New Year Sale 2026! 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 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?

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:

0/2000 characters
Glenn
3 months ago
Eminent domain was already a thing before this case!
upvoted 0 times
...
Matthew
3 months ago
Yup, TDR stands for Transfer of Development Rights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keneth
3 months ago
Wait, are we sure it was TDR?
upvoted 0 times
...
Irene
4 months ago
Totally agree, TDR is key in that case!
upvoted 0 times
...
Delisa
4 months ago
It introduced the concept of TDR.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
4 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
4 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
4 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
5 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
10 months 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
8 months ago
Yeah, it's definitely a lot to keep track of.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ira
8 months ago
I think the concept introduced was Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
upvoted 0 times
...
Carol
9 months ago
Yeah, it's definitely a lot to keep track of.
upvoted 0 times
...
Phung
9 months ago
I think the concept introduced was Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
upvoted 0 times
...
Elli
9 months ago
I know, it can be really confusing sometimes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
10 months ago
I know, it can be really confusing sometimes.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ernie
10 months 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
9 months ago
D) Impact Fees
upvoted 0 times
...
Phil
9 months ago
C) TDR
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniela
9 months ago
B) Eminent domain
upvoted 0 times
...
Johnetta
10 months ago
A) PUD
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Art
10 months 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
10 months 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
10 months ago
I'm leaning towards TDR, but I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raul
10 months ago
I think it's about eminent domain.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Katina
11 months 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
11 months 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
Leonida
9 months ago
No, it's specifically about TDR and how it relates to regulatory taking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Della
9 months ago
So, it's not about Eminent domain or Impact Fees?
upvoted 0 times
...
Barrett
9 months ago
Yes, the court ruled that restricting Penn Central's development rights was a form of regulatory taking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keena
10 months ago
I think you're right, the case introduced the concept of Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Merri
11 months 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
11 months ago
I agree with Nan, eminent domain was the concept introduced in that case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
11 months ago
I think the concept introduced was eminent domain.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel