American Planning Association AICP Exam - 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?

APUD

BEminent domain

CTDR

DImpact Fees

Show Suggested 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.

by Jerilyn at Feb 08, 2025, 10:59 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AICP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Glenn

6 months ago

Eminent domain was already a thing before this case!

upvoted 0 times

...

Matthew

6 months ago

Yup, TDR stands for Transfer of Development Rights.

upvoted 0 times

...

Keneth

6 months ago

Wait, are we sure it was TDR?

upvoted 0 times

...

Irene

7 months ago

Totally agree, TDR is key in that case!

upvoted 0 times

...

Delisa

7 months ago

It introduced the concept of TDR.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ellsworth

7 months ago

I’m torn between TDR and impact fees. I remember the case had to do with property development, but I can't recall the specifics.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jill

7 months ago

I feel like we practiced a question similar to this, and TDR was definitely mentioned. I hope that's the right answer!

upvoted 0 times

...

Clorinda

7 months ago

I remember we discussed how this case relates to zoning laws and property rights. Could it be about eminent domain?

upvoted 0 times

...

Arlen

8 months ago

I think this case introduced the concept of TDR, but I'm not entirely sure. It was a bit confusing in class.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vallie

8 months ago

Impact fees? That doesn't seem quite right to me. I'm pretty sure this case dealt with something more fundamental, like eminent domain or TDR. I'll have to review the details to nail down the correct answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Makeda

8 months ago

Ah, I remember learning about this case! I believe it first introduced the concept of PUD (planned unit development). That sounds right, but I'll double-check my understanding just to be safe.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kasandra

8 months ago

Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm leaning towards eminent domain, since that's a key concept in land use law, but I'm not 100% confident. I'll have to think it through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gerri

8 months ago

I'm not too familiar with this case, but I think it might have introduced the concept of TDR (transfer of development rights). I'll need to review my notes to be sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Audry

1 year ago

Transferable DErnielopment Rights? More like Totally Dizzying Riddle, am I right? Seriously, how are we supposed to know this stuff?

upvoted 0 times

Reuben

11 months ago

Yeah, it's definitely a lot to keep track of.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ira

11 months ago

I think the concept introduced was Transferable Development Rights (TDR).

upvoted 0 times

...

Carol

12 months ago

Yeah, it's definitely a lot to keep track of.

upvoted 0 times

...

Phung

1 year ago

I think the concept introduced was Transferable Development Rights (TDR).

upvoted 0 times

...

Elli

1 year ago

I know, it can be really confusing sometimes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Malcom

1 year ago

I know, it can be really confusing sometimes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ernie

1 year 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

Myra

12 months ago

D) Impact Fees

upvoted 0 times

...

Phil

12 months ago

C) TDR

upvoted 0 times

...

Daniela

1 year ago

B) Eminent domain

upvoted 0 times

...

Johnetta

1 year ago

A) PUD

upvoted 0 times

...

Art

1 year 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

1 year 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

Marti

1 year ago

I'm leaning towards TDR, but I'm not entirely sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Raul

1 year ago

I think it's about eminent domain.

upvoted 0 times

...

Katina

1 year 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

1 year 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