Michael Pallamary On TV

[Jim Frame]

Nate DeAryan posted a link on SurveyorConnect (aka BeerLeg.com) to a TV segment featuring Michael Pallamary discoursing on the destruction of monuments in San Diego. It describes the kind of indifference we see on the part of many public agencies when it comes to monument preservation. It's worth a look, if only to see one of our own on TV!

http://www.kusi.com/story/18431813/buri ... e-pavement

.

[Jay Wright]

Way to go Michael!!!!!!!
That should be sent to every local agency in California with the message that they allow the same crap and might be on TV soon defending the practice.

[land butcher]

Very good Mike.

As for not costing the taxpayers; I have not researched it, but I have heard that up this way monument preservation is part of the construction contract and paid for like the rest of the construction work. In other words, it's just added to the bottom line and taken from general tax money.

[Jim Frame]

In other words, it's just added to the bottom line and taken from general tax money.

That's probably true in most cases, but it needn't be so. This is what monument preservation funds were intended to underwrite.

.

[TTaylor]

FYI,

A follow up to the original Turko Files report:

http://www.kusi.com/story/18651954/not- ... ng-the-law

[Steve Martin]

Wow, I am not used to seeing Turko say the County is actually spending their limited funds wisely...did that come from... The Twilight Zone?

I for one am a firm believer that Monument Preservation funds should go towards preserving historic GLO, Rancho and old subdivision corners. The recent Sonoma County survey of the Kingsbury line is a good example of Monument Preservation fund appropriate use.

To me, diverting funds out of the Monument Preservation fund to be used for the monument referencing portion of a County repaving contract is not an appropriate use of the fund. Re-paving is funded in part from gas tax money and monument referencing is an integral part of the work. It is mandated by law. Re-surfacing cannot proceed without monument referencing and should be included in the CIP budget for any re-paving project.

Diverting money to bolster re-paving budgets takes away from the true purpose of the Monument Preservation fund, preserving ancient survey monuments evidencing the original subdivisions from which most land titles arise.

I did work at a County that had a Monument Preservation fund and there was a regular program to recover section and quarter section corners in an entire township at a time. No lost corners were proportioned in, only found original or obliterated corners were tied out and rebuilt. I think anyone who has followed in the footsteps in a township with a County Monument preservation fund Record of Survey would agree that it was invaluable work. There are however, so many more townships out there that need this kind of preservation. Monument Preservation funds are needed to accomplish this task rather than paying for the normal everyday function of street maintenance.

[Ric7308]

I especially liked the statement "...State Board of Professional Land Surveyors..." and on TV no less!

[subman]

Recent press release from Los Angeles County DPW on the topic:

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/prg/pressroom/p ... type=press