5 ms·

"Professional engineers" in USA should make sure that structures are built well enough to be safely used by the public. They have no business weighing in on the

"Professional engineers" in USA should make sure that structures are built well enough to be safely used by the public. They have no business weighing in on the sorts of issues addressed by Strong Towns. The fact that they have done so in the past is proof of this, because streets and roads in USA are organized very poorly when compared to those in similar nations. [EDIT:] Also, Marohn is licensed as one can see here: https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html

brudgers 5y ago
They weighed in on a person advertising themselves out as a “professional engineer” while their license was lapsed. 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.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  It's "ordinary" for a random person in a different state to make such a complaint, after the license was already reinstated? It's ordinary to require one stipulate to "dishonesty" when he was never actually dishonest? Such travails await every engineer who misses some mail? That seems like... dishonesty to me. All people, whether they are engineers or not, have the right to sue for equal treatment under the law.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It's "ordinary" for a random person in a different state to make such a complaint, after the license was already reinstated? The complaint was made first. The subject wasn’t aware of the complaint until later..
  - brudgers 5y ago
    Yes. It is pretty ordinary. Given that the Dakotas neighbor Minnesota, it would not be unusual for an out of state engineer to have a license in a neighboring state. Indeed it is ordinary for professionals to have licenses in many states because clients often have work in many states. 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.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      The license board almost certainly treating the case the same way it treats other cases. I've seen no evidence of this.

brudgers 5y ago

They weighed in on a person advertising themselves out as a “professional engineer” while their license was lapsed. 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.

jessaustin 5y ago
It's "ordinary" for a random person in a different state to make such a complaint, after the license was already reinstated? It's ordinary to require one stipulate to "dishonesty" when he was never actually dishonest? Such travails await every engineer who misses some mail? That seems like... dishonesty to me. All people, whether they are engineers or not, have the right to sue for equal treatment under the law.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It's "ordinary" for a random person in a different state to make such a complaint, after the license was already reinstated? The complaint was made first. The subject wasn’t aware of the complaint until later..
- brudgers 5y ago
  Yes. It is pretty ordinary. Given that the Dakotas neighbor Minnesota, it would not be unusual for an out of state engineer to have a license in a neighboring state. Indeed it is ordinary for professionals to have licenses in many states because clients often have work in many states. 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.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    The license board almost certainly treating the case the same way it treats other cases. I've seen no evidence of this.