Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

American Planning Association Exam AICP Topic 1 Question 95 Discussion

Actual exam question for American Planning Association's AICP exam
Question #: 95
Topic #: 1
[All AICP Questions]

What concept did Penn Central Transportation Co. v The City of New York (US Supreme Court) first introduce?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

You want to be fair in your treatment of a colleague while at the same time making sure that you do not engage a consultant who will not be able to fulfill the requirements of the professional services agreement.

Alternative 1 saves you work, but ignores the fact that you have information which affects your confidence in one of the proposers You would not be in violation of the Code by doing nothing because you would have followed all of your community's standard procedures for hiring However, you would have failed to be attentive to the apparitional intent of the Code.

Alternative 2 would be the most desirable and is most consistent with the Code requirement to fairly treat the views of a colleague In this case you wish to treat fairly the views of those who have disparaged the consultant as well as the view of the consultant him or herself Unless you have specifically stated in your RFP that the only references you will check are those provided by the consultant, you are free to seek out additional information. To be fair, you should mention to the consultant that you will be checking with other colleagues. If you have major unresolved issues as a result of further checking, the consultant should be given an opportunity to respond.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Ernie
2 days ago
Hah, this is a classic case of 'I have no idea, but I'm going to pick the most obscure-sounding answer just to mess with the test-makers!
upvoted 0 times
...
Art
4 days ago
You know, this case sounds like it's all about PUD - Planned Unit Development. The city was probably trying to control the development in a certain way, and Penn Central didn't like that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Timothy
11 days ago
Oh man, this is a tricky one. I've heard of impact fees, but I'm not sure if that's what this case is about. Maybe I should just guess and hope for the best.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katina
14 days ago
I'm pretty sure it's about eminent domain. The city was trying to take Penn Central's property, and the court had to decide if that was constitutional.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leoma
16 days ago
Hmm, I think this is about the concept of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which was first introduced in that case. The city tried to limit Penn Central's development rights, and the court said that was a form of regulatory taking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merri
17 days ago
Actually, I believe it was TDR that was first introduced in Penn Central Transportation Co. v The City of New York.
upvoted 0 times
...
Murray
18 days ago
I agree with Nan, eminent domain was the concept introduced in that case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
21 days ago
I think the concept introduced was eminent domain.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77