Strong Towns Has Filed a Lawsuit Against the Minnesota Board of Engineering
strongtowns.org
strongtowns.org
Strong Towns is a non-partisan non-profit that advocates for cities and towns to build financially solvent places. Many cities are perpetually broke because they owe more money in maintenance burden (fixing roads, pipes, etc) than they bring in in tax revenue.
This happens primarily because towns in North America tend to build out large neighborhoods all at once (think: suburbia). At the start, the developers pay for all the infrastructure, and then “give” it to the city to maintain.
At first, everything seems fine. The city gets plenty of new tax revenue! But come 20 or 30 years later, it turns out that the tax revenue is not enough to replace the roads, fix the pipes, and so on.
And so to pay for the repairs, the city then builds yet another neighborhood in the same strategy to collect the initial tax revenue. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme.
When it crashes, you get Detroit.
The gist is that many low-density spread-out suburban neighborhood with large, expensive infrastructure are a huge cost center for a city. And since most North American cities build this way, we have a lot of cities that are “functionally bankrupt” or will be soon.
If you're a systems thinker who lives in a town that can't seem to fix it's potholes, you may want to check out the book they've published: "Strong Towns" by Charles L. Marohn Jr.
This can turn into a much worse vicious cycle when added to other issues like pension obligations, declining schools, natural disasters, etc.
You see the most of this today in inner suburban areas across the midwest, where they boomed all at one time, then ran out of land (as the wave of new suburban development moved into the next suburb's jurisdiction). Because the suburban pattern is very hard to redevelop, if an established community loses its appeal for any reason (houses have gone out of style, taxes are cheaper further out, whatever), then they tend to get into financial trouble as the maintenance obligations pile up and there's just not enough tax base to support it.
Great channel for those interested in urbanism.
This summary tickled a part of my brain that has had thoughts about how we pay for this stuff. Those thoughts run down a different avenue, but I'll share them here just because.
In the U.S. it seems common that infrastructure is funded in significant ways by the federal government. Witness the current Biden plan. But also, federal money funds local schools, health initiatives, law enforcement, on and on. Some years ago I remember an important bridge falling down in Minnesota or some such place and there was immediately work in the U.S. Congress to pass funding for replacement construction. When the Flint water scandal broke, local and state officials immediately turned their attention (and outstretched hands) to D.C. for help. New York or Florida or well, everybody, immediately lobby D.C. after any natural disaster.
At some level it makes sense that an entire nation can chip in to bail out unfortunate victims easier than the local residents could do so. But I actually think this is false because it isn't everybody helping out on one isolated incident, it is everybody helping out on every single incident. At that point, we might as well have all just paid for our own local incident. The money comes out the same.
Of course, 350 million people can raise $350 million in a day every day of the year for just $1/person/day. So it does improve liquidity. And there are probably other benefits.
But here's the huge downside. All that money flows from little dinky Anywhere, U.S. to Washington. Then it comes back to Anywhere in their time of need. Except that it doesn't all come back. A large chunk is consumed in the federal bureaucracy. And some is eaten by graft. And maybe those two losses would occur at a local or state level, too. But the big gotcha for me is that the money comes back with strings attached.
We'll give federal highway funding to Montana, but they have to comply with speed limits set by somebody from Chicago. Arizona can get funding for a hospital but they have to bow to some immigration policy set by people from Vermont.
The redistribution of the wealth is a source of enormous power and attracts the power-hungry. It is a design for corruption and manipulation. And because it centralizes such enormous money/power, it must be said that it is designed to attract corruption and manipulation on an enormous scale. So while the little hospital in Arizona might have attracted some small fish to take advantage of the opportunity if it were locally funded, federal funding subjects it to the biggest fish in the world.
To bring this back to the subject, imagine if city and state taxes went way up to pay for water distribution, pot hole repair, etc. and federal taxes went way down. Then, property taxes might actually cover regular city maintenance. And at no added cost to taxpayers. The city could reduce its federal lobby budget because they aren't going to get any federal aid so quit paying somebody to keep asking. If they need more money, they can raise local taxes.
I know that this is terribly naive in many ways, and just ignorant in other ways. I'd love to hear any criticism.
> When it crashes, you get Detroit.
> The gist is that many low-density spread-out suburban neighborhood with large, expensive infrastructure are a huge cost center for a city. And since most North American cities build this way, we have a lot of cities that are “functionally bankrupt” or will be soon.
Huh? Wasn't Detroit's problem that it was too dependent a small set of labor-intensive businesses in one industry that have been in a long term secular decline (as foreign competition as increased) while simultaneously becoming more automated?
Also, when city infrastructure needs to be repaired, don't they just assess specials on the affected properties? Metro areas can expand as you describe, but many/most cities can't (because they're boxed in by adjacent cities (i.e. suburbs)). For instance, the only buildable land left in my very suburban city are a couple of defunct golf courses. New construction activity mainly happening two cities away to the south.
Also yes. Also white flight.
> Wasn't Detroit's problem that it was too dependent a small set of labor-intensive businesses in one industry that have been in a long term secular decline (as foreign competition as increased) while simultaneously becoming more automated?
From my understanding, the Strong Towns folks would say that because Detroit spent years going into maintenance debt, and replacing it's financially productive areas with unproductive areas, it was unable to survive a downturn. In contrast, New York, suffered several different financial downturns, but was able to constantly reinvent itself as some other industry town. Though I think Strong Towns would also say that single reliance on any one industry is not considered "strong" either.
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
The complaint here is literally that the strongtowns founder has criticized other engineers. That's it (edit: the complaint also involves a technicality motivated by this criticism, see below).
The thing about this situation is that, in the US, a large number decisions that are effectively "policy", questions of how we live, wind-up buried inside supposedly technical/professional regulations - zoning, codes and other standards.
This situation means that attacks for "violations of technicalities" easily wind-up the means by which special interests maintain their position.
He has my sympathy in this case and I hope he wins, but the details are more complicated than your summary suggests. It's pretty basic stuff, as I assume a lot of us know, that part of the deal with licensed engineering professions is that you have to have the license to represent yourself as such --- people are always coming up with dopey arguments that the same applies to software engineers.
The final order requires Marohn to agree that he made an “untruthful statement,” a “false statement,” and “engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation.”
The analogy is the difference between a lawyer encountering ordinary bad legal advice on the internet and encountering bad legal advice on the internet by a person claiming to be a lawyer.
- Marohn renewed his license before the licensing board presented a complaint against him.
- License lapses like this are common and there's a standard procedure for "late renewal" which Marohn followed, including paying a late fee, and the board accepted the renewal.
Does the Minnesota law prohibiting misrepresenting oneself as a professional engineer apply only when performing work that requires a license, or in all facets of life? If the later, does the First Amendment allow such restrictions on speech? Does the fact that enforcement of minor administrative lapses in licensing is unevenly biased against activist speech push it over the threshold?
On the other hand this may end up turning on less interesting details, like did the board's order misrepresent the facts, and were they overstepping their authority by requiring him to agree to sign a statement that was not (entirely) true? In face of a lawsuit will they finally come to a settlement with wording that both parties can agree upon?
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
In this case, Marohn was unambiguously representing himself as a PE, for example in this article that was written during the period in which his license has lapsed (see author bio at bottom of page):
https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.stron...
So this case will have to push a bit further than that previous one, although the precedent may help.
Federal courts and precedents don't work that way. The ruling came from the federal district court for Oregon. As such, it's only binding for the district. If a federal court in another district comes to a different conclusion, then an appeal to the circuit court might happen. Michigan and Oregon are in different appellate circuits (6th and 9th, respectively) so if there were different rulings in each circuit, and an appeal to the Supreme Court succeeds and the court rules, only then does the ruling become binding across all states an jurisdictions.
For now, the ruling is only binding in the District of Oregon.
No, trial court rulings aren’t binding precedent even on the same trial court.
> If a federal court in another district comes to a different conclusion, then an appeal to the circuit court might happen
Appeal to circuit courts from district court are a matter of right, a split between districts is immaterial not only as to whether such an appeal is filed but also to whether it is heard.
> Michigan and Oregon are in different appellate circuits (6th and 9th, respectively) so if there were different rulings in each circuit, and an appeal to the Supreme Court succeeds and the court rules, only then does the ruling become binding across all states an jurisdictions.
At this level, a circuit split is traditionally a factor which weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing an appeal (as its appellate jurisdiction is generally discretionary), but it is neither in itself either necessary or sufficient. But, yes, it is only when the Supreme Court rules that precedent is universally binding rather than persuasive.
> For now, the ruling is only binding in the District of Oregon
No, for now it is only binding between the parties to the earlier case (and only as regards the specific facts of that case), under the principle of res judicata rather than stare decisis which makes decisions binding on particular (or all) courts.
Thanks for the clarification.
2) He is funded and supported by some heavily suspect people.
Not binding precedent on any court that would hear the Strong Towns case.
2) That's very vague. Can you elaborate?
"William H. "Chip" Mellor and Clint Bolick co-founded the organization in 1990 with seed money from libertarian philanthropist Charles Koch"[2]
Mellor served as president of the free-market think tank Pacific Research Institute.
1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1025471447963533520
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/magazine/the-unregulated-...
Regardless, thanks for actually listing names of who's involved. No offense intended to the GP, it just annoys me when people use terms like "heavily suspect people", as that casts aspersions without actually saying who or what. Your links were much more helpful.
Which used to be a thing but were so unpopular they were discontinued.
Whether this lawsuit is silly or not, it's hard to be completely unsympathetic to the idea that someone claiming a specific professional certification who does not in fact have it is in the right.
(While being completely in the camp that one can call themselves an en engineer is they want to.)
While I see your point, I would state it somewhat differently: in the US, there are, roughly speaking, two opposing viewpoints on "policy" about "how we live":
(1) The viewpoint that a central authority should figure out some "best" way to live, and impose it on everyone, or at least everyone in a significantly-sized geographic area, via technical/professional regulations, zoning, codes, etc.
(2) The viewpoint that individual people, or groups of people who have something in common, should figure out how they want to live and set themselves up that way, and decisions about how various people and groups who happen to be in the same geographical area interact should be made by negotiation and consensus among the people and groups who are affected. Input can certainly be sought from technical professionals to inform those decisions, but at the end of the day, the people who make such decisions should be the people who have to live with the consequences. And to the extent that top-down, large-scale policies play a role, it should be to ensure that individuals and groups have the tools they need to make such decisions for themselves.
What strikes me about this dispute, as with pretty much all such disputes that I have seen, is that both sides adhere to viewpoint #1; they just have different views on what the "best" way to live is that should be imposed on everyone. Practically nobody in such discussions even considers viewpoint #2 at all.
The only reason we don't hear about the plumbing cartel going after the home repair business that isn't licensed for plumbing in every state it operates in but wrote "plumbing" on its vans in all states is because HN doesn't really concern itself with those sort of matters.
I wouldn't limit that statement to state-backed: it is how most (or at least many) private organizations and unions work too, from teamsters to fifa to the NRA. State backed organizations just have the extra advantage of being explicitly state backed.
I mean the board that licenses Civil Engineers, for example, should be very stringent. We don't live in buildings that aren't structurally sound or drive on half-assed bridges.
Professional Engineers hold themselves to an ethical standard that they're not even legally required to uphold, yet they still do because this organization keeps them in check.
https://ncees.org/engineering/fe/
So I could (but almost certainly won't) take the "Industrial Engineering" exam and focus mainly on IE topics:
https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/FE-Industrial-and-Syste...
> for me to call my self a "Professional Engineer", I have to pass a test almost wholly focused on Civil Engineering
isn't true. The FE exam has a number of discipline options, including Electrical and Computer[0] and the PE exam is then done be discipline.
[0] https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/FE-Electrical-and-Compu...
List of Engineering Disciplines that can take the PE exam:
- Agricultural and Biological Engineering - Architectural Engineering - Chemical - Civil - Control Systems - Electrical and Computer - Environmental - Fire Protection - Industrial and Systems - Mechanical - Metallurgical and Materials - Mining and Mineral Processing - Naval Architecture and Marine - Nuclear - Petroleum - Structural
Hydraulic engineers would probably be scratching their heads at this. The intersection between engineering and plumbing is well charted territory.
That's convenient. The organizations assert that they can tell certified persons what's allowed and not, but if the certified person follows all the rules and something still goes sideways, the license ends up being worthless, because they can't say, "I did it this way because that's what the standards I'm required to adhere to say"?
As a programmer (who gets titled "software engineer" whether I liked it or not) this is terrible. What incentive would I have for getting a license if it doesn't protect me from liability?
When you give your stamp of approval on a project then you're legally liable for it.
You can be sued for incompetence. Then, you have to go to court and defend yourself. Or, more commonly, your company will send a lawyer but you still may be called to testify.
Most public works and building is template driven with standardized components. Highway bridges pretty much look the same if they were built at the same time. There’s probably 10-15 guys in the average state who periodically update the standards. 80% of the rest of the work is drudgery done by overworked, underpaid assistants and non-professional engineers, signed off on by a PE later.
What PEs do accomplish is making it outrageously expensive to perform basic public works that were accomplished successfully by a DPW guy with a paint roller 40 years ago. Painting a crosswalk and installing a traffic light costs nearly $1M, because you need to hire an engineering firm to duplicate a template, and sign off on placement of lines, etc.
Just based on the number of idiotic major bridge designs we have had over the Mississippi river, I'm inclined to go with Marohn on this one. Kick all of the bozos more interested in politics than actual real engineering out.
As someone that spent hundreds of thousands to get answers, and majority of my answers came from other people going through same nonsense.
For anything complicated you have to become your own doctor. Medical community is broken on all but straightforward cases.
But in English using the title Doctor is assumed to mean medical specialist in general circumstances. Any Ed.D that stands up when the flight attendant asks, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” deserves a scolding at the very least.
Interestingly every single American with any kind of a technical Ph.D that I’ve ever met goes by first name and doesn’t balk at being called mister in all but the most formal circumstances (Germans are an entirely different matter). It’s the ones with Ph.Ds in things like English that get demanding about being called doctor in everyday life.
Many doctors these days are women.
I dunno... Jill Biden made an ad in which she called herself by her title 'Doctor' (which is proper, since she has an EdD) and then gave advice on COVID, and we were told that this was sexist because she's really a doctor by many mainstream news outlets.
You can't legally present yourself as a professional engineer without that license.
The complaint is that, in his advocacy, he described himself as a professional engineer, which he obviously is. The idea that one needs to stay in the good graces of the state in order to reference one's experience in their field as part of their political advocacy cannot possibly withstand genuine first amendment scrutiny, can it?
Being licensed isn't to be within the good graces of the state, it's to prove the licensee has the requite knowledge and experience to design and construct things which, when fail, people die. This is something we want in society.
First, I don't agree that licensure accomplishes this.
But second, it sounds like you agree with the plaintiff here. Nobody is asserting that he had a legal right to perform civil engineering after his license lapsed. What he's arguing is that he had a right to reference his experience in civil engineering as part of his political advocacy.
(wow, apparently I can't even ask...)
I will guarantee you that is not how that vast majority of the population would interpret it. Very few people even know that there is such a thing as a licensed professional engineer.
Most reasonable people would take the term "professional engineer" to mean somebody who performs engineering work of some sort in a professional capacity.
Actual doing something should take precedence over some license primary used to gatekeep a profession and fill state coffers with licensing fees.
The fact that we still have guilds operating in the 21st century is embarrassing.
I disagree.
>Very few people even know that there is such a thing as a licensed professional engineer.
>Most reasonable people would take the term "professional engineer" to mean somebody who performs engineering work of some sort in a professional capacity.
Where did you source this information?
https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pe_act.pdf
If you don't like the law, complain to your local state legislator. For me, it didn't affect my ability to do my job or get employed, so I never cared about it. I supposed they could change the name to "licensed engineer. It doesn't bother me that the person designing roads, buildings or electrical distribution systems has to be licensed. My wife has a friend (Civil Engineer, PE) and it seems like all she does is review/approve stuff done by architects.
So it seems like we do have a law (at least in California) that say something like that.
Reason magazine posted an article on this:
"https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-th..."
While I generally oppose attempts to regulate the term "engineer", I do think Reason was a little fast and loose here. It wasn't like they went in and objected to the term "sound engineer" in a recording studio or "software engineer" at google. This was a case of using a term in a situation where it could cause confusion, although even in this case, I side with the person who wants to use the term, and against the PE regulators. I do think that professional engineering associations do have the right to create a terminology. I would just be much more restrictive in scope.
I looked into regulations around Industrial Engineering, since I have an MS in this field (my undergraduate is in math). As far as I understand, licensure in Industrial Engineering is a title designation. In other words, there's no specific practice you're allowed to do as a licensed professional industrial engineer that you wouldn't be allowed to do without this license. It simply gives you the right to professionally represent yourself as a licensed PE.
I support the licensing bodies rights to restrict narrowly defined terminology that clearly references licensure, but my personal feeling is that the scope should be very limited. In other words, I believe I should be allowed to casually refer to myself as an engineer, I think it's fine to say you're a data engineer rather than a data scientist depending on what you do. I even think it's ok to refer to myself as an industrial engineer (though I wouldn't personally especially want to).
The ambiguity creeps in if I refer to myself as a "Professional Industrial Engineer". I personally wouldn't do that, it would feel a little fraudulent, but that's a feeling, not something I'd enforce through law or even social pressure. To stay on the right side of scope, I think I'd be ok with someone doing that as long as they didn't throw in "licensed".
As for "engineering" as a general term, I think it's truly absurd that PE bodies would think they have a general right to prevent others from using this descriptive term in job or work titles, it's as general as "scientist".
It's all a racket. I'm an unlicensed, non-PE software engineer. Am I allowed to call myself that?
It's not.
>I'm an unlicensed, non-PE software engineer. Am I allowed to call myself that?
In many areas, yeah, you can refer to yourself as a software engineer, but the title doesn't mean anything because anyone can refer to themselves as a software engineer; there is nothing defining what that means.
This is incorrect. Check out what the PEO has to say about using "software engineer" as a title:
https://www.peo.on.ca/public-protection/complaints-and-illeg...
You can sometimes use the title without being licensed, but you have to be careful, as it can easily be considered misrepresentation.
Which is why I qualified my statement with "many".
>You can sometimes use the title without being licensed, but you have to be careful, as it can easily be considered misrepresentation.
That is what this debate is about.
> Where the software is used in a product that already falls within the practice of engineering (e.g. elevator controls, nuclear reactor controls, medical equipment such as gamma-ray cameras, etc.);
> Where the use of the software poses a risk to life, health, property or the public welfare; and
> Where the design or analysis requires the application of engineering principles within the program (e.g. does engineering calculations), meets a requirement of engineering practice (e.g. a fail-safe system), or requires the application of the principles of engineering in its development.
In other words, the vast majority of software engineering does not fall within the practice of professional engineering.
The engineering council makes it easy to get the license. Demonstrate the knowledge through a raft of exams and you will qualify. Alternatively, demonstrating 20 years of engineering experience in your field will also let you qualify.
Also, I have in fact undergone the training that an engineer in Canada would undergo. I just didn't do the tests or pay the fees, and why should I?
If you already have the education and the experience (you need both), why not complete the ethics exam and earn the license? Is it about the fees? The annual fee in California is $180.00 [1]. The annual fee in Ontario, Canada is $299.45 [2]. Does your company not pay you enough? Are you living on hardship as a software engineer to not be able to afford that?
The real question is this: Why do you feel entitled to a designation without completing the requirements for it?
[1] https://bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/licensee_fees.shtml
[2] https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2020-11/PEO-FeeSch...
Similarly, Doctors are still doctors even when they cross borders. They just can’t practice medicine for money without a license.
I am a Software Developer - I did not graduate from an Engineering college. I am not an Engineer. The stuff I do does not kill people when it fails.
99% of people that claim to be Engineers (at least in Software) are not.
Oh? OK technically maybe not your job specifically, but ever hear about Therac-25? MCAS on the 737-MAX?
This is a significant distinction. While I'm generally opposed to the majority of occupational licensing requirements but I can understand the function of regulating professional offerings.
So in both this case and the referenced Oregon case from another comment, the "charge" by the licensure body is that the individuals are using the term engineer while doing things that aren't "rendering the service of engineering for payment."
I am a reasonably decent electrician and feel confident fiddling with my own outlets. The electrician's body does not have the right to regulate that activity. Nor can it regulate my saying I'm a decent electrician.
It does, however, have the right to regulate my rendering those services to the public for payment (with some legal gray area around rendering it for free).
This is what makes this a first amendment case that seems justified.
EDIT: I do understand by using electrician as an example, I invite comments about how I might be breaking fire code or my home insurance covenants. That's correct but it's a different externalities problem.
My immediate take is two groups that dislike each other mutually acting like children in hopes of scoring cheap points and feeling superior.
I assume/expect that the professional speech doctrine will come heavily into play here [0]. This doctrine is grounded in either a 1985 or a 1945 supreme court case depending on who you ask. It has come into play in weird ways in engineering before because the term 'engineer' vs. 'professional engineer' vs. 'licensed professional engineer' may or may not be confusing to lay people...or at least confusing enough that people are willing to spend money on lawyers related to bicker about it [1].
Basically, if one is speaking using the auspices of a regulated and licensed profession, than commentary and comments related to that profession are bound by the responsibilities, ethics, laws, etc. governing it. If one was speaking as a member of the public - does not apply - but the boundaries are fuzzier than I think a lot of people would like. That being said, generally the red line has been the use of professional knowledge and expertise with a specified client. In those cases, it has been deemed in the public interest for the state to regulate speech...because the person is speaking in part with the backing of an assertion of qualification from the state. I suspect this is one of those cases where someone on the board took whatever strong towns has been doing (never heard of them before) a little personally...and is willing to cause problems by investigating whether this engineer stepped over the line.
Examples of its application include:
* preventing doctors from advocating for sexual orientation conversion therapy (CA)
* compelling doctors to make certain statements about abortion (e.g., PA)
[0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1551/professional-s...
[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2018/12/federal-judge-finds-...
In a lot of states you need special qualifications or licenses to do all sorts of jobs. You can't cut hair without spending thousands on a hair cutting course and passing an exam and paying a registration fee.
Sure, that makes sense for (say) doctors. Maybe engineers too? But barbers? Why bar-people? Interior decorators?
But we found that an Uber drive isn't meaningfully more dangerous than a licensed taxi drive. And an Airbnb stay isn't meaningfully more dangerous than a licensed hotel stay.
Closer to home, in my province, there have been issues with AirBnB operators not being properly insured. If you were injured because of something unsafe on the property, compensation could be difficult or impossible. There have been instances of airbnb rentals that have hidden cameras in rooms you would assume to be private. I personally would feel safer if bad behaviour can get a person banned from renting rooms.
Anecdata, but what the fork was going on here? And do we think it would happen at a hotel? https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/hunter-toronto-woman-...
Neither is there anything unusual about the circumstances of the board’s concern. Investigations are almost always complaint driven...boards don’t have the resources to conduct dragnet operations.
Finally, inattention to details is a piss poor defense in the context of professional engineering. The whole idea is that professional engineers are aware of and beholden to compliance with all things legal and regulatory.
This is just StrongTowns making drama. At worst there is a small fine, some administrative costs, and maybe some educational requirements.
Or to put it another way, the response to the issue is unprofessional.
[EDIT:] Also, Marohn is licensed as one can see here: https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html
The claim that this is because of Strongtown’s position is not supported by any evidence. It is a very ordinary complaint and board action.
The only thing extraordinary here is lay people reading about it.
All people, whether they are engineers or not, have the right to sue for equal treatment under the law.
The complaint was made first. The subject wasn’t aware of the complaint until later..
In addition the motivation for the complaint, is different from the motivation of the license board. The license board almost certainly treating the case the same way it treats other cases. If it were not, StrongTowns would have sound procedural grounds for challenging the board.
There is nothing unusual here. The First Amendment suit will almost certainly be thrown out. There does not appear to be any supporting case law. And lots of precedent against it.
I've seen no evidence of this.
Yea that's the entire problem.
How so? Do you prefer people without the requisite knowledge, skill, and experience to design and construct the infrastructure you and you family use on a daily basis?
You'll be glad to know that this one didn't. The issue being presented isn't that someone gave a speech -- because that would be ridiculous -- it concerns a very specific thing stated within that speech. But you know that already so I'm not sure I understand your comment.
The legal precedent is 3500 years older than the First Amendment.
putting critique into this category does seem to be such an act on its own. On the other side aggressively squashing any heresy - even if it is just a minor deviation from the Party line - has been working great for the Church for 2000 years already.
If I point out the design flaw, I may diminish public confidence in the profession. If I do not point out the design flaw, the inevitable collapse of the bridge may also diminish public confidence in the profession, but only if the subsequent investigation reveals the design flaw and/or my knowledge of it.
What a terrible incentive!
>If I point out the design flaw
pointing a design flaw in a project which already got huge money sunk in wouldn't earn much popularity to say the least.
Reading StrongTown's account of things is one side of the story, and they really do make it sound like a bunch of grumpy old assholes are throwing their weight around where they shouldn't be. Assuming this account of facts is accurate and not embellished, I really hope they win and people like the engineers pushing this bullshit get a reality check.
I am a P.Eng... Canadian though, and even though I hold the title I do not use the stamp or really work as a traditional engineer a whole lot. I just feel its important to point out that our ethical standards aren't so easily circumvented as ignoring a safety hazard because it might make us look bad.
I’d be willing to bet that when this case goes to trial a similar example will be used - perhaps the I-35 bridge collapse for which a design flaw was ultimately identified as a major factor in the collapse. The state will have to admit that a professional engineer is obligated to speak up about problems in design, which is exactly what they are seeking to punish him for. This isn’t going to end well for Minnesota.
Pretty much all engineers I've worked with were VERY happy to discuss their designs.
The problem is many times worse when it's instituted in the form of an... erm.. institution. It's as prevalent (in many forms) in companies as it is in professional bodies, government bodies, etc. IDK what the solution is, but institutions don't die, so Max's approach won't work on them.
The powerful multi-billionaires and oligarchs are the new fueduel Lords who are wheeling and dealing and playing their own little games not caring about the millions of people effected by their decisions.
We now see the guild is making a come back to ensure only those that toe the party line are allowed to profit from a business.
What can we do to fight it?
I genuinely think about this a whole lot. It's wild to think about this being an actual thing...
> What can we do to fight it?
Organizing and labor unions. The latter isn't the most popular thing around here but it's really the last thing we have. We broke out the guild system and forced fundamental changes in the past and it can be done again, but do we have the will to do so?
Build local power, sustainability and resilience. Essentially some of the things Strong Towns advocates for.
We probably can’t fix the massive systems, but we can strive to protect and decouple our local communities from them.