always be someone out there that can do it cheaper and faster, albeit, they probably will break the law to get there. These clients are the champagne taste on a beer budget type of folks, they can't afford your services now and still won't if 8771 is revised.

In response to Problem 2. I have to disagree on this. Revisions to the language can still allow for judgement and "wiggle room" as you call it.

In response to Problem 3. What isn't there to get? You go out and survey a boundary you should leave some form of footprints for the next surveyor. I don't know about you but I have worked on countless projects where there hasn't been a map filed for 20+ years. That map is what set the original corners of the subdivision. Before giving a price I do a quick "drive-by" to check out the property and low and behold what do I see in the neighborhood, yep, paint on the ground and monuments dug up. Guess what I don't find? A record of who was just out in the neighborhood. In order to keep harmony amongst homeowners I believe it would be advantageous for us to have knowledge of all of the surveys performed in a neighborhood, not just the ones that had boundary problems and required an RS because of 8762. If you set monuments on a lot you could still file a Corner Record. Requiring monuments to be set causes harmony in neighborhoods instead of costly repetitive surveys of the same block.

In response to Problem 4. I am exhausted of hearing this response of "a little change is better than nothing". This is just ridiculous to me and sounds like "well" this is what we are willing to concede because we know it isn't going to really change anything.

As for the Mon Pres group working on the flyer that is supposedly going to help with compliance of 8771(d), I have some real issues with the flyer. First and foremost the flyer makes it sound like every agency in the state isn't doing their job in preserving monuments. I don't know how it is up in your neck of the woods but two of the three largest counties in the Southern California region (by population and land value) really don't have this problem. In all honesty I think that the problem isn't surveyors not wanting to tie out monuments, it is contractors who are bidding low to win contracts and self performing surveying services. Without a licensee how can these self performing contractors abide by the law? Which leads me to my next point, this flyer is directed at the wrong crowd. Read the last thought before this sentence and I believe you have your true audience of law breakers and people that cause harm to survey monuments.

We have gone full circle in my opinion with this debate and really the only thing I have taken away from your arguments is that you just don't want to do it and that is the reason for your contest to revising the language to anything that could benefit the profession. You believe that by revising this language you are going to lose even more business to the law breakers in your area.

I ask you, do you think that we are better off now than we were 20-30 years ago in regard to the overall scope of a professional surveyor's responsibilities? Why do you think we are or are not better off? My opinion is that we haven't done enough for the profession through legislation to showcase the true profession that we are in this State. Instead, we want to just sit back and let others take away areas of responsibility that once belonged to surveying holding desperately on to the belief that they will never take the next thing away. Construction staking (pretty much gone), Topographic Surveying (pretty much gone), Site Plans (pretty much gone), GIS (pretty much gone). When are we going to fight back and protect our profession and the work that we are entitled to do?

Don't believe me? I think we just had a pretty big wake up call, here is a link to the thread on this forum viewtopic.php?t=9362. That's right, 5 billion dollars (with a B) worth of construction work in California went to an unlicensed surveyor for the layout. For those not good at math, 1% of that is $50,000,000. Not a bad days work imo.

[kwilson]

I wanted to reply to a few of Brian’s thought provoking points. I have no opinion on the proposed change to 8771. I will work to comply with any changes made to the law.

Regarding losing construction staking to others - the changes in construction methods and the increase in the use of robotics and automation in just about every process on earth (except maybe gourmet cooking) have caused changes to employment opportunities. This includes methods used for measuring and location. A repetitive process that can be controlled by a computer program will eventually be automated. So be it. I have been staking since 1979. Things have changed drastically. I still stake out new residences and ADUs that are too small for some fancy automated process to make money at. But I am actually glad to be out of the big construction jobs. You become a slave to them.

Regarding our bread and butter - boundaries. Because of the historical nature of boundaries, monuments, deeds, etc. and the complexity and variables involved I just don’t see automation taking that over. Some have tried using fancy push one button boundary solution programs. That didn’t work. Until they make a robot that can find iron pipes efficiently I like my chances of not being replaced. I really like my job. Boundary surveying trumps staking and topos all day long. I have never been interested in creating a GIS. That’s a great use of automation. But I would rather figure out which old markers are still out there and haven’t been destroyed by construction and development. Piecing together an old subdivision or a series of deeds still fascinates me.

The more monuments that get destroyed, the harder it is to perform a boundary survey and the cost goes up. That has been my experience. My first boss Robert Hilliard always said “Research and reconnaissance are the two most important parts of a survey.” I still believe that statement. I would say that us older surveyors need to keep teaching our young surveyors the art of surveying boundaries. That is a valuable legacy we have to give.

[JoshPLS]

Adding a requirement to set monuments just means that the law abiding surveyors will once again get stuck with more bills their clients might refuse to pay just like how 8762 is written with Record of Surveys. I would love to set monuments on each survey, but my clients don't always want to pay for that service. If you located several monuments surrounding the property or block and showed their location with sufficient ties the map is retraceable and that meets the requirements of 8771.

There's so many avenues we could explore with future legislation that all surveyors would unite and get behind that also protect the public, but instead we focus on items that remove the professional opinion of land surveyors. Want to set monuments? Set them! Want to add an accuracy statement? Add it! No ones stopping you. We will not build a survey utopia with more legislation and laws it will only effect the law abiding and the bad actors will continue their bad habits...

Lets not legislate a specific amount of monuments to be set or what specific error distances versus record make a material discrepancy, etc. That would destroy professional opinion and be no fun at all. We should focus on education, membership, and gathering more professional peers at your local chapter to understand the standard of care.

Each survey is a unique situation and a case by case scenario.

Sometimes I truly believe surveyors are their own worst enemies...

[bryanmundia]

Adding a requirement to set monuments just means that the law abiding surveyors will once again get stuck with more bills their clients might refuse to pay just like how 8762 is written with Record of Surveys. I would love to set monuments on each survey, but my clients don't always want to pay for that service. If you located several monuments surrounding the property or block and showed their location with sufficient ties the map is retraceable and that meets the requirements of 8771.

There's so many avenues we could explore with future legislation that all surveyors would unite and get behind that also protect the public, but instead we focus on items that remove the professional opinion of land surveyors. Want to set monuments? Set them! Want to add an accuracy statement? Add it! No ones stopping you. We will not build a survey utopia with more legislation and laws it will only effect the law abiding and the bad actors will continue their bad habits...

Lets not legislate a specific amount of monuments to be set or what specific error distances versus record make a material discrepancy, etc. That would destroy professional opinion and be no fun at all. We should focus on education, membership, and gathering more professional peers at your local chapter to understand the standard of care.

Each survey is a unique situation and a case by case scenario.

Sometimes I truly believe surveyors are their own worst enemies...

Josh, please do share some of these legislation ideas that you have that “all surveyors would unite and get behind”. As President of the OC Chapter I would be happy to take the lead on getting this legislation you are proposing in front of our state board of directors and moving forward.

The OC chapter is focused on practice based initiatives and that is why I believe our chapter is so large. Our members believe in practice based solutions to current issues within the Land Surveying profession. The problem that I have been seeing over the past few years is that hardly any other Chapters are stepping up to the plate and trying to protect and improve the Profession through legislation. Everyone is sure happy to provide their input though after 10+ years of trying to move forward with simple legislation that will protect our profession.

[DWoolley]

...
I would love to set monuments on each survey, but my clients don't always want to pay for that service.
...
Sometimes I truly believe surveyors are their own worst enemies...

How does a client know there is an option or a cost associated with setting monuments?

I will bet dollars to donuts if a surveyor contracted for a "boundary survey and record of survey" not a single owner would ask if monuments were being set or if she could save money if the surveyor did not set monuments.

What would compel a land surveyor to take a job that would deny him the love of setting monuments?

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

How does a client know there is an option or a cost associated with setting monuments?

When you tell him it's going to cost ten thousand dollars to set that back corner!!

Street View 0.JPG

Try educate the client . . . ultimately it is his/her nickel.

It is not always wide open fields and original monuments on every block!

Have a good weekend all

Crazy Phil again . . . Surveyor to Recorder

[DWoolley]

Phil:

Thank you for the clarification. I was always a little cloudy with the commonly used forum phrase "educating clients".
Now I understand "educating clients" means cutting enough corners to possibly put the licensee at risk and the client is willing to write a check.

The clarification makes sense in that I have found plenty of surveyors failing to file records of survey because "the client wasn't willing to pay for it". Or the all-time classic, "I didn't file a record of survey because I didn't set monuments".
These folks were "educating clients". It is cool to be on the inside of the secret code words. Like the classic Andy Griffith episode with Barney and Gomer's "hootie hoo". [Epiphany here.] Those folks running out of Nordstroms this week with handbags were "educatin' clients", sounds pleasant, sophisticated, almost high society.

It is "their nickel", again, I ask, who cares if they ever get a survey? I do not have a new car, if I go to the dealership I am confident the dealer isn't going steal one because he thinks I should be driving a new car. Why wouldn't a surveyor advise the would-be client to save their money and call back when they get there? Peculiar. Have we inadvertently figured out the origins of "The Carl Lewis" survey? [Feet don't fail me now!]

One more, what does the code word "professional opinion" or "professional discretion" mean locally?

Hootie hoo, hootie hoo. The eagle has landed. Broken Arrow.

DWoolley [Insider]

[hellsangle]

Some people just don't get it . . . stop chasing car tires . . . most of us are tired of the unfounded proselytizing.

This 8771 discussion has yet to show the nexus or examples of how the public has been harmed by not setting all, or 70% or one corner.

Same with the previous Three Signs proposal. Examples?! Harm to public?! Show us so we can get behind your proposals!

If John Q. Public is reading this thread they must think the proponents are only trying to line own their pockets and fleece the client that may only wish to have one boundary determined.

Do any of the proponents want to set that back corner in my previous photo-example without compensation?

You want to pass meaningful legislation, that we can all get behind: propose monument preservation funding on EVERY recorded deed.

[David Kendall]

You want to pass meaningful legislation, that we can all get behind: propose monument preservation funding on EVERY recorded deed.

Agreeing with crazy Phil on this one. The monument preservation funding system is disjointed in the collection and application of these funds. We could use some reform across the board to make it more uniform across county lines.

If you guys need something to work on that could actually be successful and supported by the CA survey community then you might want to start here. Sounds like Mundia is exasperated by the past ten years of failed proposals. Rack up a win for your first term Mr President!

[DWoolley]

Back to basics. The following questions have not been answered:
1. How does a client know there is an option or cost associated with setting monuments? It appears as though the surveyor may be creating his own problem.
2. What would compel a land surveyor to take a job that would deny him the love of setting monuments [or require other corner cutting]?
3. As with a room addition, a land survey is a luxury - not everyone can afford a land survey. It is not a kidney. Go away, save your money and come back when you can afford it, same as the room addition. How is the inability or unwillingness to pay a professional's concern?
4. How does refusing to accept a survey project "line the surveyor's pockets"? Counterintuitive.

The Surveyors' Before Us – Wm. Minto

There was a survey crew working on the San Bernardino around the turn of the last century, 1890. The surveyor was charged with monumenting the sections in the township surveyed the decade prior. In 2010, our crew hiked into one corner monument set [and unseen] nearly 120 years earlier. The hike took the crew over cliff faces that required ropes to lower the equipment and backpacks. The crew realized they could not return from/to their starting point due to the terrain covered. When they found the corner monument they took the notes, photos, measurements, reset a modern monument etc. They also realized they could not return before nightfall – they had to set up an unplanned dry camp and continue out in the morning. They came out about 4 miles north of the trucks/entry point.

The remarkable point of this story? The fact is the survey crew in 1890 did their job and did their job so very well we could retrace those lines 120 years later. Had Minto not set the monuments nobody would have known for 120 years, he could have Carl Lewis'd the survey and bought a boat with the cash, but he did not. I could retell a similar story for hundreds of monuments found throughout my career on the Cleveland, Angeles, Plumas, El Dorado, Lassen, Trinity, and Sierra.

Phil, as for your back corner photo….well, thank goodness the folks getting off a Higgins boat on Omaha and tasked with walking, fighting and dying all the way to Berlin aren't around to see you quake at the task [or marvel at the inability to consider a witness/offset monument].

The Surveyors' Before Us – John A. Benson (San Francisco)

Benson quite often did not set monuments. I suspect he educated his clients [hootie hoo].

As for the "Benson Syndicate", in California, government estimates indicate that nearly a thousand townships might have been involved, comprising an area of approximately 20 million acres, or about 20 % of all land in the state was indicated as being surveyed and was not. I suspect his practice lineage could be traced to several land surveyors today - it has only been 3-4 generations.

On my local surveys, I did not always set monuments – not to save a client money – because I wasn't legally required to set monuments. It simply wasn't in my consciousness. Deputy County Surveyor, Craig Wehrman, after reviewing a map, asked me the simple question "why don't you set monuments [more monuments]?". Pausing to think about it, I had no legitimate answer. Remnants of the Benson practice blood in my DNA?

As a community, we must do better – collectively, because we have spawned from bad seed doesn't mean we couldn't turn the enterprise legitimate – [think Michael in Godfather II]. A little less client education [hootie hoo] and a little more effort [Higgins boat before us] would go a long way towards being the legitimate profession I believe it to be.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Wonderful history lesson, Dave.

But what has happened in recent years that has harmed the public because monuments were not set and we need another law?

Again, you are proselytizing. Facts/cases, please.

[Mike Mueller]

3. As with a room addition, a land survey is a luxury - not everyone can afford a land survey. It is not a kidney. Go away, save your money and come back when you can afford it, same as the room addition. How is the inability or unwillingness to pay a professional's concern?

Surveys are not always a luxury, as they are being legislatively required for many projects. Funny how some folks seem to like making laws telling others what they ought to do more and more these days...

If one of the main components of your argument is not correct why are you surprised when you are getting pushback on your "solutions"? As we talked about above, if we agreed on 1) what the problem is and 2) their cause, then the solution would be a matter of working out details. Asserting the solution (aka setting all mons) before there is discussion and agreement on 1 and 2, is just going to result in what we have here, a failure to communicate.

From what I have gathered, the general view on why we needed to set all monuments is that it is somehow better for the public. Yet you are blithely writing off people unable to afford my skills/services to make situations better. In the context of your extra room addition, there are many times when a room is quite wonderful and would bring more happiness into the world. Forcing every extra room to have marble floors and fancy fixtures doesn't help all the people who just want something warm and dry for their kid to sleep in. However the extra room comparison doesn't really hold up, as there is little harm to the public from a poorly built room, or benefit to the public from a room built perfectly. A better comparison is a septic system. When everything is working well, few are even aware of its existence. When those those fail, it causes problems for the users, as well as others. Most jurisdictions have allowances for improving systems, so that they are less bad, without forcing every single failing septic system to become code compliant. Our surveys are likewise more stringent on new work (parcel map monumentation) while allowing wiggle room to help bad situations get better.

Re-working the Mon Pres Fund so that it was able to be used on more types of work would be awesome. Monuments are worthless without a pedigree, so lets use the Mon Pres Fund to scan old record collections, or buy private collections and then scan them. Or set good reference mons in older areas that are being solved in a patchwork manner, so that all the surveys could be stitched together better. The best part of the Mon Pres fund is that it is administered by the CS, so we would have a local person dealing with their local community, providing local solutions.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[bryanmundia]

Some people just don't get it . . . stop chasing car tires . . . most of us are tired of the unfounded proselytizing.

This 8771 discussion has yet to show the nexus or examples of how the public has been harmed by not setting all, or 70% or one corner.

Same with the previous Three Signs proposal. Examples?! Harm to public?! Show us so we can get behind your proposals!

If John Q. Public is reading this thread they must think the proponents are only trying to line own their pockets and fleece the client that may only wish to have one boundary determined.

Do any of the proponents want to set that back corner in my previous photo-example without compensation?

You want to pass meaningful legislation, that we can all get behind: propose monument preservation funding on EVERY recorded deed.

Here are some examples for you that really did happen to my clients:

Client calls me for a boundary survey of a Lot in a Block. We agree on the terms of their survey and I begin work. As I start the field work I have the neighbor to the North and the neighbor to the South come out at separate times throughout the day and ask what I am doing out here again. I asked what they meant by “again”. They both explain that less than 2 years ago both neighbors had a survey done and they actually show me an 8 1/2”x11” sketch showing all three lots (my client and the lots North and South). I had no clue that anyone had been out in the area since the original subdivision. No corner records or records of survey were on file for the block. Had there been a requirement that the lot corners been placed it would have triggered an RS or at the very least a CR. This would have saved my client thousands of dollars. Instead, the previous surveyor made the professional judgement to not set anything and not file anything. When I called the previous surveyor up to ask a few questions about his survey and asked about filing he said “my clients didn’t want to pay for me to file anything so I didn’t”.

Since when do we let the end user decide what is the best solution for a professional? Does a person lying on the operating table get to decide what is in the best interest due to cost? Does a member of the public get to decide and prepare their own defense when hiring an attorney? If we are allowing the general public to decide how our profession is governed then we are no better than any trade out there. “Hey there client, I need to replace your sink drain. I have a few different options and here is the cheapest way to get it done.” As professionals we are supposed to know and opine on what is best, not allow the client to muddy the waters with their own ideas on what is best for them.

As for the back corner example, if you read both the current version and proposed language of 8771 you’ll see that you have the option to set a witness or reference marker. Set something on line with a tie to the corner and you are done. Problem solved. Who else has a one off survey story to tell me about a corner that was hard to set or that they didn’t set because it was tough terrain?

Setting monuments protects the public, end of story. This has already been proven with the requirement in the law to perpetuate existing survey monuments.

Where in the law does it say that we are required to save the client money by using our best professional judgement? Where does it say that the client is the one who governs what is best for their own self interest? I again say, “you are a professional, now act like one”.

[DWoolley]

Wonderful history lesson, Dave.

But what has happened in recent years that has harmed the public because monuments were not set and we need another law?

Again, you are proselytizing. Facts/cases, please.

Phil:

Later today or tomorrow, I will do one more "Who's on first" routine with you.

I suspect folks see through your ruse (asking questions, but not answering questions, tricky/not tricky). I personally know you to be a good guy, good surveyor - truth is your career is over and these changes will not effect you or your future. Going forward, the days of local flim-flam private records, information hoarding, two monument surveys necessarily needs to go away (where was your concern for the public there?). Yes, setting monuments and filing maps will change the local practice in your area. Change is hard to accept, but necessary for surveyors under 45 to have a future in the profession.

In the meantime, I had posted four questions. As an act of good faith, please give the forum readers your persuasive answers that strengthen your position.

I will give you bullet points of the benefits.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Does a person lying on the operating table get to decide what is in the best interest due to cost?

Most of medicine lets the patient decide what they want. DNRs, no blood tranfusions for certain religions, etc. The list is pretty long on examples of doctors deferring to their clients wishes.

Does a member of the public get to decide and prepare their own defense when hiring an attorney?

I think it is true that people can represent themselves in court. It is also my experience that lawyers will take direction from their client about how far they want to proceed, and what the goal is, IE agreement, win in court, or just grind away till the other person gives up.

Where in the law does it say that we are required to save the client money by using our best professional judgement?

Funny, I didn't think we needed a law to govern that. I relied on peoples honor and general goodness. I am starting to see why you want to make it a law to require setting monuments.

Where does it say that the client is the one who governs what is best for their own self interest?

I think its somewhere in the Declaration of Independence? Or perhaps its baked into capitalism? Or perhaps its just that history has taught us to beware people who "know whats best for others",

I again say, “you are a professional, now act like one”.

When I believe that I am, exhorting me to "act like one" doesn't help move the needle or change an opinion it just triggers emotional responses about my honor, while not changing anyones minds with facts. That said, I am pretty sure we have VERY different views on what is professional behavior when you advocate this:

As professionals we are supposed to know and opine on what is best, not allow the client to muddy the waters with their own ideas on what is best for them.

I consider it my professional duty to educate my clients what the laws are, what the pros and cons of their various options are(which includes cost), and then help them achieve their goal to the best of my ability within the contract, law and my honor.

I might be a minority view in regards to what is professional, but I don't think I am. You might be less surprised at the reaction to proposed legal changes if you consider that your fundamental views on what constitutes your professional duty is different than others, and perhaps very different.

Consider this data point. If memory serves the last CLSA poll showed that most are not in favor of much legal change. Considering that the subset of folks taking that survey are already the "involved" folks, the general consensus of the profession at large is likely even less in support of drastic legal change. Your beliefs on what is "best" for the profession are likely not generally held.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[hellsangle]

Well said, Mikey . . .