Friday, September 14, 2012

Land Surveying; the Push-Over Profession

The title alone will make some people angry.  Well maybe it should.  I have never been one to be afraid of insighting anger when I have a point to make.  Spirited debate used to be a corner stone of our profession.  That was how we used to address differences of opinion. 

So why are we the push over profession?  Simple, we are cowards in the face of government agencies who assert bureaucratic policies that are not based in law, ordinance, or statute.  We also display timidity in the face rule changes or policies that have a direct effect on us with out our conscent.

A specific example is Gila County.  The recorder's office has a policy that when they receive a record of survey they immediately transfer it down to community development for reveiw and acceptance.  Before we go any further; I am not talking about MINOR LAND SPLITS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, or SUBDIVISIONS these all have to be reveiwed.  I am talking about a RECORD OF SURVEY.  If the survey falls within the jurisdiction of a municipality then the plat has to submitted to the municipalty's community development department for reveiw and acceptance before the recorder will record it.

THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW.  If the recorder's office receives a document or plat that meets the statutory requirements they have to accept it for recordation.  If they divert the plat to another agency for reveiw; this action alone is in violation of ARS 11-460.  By refusing to accept the document they have done a couple of things.  First, they have obstructed the lawfaul recordation as mandated by the rules and regulations governing the practice of land Surveying.  Second, they have obsolved the surveyor of any responsibility of having to record.

Gila County has been doing this for 20 years.  I don't normally work down there so I had no idea this was going on.  But I know there are at least 12-20 land surveyors who routinely work down there.  Yesterday in a phone conversation with the Town of Payson; I was told I was the first person to ever raise an issue with this practice of reveiwing records of survey.  This floored me.  Why in the world would the surveyor's in Gila County sit back and submit themselves to this over reaching bureaucratic nonsense?  Is this happening anywhere else?  Why hasn't APLS been involved to stop this? 

Look, we have got to get mad.  We have got to get engaged.  We have got to take control of our profession.  Things like the example above should not be allowed to happen.  I can understand why these type of policies are in place.  But these policies don't cure the disease they intended to.  It merely punishes those whom follow the rules.  What these agencies need to do is go after registrants who perpetuate the acts that create these policies.  Not create a broad brush policy that assumes every survey is guilty of some malfeasance.

And where was APLS?  Has APLS gone to the annual Recorder's meeting requested to be on the agenda and discussed any of this stuff with the county recorders?  Why are sticking our heads in the sand? 

Gila County and thier prejudicial treatment of the surveying community has got to stop.  They don't have deeds reveiwed before they are accepted only surveys.  Surveys don't convey title, they don't created parcels; they merely depict existing conditions so why is it necessary to reveiw them?  Oh and the best part; this is what set me off; the town of payson had specific preferences that they wanted to see added to my record of survey.  OH HELL NO.

I am going to fight this with every essence of my being.  You all can jump in any time.  However I fear that most will meekly cheer from the cheap seats.


And For My Commrads in Traverse in the South; VIVA LA SALSA!!!!!

5 comments:

  1. We invited the Pima County Recorder to one of our meetings many years ago to discuss records of survey and various issues. We just finished the third of a series of meetings with her to discuss indexing and availability of documents. I would say that progress is glacial at best. When Hal was working with the Recorders Association, I think he had the same opinion. It may not happen in our lifetime.

    Our Recorder likes to pretend there is no GIS system, although we had one of the best systems in the country for “one, brief, shining moment.” Now we have a County Survey Department, a City Survey Department, the Recorder’s office, the City GIS, the County GIS and a multitude of private surveyors. All belong to their private fiefdom and prefer not to recognize the existence of the other, except to whine and complain about the other. It may be easier to solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue than to get all these folks in the same room for a conversation. The local SALSA group in conjunction with the County GIS gents have done a good job in attempting to solve the Recorder’s issues, but glacial is certainly the apt term here.

    You are the rain and wind on the mountain, Grasshopper…

    J.O. Teague

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,

    Like you, most of us were ignorant of what the Town of Payson and the Gila County Recorder are doing. And like you, we dislike being told what to do by local bureaucrats.

    A search of the Gila County Minor Land Division Ordinance for the word "survey" did not reveal a requirement for all Records of Survey to be reviewed. A similar search of the Town of Payson's Unified Development Code had a similar result.

    The Gila County Recorder, on her website, under the heading of RECORDING REQUIREMENTS, lists only ARS §11-480. Requirements for form of instruments, ARS §11-1133 Affidavit of legal value, and ARS §11-1134 Exemptions. ARS §11-481 Title and size prerequisites for recording maps and plats isn't mentioned. Have you spoken with or written MS. Tomerlin about this matter?

    Have you been able to find out who instituted this policy and under what authority it was done? Is there a written copy of the policy anywhere?

    R L (Larry) Lawrence Jr

    ReplyDelete
  3. Larry -
    I have have had several telephone conversations with the responsible parties with the Town of Payson and one of the deputy recorder's in Gila County. This exercise is merely a policy. It is primarily designed to prevent surveyor's from recording illegal land splits and subdivisions. However now they "grade" your plat for appearance and apply preferential drafting standards that are outside their jurisdiction to do so. Also they involove the communities in the reveiw process who take it upon themselves to do the same thing. All of it way outside thier delegated authority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All -
    I just sent a letter to the Recorder certified mail requesting the plat be recorded citing the below:

    11-471. Manner of recording

    The recorder shall, without delay, record each instrument authorized to be recorded which is deposited with him for record, except where otherwise provided, with the acknowledgments, proofs, affidavits and certificates thereon, and other papers thereto annexed, in the order and as of the time when they are deposited for record, by entering them for record word for word and letter for letter, and the hour, day, month and year when the instrument recorded was deposited in his office for record.

    If she don't then I will file a claim under:

    11-477. Liability for neglect or misfeasance

    If an instrument, proved or acknowledged according to law, or a paper or notice which may by law be recorded, is delivered to the recorder for record, and he neglects or refuses to perform the duties required of him by law relating to recording or filing instruments and papers, or if he neglects or refuses to make the searches and to give the certificate as required by this article, or if such searches or certificate are incomplete and defective in any important particular, or if he alters, changes or obliterates any record deposited in his office, or inserts any new matter therein, he is liable to the party aggrieved for three times the amount of the damages which may be occasioned by the neglect or refusal, or by the incompleteness or defect in the searches and certificate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan,

      I am looking forward to the response regarding the letter stated above.

      Please keep us all informed as quickly as possible.

      I love it when someone who has no business, clue, education, etc. "reviewing" a Results of Survey" tells me what is and is not going to be on my Results of Survey.

      Best,

      Dane

      Delete