California Surveyors Forums

So the bulls eye is in Southern California Mr. Woolley?
Or is it that us up north are used to the voodoo survey methodologies encountered such that incident reporting is minimal?
Long live Benson?

LS_8750 wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:44 pm So the bulls eye is in Southern California Mr. Woolley?
Or is it that us up north are used to the voodoo survey methodologies encountered such that incident reporting is minimal?
Long live Benson?

The bullseye is a theory. It makes sense to me, but it could be a coincidence that ties the current geographical practices to the fraudulent geographical history of yesteryear. Or, correlation does not imply causation i.e. post hoc ergo propter hoc. Based on the written testimony, the contemporary records of the day, the current records of today, the history of the Surveyor General from 1871-1875 and again, from 1903 to 1929, a mere lapse of 120ish years in a mentored/apprenticed profession...draw your own conclusions. Again, good sweet tea and porch talk to pass the time.

As for the LA basin having approximately a dozen licenses revoked or surrendered based on the charts provided (thank you to the creator), anecdotal information at best. Orange and San Diego Counties make up approximately 25% (650) of the in state current licenses (2650). In the bullseye there is a prevailing "live and let live" or a nonsensical "let the courts decide" mindset - effectively hanging the public and the honest learned surveyors out to dry. Besides, nobody wants those skeletons in the closet rattling around and falling about.

Locally, I have checked maps for more than 30 years in five counties and multiple cities and I do not often see anything like I have seen in the private practice within the bullseye i.e. maps establishing boundaries from any two monuments in the given county, calling off monuments from the same map, not searching for or showing monuments from recent surveys on adjacent properties, "measured and record" between (all) 75 year old found monuments (often two), approximate property corners being set, and a lack of knowledge or compliance of the PLSA and the PRC. Do not get me wrong, we have our issues but nothing compares to the bullseye trouble I have seen.

A few gems off the top of my head:

1. ALTA surveys with no monuments (Martinez, Sacramento, Folsom, and many others),

2. An ALTA and subsequent RoS (signed by the CS without a note) with one monument and a mag nail 250' apart (from a junior parcel map) used to establish a several thousand feet of railroad right of way, mean high tide, two or three section corners and several deed lines (Crockett);

3. A tract map the established a PG&E right of way, a railroad right of way, mean high tide from a 70 year old map that had two monuments (that were not found) or related to the property being established (Napa);

4. Two monuments 50' apart - both called off (?) - used to cross two public rights of way and establish a lot in a tract that was not part of the monumented lot (Berkley);

5. A road alignment and several sections lines from 2-3 monuments - that were not tied to the section lines previously and the original notes show the sections being monumented (Santa Clara County);

6. Two private property lot corners in an adjacent section/township were used to jump over a range line to establish a quarter quarter corner in another township (Ft. Bragg).

7. Three mapped lots established by holding record, and the fourth survey shorting the fourth lot from the same tract by more than 6' (Marin County).

I could write a compendium akin to War and Peace with the trouble I've seen in and around the bullseye.

I am at peace with the reaping and sowing aspects. I am mentally prepared and awaiting for the well earned and justly deserved comeuppance for the professional sins. There won't be anymore trouble from me on these practice issues. Pass the sweet tea, please.

DWoolley

Yeah, you get used to it. I, I don't even see surveys. All I see are fakes, carpetbaggers, grifters.

Be clear, the ALTAs with no monuments was uncommon. In both the north and south, the ALTA brokers, more specifically, their California contract surveyors, thought anymore than two monuments - for any boundary- was overkill.

We still have some of these folks running around. We also still have some "reputable" firms doing the same.

DWoolley

So I wanted to tie this all up and finalize it by doing projections.

I didn’t do any major statistics here like try to build a Neural Network or anything like that. (I initially had planned to) I tried to keep it simple by fitting a polynomial regression line. This is 3 degree or a cubic polynomial. I tried some higher degrees, but they all tied themselves back down pretty closely to a cubic polynomial enough that it wouldn’t matter that much. Lower degrees clearly didnt work.

The R^2 for this is 0.989659 which means the prediction function matches the trend line for 98.96% of the moving average for the existing data. The 20 year was in the 99%s. We are looking at 10-year and 20-year projection trendlines, respectively. They are two different things and two different scale factors. So the 10-year runs a 10-year moving average, the 20-year runs a 20-year moving average. It's pretty clearly a flip in the long term trend no matter how you look at it.

Also, now that I am plotting the actual values you may go “hey those aren’t the same numbers of active licenses the board has” and you would be right. There are 114 licenses that the board says are active but technically expired at the end of 2023. One they even say expired in 2018 and is still technically active according to the board. Again, no data set is perfect. Especially when we all pull our numbers at different times from the database. My guess is that the sunset report grabbed their numbers from the database sometime this summer or early fall to make that massive 200 page report.

These are just projections, but it’s not the greatest thing to see. How its acted on is entirely different subject. Typically speaking, we will never go above the trendline values I provided here unless theres a flip in the overall trend back to gaining surveyors. Personally I don't see that happening on such an established downward trend without some kind of major and fundamental shift in the industry. The way we will know is if we breach the 5 year trends I included below here. If we ever have more than the number of surveyors listed below at the end of the next 5 years, my projections could be proven wrong and we can break out of the long term down trend that has now been established.

2024: 3945 surveyors
2025: 3890 surveyors
2026: 3829 surveyors
2027: 3763 surveyors
2028: 3692 surveyors
2029 3615 surveyors

Heres the full dataset for your viewing pleasure. If you are wondering, I was going to do Civils. But there are something like 27000 datapoints missing that I need to get from the DCA website vs the 3000 something I needed for LS's. Its not an easy task. I may do it, I may not. Either way it will be a few weeks.

I have seen various "average age" of land surveyors. I believe this number remains over 55 years old. Additionally, most retirees I have known keep their licenses current in retirement.

The professional exodus out of California is real. The land surveyors I have known, with the exception of one, kept their California license current - even though they do not/will not practice in California.

Is their a way to estimate and amortize over 3 years anyone over 61-62 from your chart?

Also, it would be interesting if we knew the number of out of state licenses twenty years ago to estimate the outflow increase.

Lastly, a couple of years ago I was looking at Nevada licenses. I believe they only licensed 19 in-state people between 2010 and 2020, less than 2 per year.

Again, how many people have we allowed to stand around a truck for 5, 10, 15 years without getting their LSIT? How many are signatory to a union that provides people with no LSIT credentials? Why would any employer accept uncredentialed dispatches? How many agencies contract with firms that provide staff with no LSIT/PLS credentials in the field or office? In addition to the donkifying, these employers and agencies are paying money to crash the profession.

In 1988, I knew I had to have my LSIT if I ever wanted to be a party chief at OCS, that was 36 years ago. Caltrans has required licenses for party chiefs more than 30 years ago.

Locally, our public agencies are requiring their contract surveyors to hold the same credentials as their own staff (LSIT party chief). Shout out to Port of Long Beach and Orange County Surveyor's office. Anything less deserves no quarter. Why would anyone pay or incentivize folks to crash the profession by awarding or rewarding someone (or a firm) that cannot allocate time (demand) to sit and pass a four hour exam? No credentials, no work. Anything less, you're not a serious person. Imagine public agencies hiring land surveying firms using a QBS system to hire "surveyors" that would not meet their own staffing MQs for the same or equivalent? Absurd. It is equally absurd to claim professional status with these hiring/contracting systems in place. +1 for trade status.

Thank you for compiling the information.

DWoolley

I cant use any age data. There's just no reliable source that wouldn’t just be a blind guess. All I can do is tell you license information. This should better explain it. If you take 30 years of licensure as retirement age there 1320 surveyors approaching or likely in retirement. But I know more than a few people that are in the 20 to 30 year licence range that are approaching or talking about retirement because they got their licences late. Its a mixed bag. I don't think there is any way to know for sure.
Out of state is below. I need to heavily emphasize that people move and change addresses. For some of the older values, this could just mean people have retired already and move their address. I have no way of knowing if the address on file was there when they issued the license or not. I can't do much more than this. I don't have data from 20 years ago to compare address changes. I'm guessing you can make your own inferences about this though. My guess is that all those people from the late 1980s and early 1990s are retires
I’ve kind of debated including this because its more commentary about the data and its impacts more than it is just explaining data. I have been trying to keep this post just about the data itself. But here’s how I think this plays out based on my understanding of the world from my whole overpriced education:
1) Less surveyors are a drop in supply. (Shift from S to S')
2) Drops in supply lead to rises in prices (p to p') because people have too much work. (seems like a good thing in the short run or the near term)
3) Raises in prices lead to customers being unsatisfied (q to q'), and they begin naturally looking for ways to lower demand.
4) Customers won’t be able to find an alternative to lower demand because most of the demand surveyors get is legally protected through California Law. (we have a legal monopoly)
5) Customers will more and more aggressively attack the legal standards that license surveyors to lower demand. Either requiring significantly more enforcement efforts by our board to keep local agencies enforcing the laws (such as the site plan guy), keep existing surveyors in line because they start trying to lower standards trying to match demand or direct legal or they will come as legislative challenges such as we have seen in the labor reclassification item.

I would expect that these attacks will become more frequent and more organized. Probably lining up with the rate of loss we have on surveyors. Possibly coming from closely related fields to us that see the weakness and the inability to get surveying completed as an opportunity to gain market share and make money due to advancements in technology. (RTK, drones, etc)

I for one appreciate you providing your opinion.

jamesh1467 wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 1:39 pm 1) Less surveyors are a drop in supply. (Shift from S to S')
2) Drops in supply lead to rises in prices (p to p') because people have too much work. (seems like a good thing in the short run or the near term)
3) Raises in prices lead to customers being unsatisfied (q to q'), and they begin naturally looking for ways to lower demand.

Agree with 1,2 and 3. I would suggest that the effect of the drop in surveyors may be offset by the increases in efficiencies and abilities from technology, however not enough to offset the trend, especially since field crews are often not represented in the licensed numbers anyways. For example I expect most larger topos will be done by drone and non-singularity A.I. doing cloud reduction. ( fwiw I am betting(read hoping) on no actual singularity level A.I.)

jamesh1467 wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 1:39 pm 4) Customers won’t be able to find an alternative to lower demand because most of the demand surveyors get is legally protected through California Law. (we have a legal monopoly)
5) Customers will more and more aggressively attack the legal standards that license surveyors to lower demand. Either requiring significantly more enforcement efforts by our board to keep local agencies enforcing the laws (such as the site plan guy), keep existing surveyors in line because they start trying to lower standards trying to match demand or direct legal or they will come as legislative challenges such as we have seen in the labor reclassification item.

If 4 leads to 5, which I agree is a logical progression, than 4 is where I think the most action is warranted. We have very limited political capital, so we need to leverage it by making a couple significant tweaks, rather than pursue everyone's pet dream. The recent effort to cap RoS review fees is a perfect example of how CLSA can help mitigate the progression from 3>4>5, in an area of the law that has fewer outside voices opposing us. The whole "monument all points" effort is wrong mainly because it directly feeds into this path, IE raises prices.

The other option is we could also add some legal provisions/standards for lower quality products that meet client needs. GIS site plans come to mind. As more and more things require a permit from the Local Agency, and as most permits require a siteplan, we need to allow surveyors to prepare low precision maps so that we can provide the products that people in step 3 are looking for.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Thanks again jamesh1467 for this analysis. Good data begets good action :) Any chance you are willing to share your name? I would love to know who did this work.

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:15 am
The other option is we could also add some legal provisions/standards for lower quality products that meet client needs. GIS site plans come to mind. As more and more things require a permit from the Local Agency, and as most permits require a siteplan, we need to allow surveyors to prepare low precision maps so that we can provide the products that people in step 3 are looking for.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Thanks again jamesh1467 for this analysis. Good data begets good action :) Any chance you are willing to share your name? I would love to know who did this work.

8726(14) Allows you the ability to quantify ACCURACY.

If someone can please point me to where in the land surveyors act, that a map a surveyor produces has to be based off from a field survey is defined I would appreciate it.

I introduce the following language for use in examples of a low accuracy site plan. Your Professional discretion should always be paramount, but there are many times where a land surveyors judgement is needed in preparing a map with a boundary in relationship to a fixed object but won't need the expense and PRECISION of a field survey.

Statement of Accuracy 8726(14)
"I, [Your Name], California licensed land surveyor [License Number], hereby declare that the right of way and boundary lines depicted herein have been compiled solely from available record information, and no field survey was conducted to determine their locations. The accuracy of the boundaries is assessed to be sufficient for the intended purpose, which is [provide a brief description of the intended purpose]. It is important to note that this representation is not based on a comprehensive field survey and should be used with consideration of its limitations. Any application requiring precise boundary determination should be conducted through a comprehensive field survey. This statement is made in accordance with the California Professional Land Surveyors Act.”

Example - Its accurate enough to build a pool within your set back lines, but not precise enough to build a fence (on the property line) to keep your neighbors from looking into said pool.

If we as a profession can't agree that the above should work, or come up with a better way of portraying it (open to suggestions)…

LS9200 wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:36 pm Its accurate enough to build a pool within your set back lines, but not precise enough to build a fence (on the property line) to keep your neighbors from looking into said pool.

Mr. Buchholtz(? - LS 9200),

Perhaps we can ask the gentleman who owns a corner lot at the end of the sewer line running down the rear of the parcels in a block in Atherton. Due to a curvilinear block pattern on one side of the block, the rear property line was not where the contractors (plural) thought it was. A new garage and a pool were built on top of the sewer line on different lots to the north west of our gentleman's parcel.

The sewer line that had served it's purpose for many years was...compromised. The effluent refused (pun intended) to pass and ended up erupting in a spray that was rather unpleasant.

It turned out that the real property line was 3 feet further away than the monuments around the block indicated.

I was taught that a a survey doesn't have to be based on a field survey, but it can't be called a boundary survey or filed as a Record of Survey. We compile record data in a CAD map all the time; we just don't call it anything other than a compiled data map.

The above two posts explain why I feel a clearly defined "not a survey, survey" would help.

Perhaps add a section added to 8765- Record of Survey - exemptions.
(f) When it is a survey for a site map to obtain a permit from a county or city/town and the following is true:
(1) The site map has a title on the top of the page in 1 inch letters that reads "Permit Site Map";
(2) The site map identifies what the permit being requested is for;
(3) The site map identifies who is requesting the permit;
(4) The closest boundary to the proposed construction is at least 3 times the minimum required by code, which needs to be listed with citations to the correct zoning code;
(5) The site map only shows boundaries obtained from the permitting jurisdiction's publicly available GIS( or equivalent);
(6) The site map clearly states in at least L200 the following note: (add note about how worthless the map is for anything except satisfying silly red tape permit stuff);
(7) The site map contains a stamp and signature from a person licensed to survey in CA.

I personally believe that I can provide such cheap site plans for clients under the current law, as long as I do not go into the field. I personally go to great lengths to explain to the client that it is an exercise in paperwork "box checking", and shouldn't be relied upon for ANYTHING except getting through a byzantine permitting process. However I would love to have a clearly defined lane I could stay in and have an equal playing field and clients can easily compare the difference in bids that are apples to apples . I personally love to buy budget items sometimes, as long as I know its budget....

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

PS edited to change "by" to "buy" in last line.

Imagine the unregulated utopian world being proselytized. Crownholm was early money on this new world. If only he had known to reach out to the land surveying community for support for the cheap, anything goes, site plans. Crownholm had a few flavors of site plans with the gold standard being charged at $150.

As for records compiled without a field survey, doesn't everyone (GIS, Google Earth, Zillow, planners, 99.9% of all mapping, literally everyone besides land surveyors) already do that? There are only a handful of folks willing to pay a land surveyor to compile record information. Why can't that be outsourced to another country for $30? The local realtors know a drone company for another $100.

Watch a Rami Tamimi video on YouTube see how easily land surveyors are replaced.

https://youtu.be/2I7d1-7Pn3w?si=9zh8zVp7OQQOnNig

https://youtu.be/WNLuHsBXyCw?si=RDD-n21HuE74yn8X

The message is clear, our own community wants to deregulate land surveying. The only roadblock to the deregulation by the unions, GIS folks, NSPS model law was the land surveying community - those folks never thought to ask our community for support. The timing is ideal, this is a sunset review year. Why wait 4 more years for the inevitable? Write the Legislature and explain that the land surveying portion of BPELSG (BPEG) should be sunset. It was a failed 130 year experiment - largely due to technology- that never escaped the shadow of Benson. The technology has eclipsed...[insert here and include something about the public is best protected by cheap work product].

No review of maps before filing maps (surveyor to recorder), no more construction staking (contractors self performing), no more topographic mapping (drones), do not set monuments, do not report scofflaws to BPELSG, no accuracy notes (RTN everything), no searching for monuments (minimize field survey)...let's simply try to compete with Crownholm's $150 site plans. Good luck with that fellas, the smart money is on you to win/lose the race to the bottom.

DWoolley

SueDonim wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:22 pm

LS9200 wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:36 pm Its accurate enough to build a pool within your set back lines, but not precise enough to build a fence (on the property line) to keep your neighbors from looking into said pool.

Mr. Buchholtz(? - LS 9200),

Perhaps we can ask the gentleman who owns a corner lot at the end of the sewer line running down the rear of the parcels in a block in Atherton. Due to a curvilinear block pattern on one side of the block, the rear property line was not where the contractors (plural) thought it was. A new garage and a pool were built on top of the sewer line on different lots to the north west of our gentleman's parcel.

The sewer line that had served it's purpose for many years was...compromised. The effluent refused (pun intended) to pass and ended up erupting in a spray that was rather unpleasant.

It turned out that the real property line was 3 feet further away than the monuments around the block indicated.

I was taught that a a survey doesn't have to be based on a field survey, but it can't be called a boundary survey or filed as a Record of Survey. We compile record data in a CAD map all the time; we just don't call it anything other than a compiled data map.

There are exceptions to every argument, lets not get lost in semantics. This is why the professional judgement and knowledge of data should be reviewed, and compiled by a licensed professional who can be held accountable if they are negligently putting the data together and cause harm (case above). Your professional opinion, and license allows you the ability to make the decision to both do the work that way, or not do the work that way (record boundary) based on the facts that you analyze.

Mr. Wooley,
Currently, as the law stands and has been recently adjudicated. The only person legally able to do this in the state of California is a person authorized to practice land surveying. Technology is rapidly changing for everyone and every profession(link below). If you want every site plan no matter the circumstances to be based off from a field survey, arguing my above paragraph is not worth it, we are in different camps and will just agree to disagree.

A video of how a hydrology engineer can be replaced... "My son did the design on his video game and your wrong and your estimate is off..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg3qezrLUUM

Also, no t - Buchholz. This happens often I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 3:02 pm The above two posts explain why I feel a clearly defined "not a survey, survey" would help.

Perhaps add a section added to 8765- Record of Survey - exemptions.
(f) When it is a survey for a site map to obtain a permit from a county or city/town and the following is true:
(1) The site map has a title on the top of the page in 1 inch letters that reads "Permit Site Map";
(2) The site map identifies what the permit being requested is for;
(3) The site map identifies who is requesting the permit;
(4) The closest boundary to the proposed construction is at least 3 times the minimum required by code, which needs to be listed with citations to the correct zoning code;
(5) The site map only shows boundaries obtained from the permitting jurisdiction's publicly available GIS( or equivalent);
(6) The site map clearly states in at least L200 the following note: (add note about how worthless the map is for anything except satisfying silly red tape permit stuff);
(7) The site map contains a stamp and signature from a person licensed to survey in CA.

I personally believe that I can provide such cheap site plans for clients under the current law, as long as I do not go into the field. I personally go to great lengths to explain to the client that it is an exercise in paperwork "box checking", and shouldn't be relied upon for ANYTHING except getting through a byzantine permitting process. However I would love to have a clearly defined lane I could stay in and have an equal playing field and clients can easily compare the difference in bids that are apples to apples . I personally love to by budget items sometimes, as long as I know its budget....

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

Not against that, Connecticut for instance has similar legislation written called "Compilation Plan"

https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal ... 20-300b-8/
Sec. 20-300b-8. Compilation plan
(a) A Compilation Plan is a plan based on land record research and other sources of information that depicts the approximate size and shape of a parcel of land. This plan is derived from records only and not as a result of a field survey or measurements by the surveyor. The accuracy of this plan may vary with the quality of the data from which it has been compiled. All pertinent sources utilized shall be noted on the plan. Where said plan is created for a specific purpose, such purpose shall be noted in the Compilation Plan.

(b) A prominent note on this plan shall include: "This plan was compiled from other maps, record research or other sources of information. It is not to be construed as having been obtained as the result of a field survey, and is subject to such change as an accurate field survey may disclose."

LS9200 wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:11 am ...
Mr. Wooley,
Currently, as the law stands and has been recently adjudicated. The only person legally able to do this in the state of California is a person authorized to practice land surveying...

The law that is not recognized or enforced by 400+ city planning departments and probably 55 of 58 counties?

Good luck building a land surveying business on that. The point being, the law that is not recognized or followed has little value and is only meaningful to a handful of practitioners and practically zero regulators.

DWoolley

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:15 am PS Thanks again jamesh1467 for this analysis. Good data begets good action :) Any chance you are willing to share your name? I would love to know who did this work.

James Hanley. Hi Mikey. LS 9717 RCE 89324…you’re going to find them anyways. Just don’t stereotype me the way most LS’s do because I am a civil.

Look there’s a term in business called “pivoting”. The land surveying of the past 130 years pretty much died in the 1990s with CAD and RTK. Everything since then was all about the integration of that technology into the market to do what we previously did. Now its fully integrated and people are asking the question, "do we need land surveyors anymore”?

Technology changes, interpreting what other humans meant when they conveyed a piece of land 100 years ago….AI isn’t anywhere close to doing that. Maybe 20 years? Maybe? It is the same reason why courts and attorneys aren’t going to be replaced. Just possibly reduced in numbers. Technology can help us. Not replace us. Our job at its very core is to interpret what other humans did in the past and figure out what that means today. Human still need to judge the actions of other humans. Plain and simple. Yes technology will help us do that more and more. But the decision-making power, the critical thinking of judging the intent of another person’s actions. Nothing else is even close to doing that yet and everyone’s prediction of when that will happen…. lets just say it’s a lot like Tesla’s production forecasts from the late 20teens. Most likely a massive pile of bullshit to keep the money flowing from Wall Street.

There's a reason civil engineering degrees have the second highest pass rate on the FS but the lowest pass rate on the PLS exam. (lower than no degree people and even lower than college degrees in unaffiliated fields) The math isn’t everything. The tech isn’t everything. It is just significantly changing who we are and we don't know how to deal with it. But the courts would still be absolutely inundated with boundary dispute cases without land surveyors no matter how good the tech gets. Like I mean probably hundreds, possibility even thousands a year, just in California due to unlicensed practice without the expert opinion of surveyors.

There is a pivotal moment coming for our profession. People are going to see the tech increasing and the decrease in surveyors correlate the two together and go “hey we don’t need them anymore”. Our economy and the idea of capitalism is almost literally set up for the entire purpose to get people to ask that question and try to innovate to make us more efficient and more effective. When they do ask that question, its our duty to remind them why we are still necessary and why that would be a mistake.

That chart prediction is a lagging indicator. What is shown in this chart has likely already happened in the market. My guess is 3 to 5 years or so. I am pretty sure that once this chart gets to around 3250 surveyors, maybe 2500 if we are lucky, there’s going to be an actual attempt to deregulate us naturally by the free market. Not just a little enforcement thing. A major organized challenge. (My real worry is it comes from tech sector money paying a white shoe firm that we are nowhere near equipped to fight right now. Their resources are endless and they can win just based on having more money and paying the smartest people in the country. Even if the merits of the issue are against them) I can’t speak for how that happens. It could be a judicial challenge; it could be a legislative challenge; probably a combination of both. But it’s coming. We all know it. Everything that happens up until then (mysiteplan case, the San Diego enforcement case, the ones that are coming) will be used as justification for either side for their arguments. These little challenges that are happening right now and how they play out, they matter for that conversation.

As technology stands right now I have absolutely no doubt that the first attempt at deregulating us that likely comes within the next decade or two would harm society as a whole. Possibly leading to the need to create a whole new specialized court system to replace us after we are gone that deals directly with boundary problems on a much more massive scale than the torrents title system that already failed in other states and ours throughout the 20th century. But maybe that is the true future and we all should just be deputized as court officers to work within that system and create it now? I don’t know. But let’s start talking about what it looks like now. Because the one thing I am sure of is that if we just wait for some politician or special interest group to say “we don’t need surveyors” one day, everyone in society would be horribly harmed. There has to be some kind of transition. Some kind of strategic retreat from who we were to who we are going to be.

Personally, I think that is building a fortress around boundary rights. Raising standards so that everyone who ever gets involved with a surveyor knows that true experts are touching the boundary decision. That’s why I think that San Diego case is so important.

But maybe this is truly the close out of our profession and we just need to get every piece of property surveyed and into a “Certified GIS system” so everyone can use our work in the future that will take 30 years to finish. Maybe that system is our legacy that we leave to future generations because our time is really up.

Maybe we should allow Civil Engineers and Architects to determine boundaries for site plans if there’s a map that has been filed that defines all property lines after 2025 as long as they find all existing monuments from the new monument provision? Maybe with a provision that a surveyor at the agency needs to sign off this plan meets that requirement, but doesn’t actually need to sign the determination. That’s still what a few decades worth of work for us for sure and eases the market pressures off us? Keep all the complicated stuff under the LS license while giving away some of the BS stuff that a surveyor has already touched in modern times and is truly being somewhat replaced by tech to take market pressures off us?

Again, I don’t know, I’m just spit balling. But I do know that there needs to be a plan. Some kind of attempt to figure this out. And I do get what you are saying Mikey and Mr. Buchholz, but there is no way it is going to be a small plan to make this work like changing a couple of laws. Maybe that’s useful in the interim, but any real solution is going to seem like a massive shift to a lot of you who grew up with the methods of the 80s and the 90s. But the alternative is letting the market do it for us and when the market makes changes this massive on its own….it is going to be brutal for both us and the people of California. Like ripping off a massive band aid and making a scar. Then just dealing with the scar and how bad that scar hurts.

Big problems need big solutions. These things take years to implement and plan out. No one knows how this works. No one knows how a possible deregulation due to technology should take place of such a major and historical component of our economy like Land Surveyors. Economists don’t know, attorneys don’t know, politicians don’t know, no one knows what this looks like. The only real professions they have deregulated before are things like hairstylists and cosmetologists. So anyone who says they know what this looks like or how this works is totally bullshitting. No one has any clue what to do. It's a massive opportunity to set the agenda for ourselves. Not to mention lead the way/set the tone for almost every other occupational licence deregulation that is likely coming in the next 50 years due to AI. If you think Civils and Doctors are better off than us, its just naïve. They just most likely get a few more decades than us, but the same problems are coming for them too.

Make the conversation happen on your terms before the market does it for you. Again, just as I said in the other post, you can speak for yourself or you can let others speak for you.

Also...bringing in the civil aspect from that hydrology stuff from the post today. I was heavily involved in the 2023 flood operations and predicting flood runoff in the San Joaquin when no one knew really knew how the historic snowpack was going to play out and as a joke I asked ChatGPT to tell me how to calculate the flood runoff. It literally made up an equation that didn't exist. This stuff is tools in the toolbox. Unless you really think the AI revolution is going to take over. Then we are all just screwed from the get go and we should just go start our vacations living our best life waiting for that to happen.

Also. I found some additional information. The average age of the PS exam is 38 from NCEES and it is getting lower as it used to be 39. Meaning more young people are joining the profession. https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... ew-3-1.pdf

I'm in awe, Mr. Hanley!

Thank you for your treatise/thoughts!

(And you said it all without bashing the profession.)

MOST RESPECTFULLY,

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

jamesh1467 wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:43 am James Hanley. Hi Mikey. LS 9717 RCE 89324…you’re going to find them anyways. Just don’t stereotype me the way most LS’s do because I am a civil.

That is the beauty of a long forum like this. Our ideas speak, not our labels.

jamesh1467 wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:43 am Personally, I think that is building a fortress around boundary rights. Raising standards so that everyone who ever gets involved with a surveyor knows that true experts are touching the boundary decision. That’s why I think that San Diego case is so important.

That is part of the point of creating legislated lower quality surveys. Differentiation in our deliverables by creating lower tiers of work. The creation of which could be shared with other professions, or homeowners even. For those that are worried about how we could compete in providing these cheap "Permit Site Plans" just consider how many people pay others to organize their closet, or pick out the paint color for their house? There will always be ways to offer a service and stay competitive as long as its an even playing field and surveyors are not held to a "all boundary must be perfect" standard.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

James:

I like the license information aggregated into graphs and reports. I think I will find a need for the information in the future.

One more consideration that may be of use to you in making reports - the effects of a recession on land surveying.

There is information on the reported land surveying hours.

See the 5 minute mark of this video:

https://youtu.be/04KInynMaU4?si=N7QAitdhXpiSYznu

I would be interested in anything you may see and how it may factor into your prognostications.

DWoolley

hellsangle wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 10:30 am I'm in awe, Mr. Hanley!

Thank you.

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 12:27 pm
That is part of the point of creating legislated lower quality surveys. Differentiation in our deliverables by creating lower tiers of work. The creation of which could be shared with other professions, or homeowners even. For those that are worried about how we could compete in providing these cheap "Permit Site Plans" just consider how many people pay others to organize their closet, or pick out the paint color for their house? There will always be ways to offer a service and stay competitive as long as its an even playing field and surveyors are not held to a "all boundary must be perfect" standard.

Mikey,

We don't need to lower standards by any stretch of the imagination. We need to raise them. This is not at all about lowering standards. You guys really are not comprehending how bad that San Diego Case is. That case set them at the bottom. There really is no lower they can get. It gave you all the rights to do pretty much whatever you want now and everything you are discussing here. Just put it in the contract.

So yeah, everything you all have suggested you want to do in this forum you can do without any repercussion right this second and so, so much worse. No tiers, no nothing. You can do whatever you want as a licenced surveyor right a this very moment to determine a boundary, just make a contract for exactly what you are doing. Seriously, anything you want....Does anyone see the problem with that?


Lets go down the hypothetical road:

I can now take an aerial, draw in some topo features from that aerial, take the 7-minute map, hand sketch some elevations and then stamp it with assessor's or county GIS boundary lines and the Board couldn’t do a damn thing about it now with that San Diego precedent.

You want to call me negligent? I made a contract with my client that was exactly what I was giving them. Let’s go have a he/she said, he/she said argument in front of the judge about professional practice. And again, all I must do is case reference the San Diego case where they said contact law rules. I made a contract for exactly that level of work because I determined that was the “standard of care” I felt necessary for that situation. The client agreed to that level of work because it was so cheap. Where is you law telling me I cannot make a contract like that? I performed under the contract I made so how is there any violation? How likely do you think I win that argument in front of the judge now?

Here is the kicker. I never even did a field survey. So, all the rules of 8762. Look at the first few lines. 8762 can never be applied to my work because I made my boundary decision without doing a field survey.



You can literally just take all the GIS nowadays in these major cities, put it on a map, put your stamp on their work on that map and get paid for it as long as that is what you define in the contract. There is nothing stopping you. The only thing that is really valid is that it does need to be an LS because of 8726. But yeah, an LS themselves can do anything they want to do after that.

So no, I don’t think we really need to do anything here to lower standards. No need for new laws just to formalize the reality we have lower standards now until you put something back into law to raise standards again. You are all good to do whatever you want now. Nothing is stopping you, just put it in the contract

DWoolley wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 5:17 pm See the 5 minute mark of this video:

https://youtu.be/04KInynMaU4?si=N7QAitdhXpiSYznu

I would be interested in anything you may see and how it may factor into your prognostications.

DWoolley

DWoolley, I have seen all your videos. Also, most of Landon’s, although he has way too many of them and I don’t know where he finds that kind of time to make them all. I can’t even keep up with watching his. I’ll respond to you in another post in a day or two. It’s kind of a different conversation.

And again, all I must do is case reference the San Diego case where they said contact law rules.

Again, I think you're conflating binding precedent with persuasive precedent. The San Diego case doesn't tie the hands of other courts, and another (more competent) judge could make a finding of negligence given the same evidence.

Jim Frame wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:57 pm

And again, all I must do is case reference the San Diego case where they said contact law rules.

Again, I think you're conflating binding precedent with persuasive precedent. The San Diego case doesn't tie the hands of other courts, and another (more competent) judge could make a finding of negligence given the same evidence.

I am not at all and I have acknowledged your position on this from the very first time I started talking about this. You may win on most enforcement actions because that admin judges are corrupt and blindly do whatever you say. But any real judge who tries to adjudicate this fairly...you should lose every time. All anyone has to do is pay to get out of the admin system and into the real system that adjudicates fairly. Because apparently the admin system doesn't.

That judge and I are both calling bullshit on the way you are enforcing our LS act. Because nothing about that case was a good thing. The only positive I see from that case is that it is not binding appellate...yet.

We write our rules down in this nation. Its just pure fairness. You are not special. Over half the country does it and the only ones left that don't write down their rules, don't have nearly the surveyor population we do. Not to mention they aren't the forefront state of technology and entrepreneurship like we are. Nor have the high property values. You want to keep this fagazi of the LS act go for it. You just proving to me more and more that I made a mistake joining this profession and there is really no future here.

I am honestly livid about this case and how bad the leadership of the boomer and late gen x generation are screwing it up so badly for my generation. I have been trying to hide it as much as I can. But its hard to hide and I might as well come out and say it:

Get your crap together.

I know its not my time in life to lead these conversations right now about what the standards actually should be. But I or others like me cannot lead something that doesn't exist in 10 years because you guys were asleep at the wheel. That is what we are seriously discussing right now. I won't even get my own shot to lead. All of you with 9000 numbers probably won't either.

Crownholm was an idiot that tried to bust down the front door. What do you think happens when him or other like him realize there is a back door to our LS act?

Again, I want the same end result of that case as you do. But why it didn't end up at that result makes absolutely perfect sense to me and I know it will continue. Again, this reeks so, so, so badly of the administrative state thinking they are all powerful and as though we don't have fair processes in our society to handle disputes. You have to speak collectively through statute about what the rules actually are otherwise their really are no rules when something is fairly decided. Laws are society speaking collectively as a whole, when there is no law preventing it, individual rights take over and we are a nation that love individual rights and freedom. Individual rights should always win. The judge was correct. Whether or not I agree with his rational on how he decided, I agree with his philosophy.


Also, I am going to leave it there DWoolley and not get into your question as much as I was going to. But the short answer to your question is that I took your video into account when I responded. I also think everyone who ever discusses economics should view these two videos. I have a grad degree in that to know that these are worth a crap. Also this guy ran the largest hedge fund in the world at one point.
https://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0?si=8cG6vLZTdlIjxUkp
https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8?si=GA5yJCc7dcD2Al1O

jamesh1467 wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 10:39 am Mikey,

We don't need to lower standards by any stretch of the imagination. We need to raise them. This is not at all about lowering standards. You guys really are not comprehending how bad that San Diego Case is. That case set them at the bottom. There really is no lower they can get. It gave you all the rights to do pretty much whatever you want now and everything you are discussing here. Just put it in the contract.

I think I didn't explain my point well. I know I can legally prepare such low quality maps. I want to create clear standards around lower quality work, EXACTLY because I see it as the only achievable way to protect a properly done boundary. We do not have the political capital (or the willingness as a profession to all pull together in the same direction) to achieve sweeping reform. By creating another legislated lower tier for agency required site maps it helps us defend the boundary work that needs to be done right. Consider it a spillway on the dam that is the PLS.

As an example of what I am talking about consider the Corner Record. It lays out fairly simple criteria for staying within the law while doing less than a Record of Survey. It helps save costs in those situations were the full RoS process is not needed, which lets my estimate stay within the "still a chance" range when I am competing with a someone who is willfully or blithely ignoring the laws.

FWIW I think the "pull in one direction" issue is what is really hampering our profession's efforts. I also think its a "feature" of being a surveyor. I also think that that sky is not falling. For perspective check out the attached newsletters from one of CLLSA's first Board of Director's meetings. For those that can't download, its from December 1966 and talks about the threats of deregulation, it also contains a copy of an editorial from the New York Surveyor's association about the need for a professional organization. Of note it also talks about how they have so many members that they need to start having local chapters which are to be given wide latitude so the local chapters can solve their own local problems.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS. CLLSA was shortened to CLSA, its not a typo. The newsletter was part of the Richard Coughlan collection donated to Sonoma County CLSA.

Another opinion of the Dalio BS . . . is Copeland's book: The Fund

jamesh1467 wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:54 am ...
I am honestly livid about this case and how bad the leadership of the boomer and late gen x generation are screwing it up so badly for my generation. I have been trying to hide it as much as I can. But its hard to hide and I might as well come out and say it:
...
I know its not my time in life to lead these conversations right now about what the standards actually should be. But I or others like me cannot lead something that doesn't exist in 10 years because you guys were asleep at the wheel. That is what we are seriously discussing right now. I won't even get my own shot to lead. All of you with 9000 numbers probably won't either.
...

Blaming the Boomers or Gen X does nothing for your generation or the situation. I suspect neither of those generations have the stamina or inclination to bring about any changes to the profession.

Based on the information you have provided, you have an education, a license as a PE, and other skills that will keep you off the dole. When you are older you can tell disinterested parties the overly romanticized stories of having been a surveyor and draw the comparisons to Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Thoreau - as though any of us share their professional likeness. I am certain the wainwrights, knocker-ups, blue printers, blacksmiths, etc. had their romantic stories after their work ceased.

As for not being your time to lead, is this a clever way of saying quitter? The time will go on without you. The question is whether or not you are willing to run headlong into a fight with a belief the outcome remains uncertain. Generationally, if I am to believe what I have read, Millennials and Gen Z are, ahem, [stammer, stammer], work shy? Uncommitted?

We should be grateful our forefathers had the gumption to accept the circumstances of their time and a willingness to die, literally and figuratively, for an intangible ideology or destiny/future. For example:

1. Samuel Colt created the Paterson Colt when he was under 23 years old. He carved the first prototype out of scrap wood as a working shipmate, sailing from Massachusetts to Calcutta, at 16 years old (many kids today do not walk to school). He later went bankrupt, raised money on the streets of New York and died one of America's wealthiest people. Samuel Walker, Walker Colt namesake, fought Comanches, worked on a survey crew, was once stuck to the ground with a Comanche lance through his abdomen, wrote Sam Colt with ideas as to how to improve the Paterson Colt. Walker left Texas to relocate to New York City to meet and work with Colt - this wasn't a four hour plane ride. Once Walker completed the work with Colt he went back to Texas and was killed by a Mexican sniper - all before he was 30 years old.

2. William "Buck" Travis was in command of the Alamo at 26 years of age. His bravery and final letter requesting reinforcements served as the rallying point in the war and turned the tide - spurring volunteers from all over the nation to go to Texas to fight and win the war.

3. Dick Winters was in command of the 101st during WW2. Watch Band of Brothers for an abridged version of his leadership at 26-27 years of age. There were everyday men in their 20s boarding a Liberator every six days after witnessing 50% losses of their friends the previous five days.

4. Hugh Glass was severely mauled by a bear, unable to walk due to broken bones, left for dead by his pals in hostile Arikara territory, and he crawled more than 200 miles, over 6-8 weeks, to the nearest fort. Once healed he sought out revenge on those that left him.

Cast aside the Caesars, Alexander the Great, Hermann, Dick Winters, Sam Colt of the world. There are tens of thousands of books written about seemingly everyday folks, usually in their 20s or 30s, acting in positions of leadership and occasionally, changing the course of history - while others were content to sit on their hands and quite often facing worthless, then and now, discouraging naysayers. Behind these everyday folks are millions of people that lead, failed and ultimately, persevered and did not have any books written about their contributions to society, a profession, a trade or simply, a family of four.

James, you may be correct in your assessment of your leadership skills i.e. not your time, darn Boomers! Understood. There is no reason for you to go down with the land surveying ship. On the other hand, what would be the harm of taking a couple runs at the hill of land surveying attrition? You are not being asked to defend the Alamo or crew a B-24 in late '44. Why not defend the profession from the fraudsters, low bar advocates and naysayers? Those folks will not do anything, certainly not put a lance through your gut sticking you to the ground. You have shown enough interest to analyze the situation and write about it here. When/if the 9000s finally perish, win or lose, you will have done your part to avert it - that would probably be a story worth telling.

DWoolley