Both Harold Baldwin (“Guest Column: Less Education Is Not Surveying’s Solution,” Oct. 2015) and Philip E. Adams (“Guest Column: Why Licensure Requirements Need to be Revamped,” Oct. 2015) have useful comments, but fail to hit the target in the center.
In a recent evidence-collecting adventure, I came across a plat of the property adjacent to the one I was surveying. I was amazed at the detail, precision of all measurements and the overall “look” of the plat.
I would like to comment on Mr. Philip E. Adams’ guest editorial in the recent edition of POB magazine. I believe the sole reason the surveying profession is in the precarious position it now finds itself is due to lack of business sense to charge professional fees in proportion to the value we create for our clients.
In my previous column, in the August issue, we went into a detailed discussion on how to know that you have rendered a well-reasoned opinion on the location of the property lines that are the subject of your survey — a litmus test, if you will.
As you may recall, one of the key elements of the test is the application of the appropriate boundary law principles.
Buying or selling a survey or engineering firm for all practical purposes is the same. The truth is that in many cases they offer both survey and engineering services, or at least have an arrangement to offer both.