American Planning Association AICP Exam Practice Test Instant Access

Scenario

You work as a city planner in Town X. You recently accepted additional planning employment in Town Y, which is about 15 miles away and in the next county. Towns X and Y are similar in many respects. As a consultant for Town Y, you recommend a 50-foot buffer around a lake to protect water quality. Town Y is about to take action on this recommendation. However, in town X there are no buffer regulations and substantial residential development has been proposed to include construction to within 10 feet of a lake. The mayor and the council are very supportive of the proposed development, but a lake conservation group is demanding a buffer of at least 50-feet around the lake. What might you do?

AFirst, understand that the moonlighting should have been clearly explained to the primary and secondary employers and approved in writing (Rule of Conduct 4). Full written disclosure to both towns prior to accepting work in Town Y should have said that there might be conflict. Planners should try to foresee consequences, and this situation is a logical consequence of working in two very similar communities. Even with full written disclosure before beginning to work for Town Y, as soon as the potential for conflict became apparent, you should have furnished a second written disclosure to both employers and received written permission to proceed (Rules of Conduct 2, 7). However, a planner should not advocate for two opposing positions simultaneously. (Rule of Conduct 8) So unless there is a very real difference between the two situations, such as a different geologic structure of the lakes, you should remove yourself from doing one job or the other. To continue in both positions and allow the conflicting recommendations to proceed will likely diminish your reputation and effectiveness in both communities (Ethical Principles 6, 8).

BFirst, understand that the moonlighting should have been clearly explained to the primary and secondary employers and approved in writing (Rule of Conduct 4). Full written disclosure to both towns prior to accepting work in Town Y should have said that there might be conflict. Planners should try to foresee consequences, and this situation is a logical consequence of working in two very similar communities. Even with full written disclosure before beginning to work for Town Y, as soon as the potential for conflict became apparent, you should have furnished a second written disclosure to both employers and received written permission to proceed (Rules of Conduct 3, 4). However, a planner should not advocate for two opposing positions simultaneously. (Rule of Conduct 3) So unless there is a very real difference between the two situations, such as a different geologic structure of the lakes, you should remove yourself from doing one job or the other. To continue in both positions and allow the conflicting recommendations to proceed will likely diminish your reputation and effectiveness in both communities (Ethical Principles 2, 3).

Answer : B

What term is associated with development of a vacant urban or suburban site that was formerly developed but is now obsolete?

ABrownfield development

BLeapfrog development

CGreenfield development

DGrayfield development

Answer : D

A . development on a site not used or underused due to real or perceived environmental issues

B . describes a type of sprawl where new development is not contiguous with pre-existing development but occurs some distance from it

C . development on a site never developed before

American Planning Association AICP American Institute of Certified Planners Exam Practice Test