Texas state politics/law is completely f'd in so many ways, but one thing they do that I think is fantastic, and I wish all states did, was have a "Sunset Review Commission", <a href="https://www.sunset.texas.gov/how-sunset-works" rel="nofollow">https://www.sunset.texas.gov/how-sunset-works</a>.<p>Basically, all agencies that are authorized by the legislature are set to automatically be abolished in (usually) 12 years. Once the expiration date is near, the Sunset Commission reviews the agency and recommends whether to reauthorize it, in which case the legislature must pass a law to reauthorize, but the "default" is that the agency expires.<p>This really helps fight the natural tendency of lots of these professional agencies to grow to protect their own power, regardless of their original purpose. And even if agencies are normally always renewed, the review process itself is really useful to, when necessary, smack these agencies upside the head to get them back to their original goal. One example I'm familiar with, a couple years ago the Sunset Commission basically tore the Texas Veterinary Board a new one after they decided to go after animal shelter vets for trying to save animals with extremely limited resources, <a href="https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/One-third-of-state-veterinary-board-resigns-10784396.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/One-third-of...</a> - actual report at <a href="https://www.sunset.texas.gov/public/uploads/files/reports/State%20Board%20of%20Veterinary%20Medical%20Examiners%20Staff%20Report%20with%20Final%20Results_6-21-17.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.sunset.texas.gov/public/uploads/files/reports/St...</a>
The biggest difference between an official site survey and you (or him) doing it themselves is liability. It is pretty clear from the language on the site that they aren't accepting legal liability and are just a convenience over doing it yourself using Google Maps or a tape-measure.<p>I think the article is very well argued, and if this board's closure notice is allowed to stand then it will infringe on Californian's right to simply draw a map of their home or business. His business isn't offering site surveys and doesn't proclaim to, and to be honest even Google Maps/Bing/Apple could be at risk if this board's ability to close/ban this were allowed (they do show property boundaries after all).<p>The biggest problem they're going to run into is: Who has deeper pockets? Since often in the US legal system that can decide the winner/loser.
This really feels like a "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" situation - requiring that only a licensed surveyor "depict the location of property lines" seems totally reasonable as to prevent the "location of property lines" from eroding legally, but banning a site loaded with "THIS IS NOT A SURVEY" disclaimers does not.<p>A discrepancy between requirements from building departments and planning and platting departments is par for the course. Everywhere I have ever lived, the building department will accept an informal description of boundaries to determine whether or not a plan interferes with setback requirements, while a planning department or platting recorder will demand an officially certified survey to determine the actual parcel boundaries.<p>I think this site's "If your building department DOES NOT require a Surveyor, Engineer, or Architect Stamp our plans are just what you need!" disclaimer is quite spot-on and it is rather frustrating that they are getting targeted.<p>My own county (Boulder County, CO) offer a county-sponsored GIS service which is not surveyor-approved, with similar disclaimers. My surveyed parcel at my current household differed from their assessment by 5% and at my last household, by 10%. While this is a significant number, for building purposes, it isn't unreasonable - just a few degrees either way in the projection of edges. I think these sites should be allowed to stand with the acceptance that a suit based on the material contained in these sites would be bogus.
Reminds me of that "Engineer fined for saying he's an engineer". (<a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/vvapy4/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government" rel="nofollow">https://www.vice.com/en/article/vvapy4/man-fined-dollar500-f...</a>) debacle a few years back<p>There are times when a certification is a good idea, where safety is a concern for example. In these cases it seems it's just salty "engineering" boards that want to hold on to their archaic ways of doing things.
The title of this post is too mild - it's not just the $1000 fine but the fact that they are asking for the shutdown of his business, one that he has run for many years.
It's ridiculously broad legally and needs to be struck down.
> Crownholm, who is the founder of MySitePlan.com, a website that allows people to purchase informal maps for their property drawn from preexisting information and images, was issued a citation from the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists, who claimed that Crownholm and the site were illegally practicing land surveying without a license.<p>If the maps are marketed as "informal", how do they have a valid case against him? This carries the stench of abusive protectionist harassment, leveraging massive Board resources against an individual.<p>What am I overlooking?
Laughable because LA City's system, Zimas, has property lines so poorly drawn over their satellite / aerial imagery. It is some simple alignment issue that puts your property line in your neighbors driveway, or your neighbors easement fully on their property. The sad thing is, this translates into surveys. Now my neighbors and I have completely nonsensical stamps in the ground that we have to figure out how to correct.<p>Sad thing is, it lines up in their 2001 imagery, but 2017 is off by a few feet.
I would like to see these challenges happen more often<p>I think there is a fundamental limitation in US society that the only people that can challenge laws are the people that are damaged by them. You can't just look at the law in passing and take these exact obvious arguments to court because you have a little free time and money. You need free time, money, <i>and a whole government agency coming after you trying to take all of your free time and money!</i> What kind of power dynamic is that!?<p>We need a more comprehensive check and balance to get these laws in front of courts way earlier than that. I have some ideas if anyone is interested.
it seems to me that the real problem here is that the "california board for professional engineers, land surveyors, and geologists" has any power at all to issue fines to non-members. professional organizations should govern their own members, but not random other people.<p>if california wants to make a law that you have to have a site survey done by a member of that organization, that's one thing. but for the board to be able to issue fines to people who aren't professional surveyors seems like a gross overreach.
It's not unusual for states to have legislation to restrict the definition and practice of "Professional Engineer's" (capital P, capital E) and other "Professions" such as Doctors, etc. However, that does not mean you cannot call yourself an "engineer" (lowercase E) because you write software or drive model trains. The issue in this case is that the article is quite correct (IANAL, but this is still my <i>legal opinion</i> - lower case O - to which I am allowed) the definition of Land Surveying Defined is <i>way</i> <i>WAY</i> overbroad and that's the understatement of the year.<p><a href="https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pls_act.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pls_act.pdf</a><p>8726 (a)(2) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface, or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of the earth by applying the principles of mathematics or photogrammetry.<p>So if you perform or offer to perform a service (publicly or privately) of <i>locating fixed things using math or pictures</i> you are performing Land Surveying.<p><i>HAHAHHAHAHAA</i> Bullshit. I hope he has enough resources to trounce this bad law. He'll win if he can pay to fight it.
How is this not public information, available to everyone on the Internet?<p>I'm baffled why anyone would even need to pay for this, much less why someone would be fined for selling this information. In my country, you go to a web site with a map (with dozens of switchable layers), which has pretty much everything: property lines, infrastructure, etc.
Crazy. Here in the UK most properties have boundaries you can also find out who owns it for a nominal fee. (For unregistered land it's not that you can't have the data for free, it's that the data doesn't really exist)<p>Presumably the government is the arbitrator of who owns the land, surely in the US that makes it public domain?<p>(That said in the UK I get the feeling it's only free [0] because it came from an EU Directive)<p>[0] <a href="https://use-land-property-data.service.gov.uk/datasets/inspire/download" rel="nofollow">https://use-land-property-data.service.gov.uk/datasets/inspi...</a>
This seems crazy.<p>If I wanted to hire someone to survey my house to help me plan a renovation, to get a town permit, I’d need a licensed engineer to make the drawing.<p>If I was DIYing it, I would absolutely feel comfortable hiring someone unlicensed to get a good-enough drawing.<p>Making it illegal to get an informal survey of land sounds insane.
Oh my. I was about to commit the same crime myself.<p>We had an ADU built on the property a few years ago. Google Maps and OSM don't show it, only the main house. Even worse, there is some confusion about the street address.<p>We are on the corner of Foobar Road and Barfoo Avenue. The original address was on one of those streets, but a previous owner changed it from that one to the other. Some utilities think we are on Foobar, others on Barfoo.<p>I was going to contact those utilities, the various online maps, and the city building office to try to get all this straightened out.<p>But legal trouble is the last thing I need right now.<p>I guess I should just leave everything in its current incorrect and confusing state.
The law here is clearly overly vague and needs clarifying, but so too does the source of data on published maps.<p>A map to be shared, particularly for any legal or regulatory purpose, should include a note stating the source(s) of the data depicted.<p>The source could be a surveyor, or it could be Google Maps, or a particular GIS database, or whatever, but provided the data source is clearly stated, then potentially damaging ambiguity is minimized, and a clear paper trail as to accuracy and reliability is established.
I think the problem is that he's selling the maps as a service. A homeowner doing it for themself is different from hiring a professional service to do it.
Sounds like a jumped up petty bureaucrat decided to flex their muscles, and have now landed their department in a world of pain. When will these people learn?
The real question is how is this a legitimate business? Literally just providing GIS data that is publically available for a fee? BRB quitting my job to make money doing nothing and separating idiots from their money.