Last week I was working on a parcel in Pinetop. The owner thought there might be a trespass issue and asked me to survey the property. So when I get there I find some really juicy evidence. 1/2" pieces of sucker rod set by William Bartlett RLS #618. The work was really tight so rebuilding the survey was not as difficult as anticipated. I found a copy of Bartlett's plat and he showed a 0.07 acre strip between 2 lots. this was the area of concern for my client. They thought it was theirs. The neighbor on the other side of the strip has a shed and concrete pad for a RV in the strip and they were clearly using it.
As it turns out; and after a lot of digging around we found Bartlett's monuments around the strip. The strip existed and was surveyed in 1961. So instead of my clients defending against adverse posession. There was no issue at all. The neighbor however asked if I could survey his place also and help him find an attorney. He wants the strip he's been using. So I gave him a few numbers and finished his parcel also.
On the way home I began to over think it. Was I crossing an ethical boundary here? As a land surveyor I cannot advocate of any party. Yet when two neighbors are fighting over a strip of property and both of them want you to survey it for them is there a breach of ethics? I believe in full disclosure and let all involved know who had requested the initial survey. I also let my first party client know that the neighbor wanted me to survey his also. Noe seemed to have a problem. But does that mean I don't have a problem?
Is this the perfect position or the worst one? Maybe I am over thinking it again...
Monday, June 24, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Catching up
May flew by. I haven't been that busy in May since 5 years ago. You might have noticed I haven't been posting anything. When you work alone and spend long days all week; the weekend is all about my girls. Enough said.
Yesterday I made the trip to Phoenix to attend a special meeting of the BTR. The meeting only had 2 agenda items Saying good bye to Ronald Dalrymple and Continuing Education. A BTR member revealed the results of the survey that the BTR had on line about CEU's. Statistically is was dead even as far as surveyors were concerned. Unitl you removed the dual registrant Engineers. Then the true RLS's by majority were in favor of a CEU program. After much (and the majority) of testimony was taken from the gallery, the BTR discussion commenced. The BTR discussed the issue and the point was raised that the number of enforcement cases showed an issue; the profession was surveyed and supported CEU's; and APLS was requesting a CEU program. During that discussion the Land Surveyor member of the BTR made the motion "for the board to take no action toward a CEU program". With a quick second and a roll call vote the motion passed. AT THIS TIME THERE WILL BE NO CEU PROGRAM.
Those on the BTR that supported APLS in this please continue to do so. Those among us who quietly supported us please continue to do so. This is by no means over. I don't know what the politics are behind this vote and the way it happened. It stinks of an inside job but I will never be able to prove it. So in my humble opinion I will simply say this: The surveying community in the state of Arizona has once again been shown that we are not allowed to take control of our own destiny. Our fate, our regulations, our practice, is defined and administered by bureaucrats and other professionals who know nothing of what we do and its impact on the state.
I can only offer this hope for our future. I will hope and pray that when and if one of these gentleman who participated in the "No" vote yesterday; someday in the future call on a surveyor to survey their house or property. If that survey is to have any sort of problem that gets really ugly. I hope they think back to the vote they cast and ask if a CEU program was worth it or not. Because they have done that for every land owner in the state that has a baseless boundary issue because of a lack of education and no mandate to aquire it.
Yesterday I made the trip to Phoenix to attend a special meeting of the BTR. The meeting only had 2 agenda items Saying good bye to Ronald Dalrymple and Continuing Education. A BTR member revealed the results of the survey that the BTR had on line about CEU's. Statistically is was dead even as far as surveyors were concerned. Unitl you removed the dual registrant Engineers. Then the true RLS's by majority were in favor of a CEU program. After much (and the majority) of testimony was taken from the gallery, the BTR discussion commenced. The BTR discussed the issue and the point was raised that the number of enforcement cases showed an issue; the profession was surveyed and supported CEU's; and APLS was requesting a CEU program. During that discussion the Land Surveyor member of the BTR made the motion "for the board to take no action toward a CEU program". With a quick second and a roll call vote the motion passed. AT THIS TIME THERE WILL BE NO CEU PROGRAM.
Those on the BTR that supported APLS in this please continue to do so. Those among us who quietly supported us please continue to do so. This is by no means over. I don't know what the politics are behind this vote and the way it happened. It stinks of an inside job but I will never be able to prove it. So in my humble opinion I will simply say this: The surveying community in the state of Arizona has once again been shown that we are not allowed to take control of our own destiny. Our fate, our regulations, our practice, is defined and administered by bureaucrats and other professionals who know nothing of what we do and its impact on the state.
I can only offer this hope for our future. I will hope and pray that when and if one of these gentleman who participated in the "No" vote yesterday; someday in the future call on a surveyor to survey their house or property. If that survey is to have any sort of problem that gets really ugly. I hope they think back to the vote they cast and ask if a CEU program was worth it or not. Because they have done that for every land owner in the state that has a baseless boundary issue because of a lack of education and no mandate to aquire it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)