[Stonehenge]

I'm a member of ASLA. As such, I'm on a few email distribution lists. I got one yesterday that I was curious about.

Our state has a LA title act, meaning you can't call yourself an LA unless you've received the license from the state, a license you can't receive unless you've cleared several hurdles.

Anyway, the note went something like this:

We want to notify you that the State of Wisconsin does not recognize the RLA designation. Rather, the proper presentation of the title is: Joe Blow, Landscape Architect #1356.

The curious part came in a reply that someone sent to the entire distribution list. That went something like this:

I find it very distasteful that the state does not recognize the RLA designation. We need to get this law changed, and it must be done at the grass roots level. We have a committee working on it, but need your help. Please contact X or Y to help.

As a non-LA, and a bit of an outsider, I have to ask those that are LA's - why are they so interested in changing this? The law already is in their favor. Being this upset and spending this much time on the issue of title appears petty to me.

But can an LA tell me - is that really what the fuss is about? Is there something else I'm not seeing in this?

[agla]

I don't know exactly what that is all about. My best guess is that there is some loop hole where rgistered LA's feel like non-registered LA's are implying that they are, or that the state requires them to write out their license number whenever they use their title.

You're right that there are a number of hurdles and expenses to go through to get registered. That makes most people who have gone through it all pretty defensive when others imply that they are registered that are not. It is like someone cutting you in line.

Many people with that have not entirely completed process try to skirt the rules because they feel like they pretty much meet the criteria (have a degree, have done design work for years, came from a state that did not have licensing where they called themselves LA's, ...). It is possible that Wisconsin is trying to protect those that are licensed by requiring them to write out their # all of the time. If that is the case, I don't see the big deal.

On the other hand, if the state is not recognizing the "RLA" designation as a claim of registration and allowing anyone to use it without consequence, that undermines the entire purpose of registration. The general public is not going to know the difference between anybody that decides to write RLA after his name and those that are licensed. My guess is that this is the problem.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole Registered Landscape Architecture thing. I'm not big on regulation if it keeps people out of the free market. I think that the "title act" licensing is good because it does not exclude people from doing design work, but rather just keeps them from using the title "landscape architect". (Like the difference between an architectural designer and an Architect).

A "practice act" is one that requires licensing to engage in certain design work. In other words, it would be illegal for someone to do a landscape plan if he was not a registered LA. The only time I agree with that is when the criteria is of a compelling public interest (such as road design, grading & drainage, retaining walls over a certain height, ...) and that the licensing requirement makes certain that LA's are competent.

In general, I think that most landscape design work should be left up to the consumer to determine who is qualified for their project. If LA's are worth anything, the free market will determine it.

[Stonehenge]

Agla, I just got a note from the state chapter of the ASLA, urging me to contact my lawmaker regarding the 'holding up' of a 'practice' law for our state. I contacted him, but I don't think I sent the message the Wisconsin ASLA wanted me to:

I have no doubt that you've been inundated with emails recently regarding the writing of a practice law for landscape architecture. And though I had heard that the law may be on hold, the reason for my note is probably very different from those you're receiving today.

I have some serious concerns about a practice law for Wisconsin, and the negative effect it may have on our industry. First, I'll address the title law. I think the title law is a good thing for Wisconsin - it gives those who have earned LA credentials to be the only ones permitted to promote those credentials; something a prospective builder of a corporate campus or a upscale residence would find value in.

However, having a practice law, depending on what is included in the law and how restrictive it is, may have a devastating trickle-down effect on landscape design/build firms. Let's imagine for the moment that the law would prevent anyone but LA's to design residential landscapes, for example. This would mean that every new homeowner would have a choice - either install the landscape themselves, or hire a landscape architect, for a fee that would likely be $1,000 or more. Most homeowners would likely choose to do the work themselves, as they would not be willing to invest $1,000 in a design (many sales in our area are lost over $500 design fees). So we've whittled the potential market for installers of landscapes down to only those willing spend $1,000 for a design.

Looking at this from the LA's perspective, working on a large number of low budget designs is not what they are interested in doing. Just like trying to get a return call from a plumber because you have a drip in your sink, many of these homeowners would likely get the brush off, in favor of much larger, more lucrative commercial projects. Where does this leave those homeowners who were willing to invest in a design? Without a design, and without the chance to get a landscape design/build firm to do the work, for fear of bringing the wrath of the state down upon them. Instead, those homeowners may go out and find "Joe Pickemup", who has a shovel and a truck, but no insurance, worker's comp, or experience in installing landscapes. Joe is also willing to run the risk of getting in trouble with the state. Heck, he may not even know the law exists - he just knows he has more work than he knows what to do with, and is making a killing at it, especially since he isn't paying taxes on it.

I hope I've illustrated my point. I'm not completely against a practice law, I just think that unless it's framed within the right parameters, it'll cost a lot of people a lot of jobs, including installers of landscapes, equipment suppliers to landscape firms, nurseries, hardscape material suppliers, etc. And that lost tax base would never be recovered.

Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss the issue more. As the president of a very small landscape design/build firm, I have a vested interest in the outcome.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Jeff Pozniak

We'll see if this makes any difference. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this (or anyone else's for that matter).

[agla]

I'm not necessarily against a practice act. I think that you share my view on it exactly. I do believe that there are areas that can be reasonably restricted to "design professionals", but there must be a clear line as to why the LA should be exclusively competent and that should be reflected in the licensing criteria.

Grading and drainage of roads is one that comes to mind. Work within wetland buffer zones might be another. But basic landscape design would definitely be over reaching.

My suspicion is that this is more likely to allow LA's to be able to do more things rather than excluding non-LA's from doing what they are already doing. For instance, it could be that grading and draining roads and parking lots may currently require a Civil Engineer and this law will allow LA's to do that without a CE. It may allow LA's to delineate and locate wetlands without a stamp from a Registered Land Surveyor so they can do both of these types of projects in house. I would not have a problem with that and don't think you would either. I can think of a few surveyors and enginerrs who might, though.

Another concern of mine is "regulatory creep". Once a good and reasonable practice act is in place, will it start grabbing for more and more control? I live in Massachusetts, so I have a very distrustful attitude toward the "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you" types. I did live in Idaho, so I know both extremes of government. Actually, Idaho now has a practice act that is more like the one I described that opens doors rather than restricts others.

I grew up in a landscaping family and did mot get my LA degree until I was 35 and got licensed at 38, so I my heart and sole is with the young guys/gals that want to find their niche in the green industry. Exclusion makes sense when it comes to health and safety, but not when it is to create monopolies. I had the opportunity to put a wheel barrow in the back of a rust bucket pickup and did so. I made a lot of nice gardens and made a lot of people happy as I experimented and learned what could not be learned in a book (or from the web).

Just make sure you stay informed and make sure you and others like you are heard. You might find it is a good thing or they might learn a little from you and make it a good thing.

Andrew Garulay, Massachusetts LA #1247

[VoodooChile]

A law that requires all residential landscaping be designed by Landscape Architects!?

That's so ridiculous, it might just get passed...

[Paul]

Having dealt with many LA's the first thing that is noted on the plans is the LA's seal from the state and his number. This sounds to me like some one wants to be called a Registered Landscape Architect and that's what the seal is for. A landscape architect is not a substitute for a civil engineer meaning he can't set grades and figure water flow so most here have to work in tandem.

[r schipul]

I've heard of this legislation trying to be past a couple times before. It was put on the docket approx. 8 years ago in CT. but ended up dying out in congress. Jeff, The Association of Professional Landscape Designers would be interested to know about this. I contacted them when it came up in my state. Their lobbyist kept an eye on it throughout the whole process. If the purpose of the law would be to restrict anyone other than an LA's for residential design (which is how it was written) it's just ludicrous. Especially from the Wisconsin chapter of the ASLA. I believe about ten years ago there wasn't even a title law in Wisconsin. A classmate of mine was working in Wisconsin as a designer. The state implemented the title law and he was essentially grandfathered in with the only criteria being a degree. He is 35, so I would bet that there are quite a few 'LA's' practicing in your state who have never taken the examination to prove they are competent to due the work. It wasn't until he moved back to NY and asked for reciprocity when the ASLA made him take the test.

[agla]

Is there a link to what is being proposed in Wisco? I think there are a lot of conclusions being jumped to here. What exactly are they looking to have in the practice act?

Paul, you are right that an LA is not a CE, but some practice acts (I know Idaho's does) allows certain things to be design by LAs that could only be done by CEs in the past. It does not make them CEs, but allows them to complete certain parts of the design work without the addition of a CE. It might be likened to changing an electric recepticle without being a licensed electrician ....or wiring a sprinkler clock for that matter.

I really think someone ought to read what the act will effect instead of assuming. Maybe it is rediculous, but maybe it isn't.

[bcx400]

ASLA has been lobbying for many years to get title and practice acts passed in all 50 states. I find this EXTREMELY annoying that a group of private individuals wants to take over the landscape design/architecture business through government intervention. I do realize that some situations call for government regulation (as mentioned in previous posts).

We as landscape designers need to stand up and be heard. Writing and calling your state congressman/representative is a good first step. The Association of Professional Landscape Designers is the only group I know of that actively lobbies to protect the rights of landscape designers. All who practice landscape design should consider membership in APLD. Certified membership has proven valuable to me when a customer questions my credentials. Check out their web site at www.apld.com

[VoodooChile]

Is this it?

State by state status of practice acts.

Agla, no dis of L.A.s was implied or intended, and you're right that it would be best to discuss the actual proposed statute.

Based on Stone's post, it sounds conceivable that the small-potatoes design work upon which my business is based, could suddenly become the exclusive purview of Landscape Architects. Stone did an excellent job of explaining why that would benefit no one.

My point is simply that government regulation often borders on the absurd. Like Wisconsin's "navigable body of water" regulation that designates a 1' wide, 6" deep trickle up the street a navigable stream, forcing the homeowner to comply with D.N.R. permits before undertaking any improvements to the stream. Instead of proceeding with the project, which would of benefited not only the homeowner, but all others who live downstream from him, he dropped the project.

[Stonehenge]

Voodoo - that is the title law, and I have not yet seen the practice legislation. I'm hoping I get an email back from the would-be author of this legislation that we might start a dialogue.

Agla is right - I shouldn't get my undies in a bundle until I know what's what. At the same time, I don't want to wait to act until it's too late. Agla has always been a reasonable guy, willing to take as hard a look at himself as anyone else, so I always give his words a good listen.

The thing that strikes me most when I read the monthly magazine is how there seems to be two underlying currents: one where the LA's somehow feel less valuable than architects or engineers (and want to change that), and another where they feel more valuable than people involved in landscaping that do not hold an LA license #. I'm very confident that there are many, many LA's out there that feel as Agla does - it's just the impression I get when I read the magazine.

That perception coupled with this hard push for this legislation makes me a little nervous.

I've contacted the APLD in the hopes that they can get involved somehow, either by writing or contacting the principles. I haven't heard back from the author of the legislation, but I would imagine he got hammered with emails yesterday, so it's not a surprise.

[agla]

All that I have found on the practice acts of other states seems to indicate that the LA has can do engineering, surveying, and architectural designs pertaining to their projects. Basically it gives them an exemption to do certain tasks that are usually limited to Surveyors, engineers, and architects rather than taking away someone else's right to design landscapes.

Landscape Architecture is a lot more than planting plans which I think is overlooked by a lot of people. I don't see any practice acts that are effecting planting plans.

This effects LA's that are doing campus planning, golf courses, shopping malls, ... and has little to do with residential walks, walls, patios, and plantings from all that I see.

The only ones I see losing business are those other licensed professionals hired by LA's to verify and stamp plans for those parts of projects that only CE's, RLS, and Archs had to stamp without the practice act. It is a reach up rather than a clamp down. It takes away exclusions to LAs rather than dumping exclusions on designers from all that I can find.

[Stonehenge]

If you are correct Agla, I'll be as happy as a clam. I did hear back from the APLD, and they are having their regulatory affairs person contact the state.

[agla]

I think this link will put a lot of you at ease.

http://www.asla.org/members/govtaffa..._benefits.html

[r schipul]

Your right AGLA, there's a lot of speculation within GTX without ever seeing what it entails. I recently through out the legislation which the ASLA was trying to pass in CT about 10 years ago. In a nutshell, the ASLA was trying to make it illegal for anyone other than a landscape architect to do any design work (including residential planting plans) on projects where the budget was over a certain dollar value. The dollar value was I think $50,000. The APLD contacted me and the rest of it's members in the state to speak against the bill. Fortunately for us the bill quickly died in Congress. If you live in Wisconsin, I would read it cover to cover to see how it affects you and watch the progress very closely. If it's anything like what was written for our state and it did pass, could you imagine the confusion with the general public. A potential client calls Stonehenge because they want a new backyard. Jeff goes out to meet with them. He gets the job and their budget is $55,000. Sorry Jeff. You have to pass the design work to an LA. who in turn might not pass the the job back to you after they were originally your client. How would the state even begin to enforce something like that?