Real estate developers’ influence of land use legislation in the Toronto region: An institutionalist investigation of developers, land conflict and property law

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of real estate developers in shaping land use legislation, land use planning and property law. The conceptual framework draws on third-phase institutionalism and socio-legal theory to examine actors and ideas that influence knowledge and practices of land use, planning and property. This paper confronts absences in planning theory that overlook the role of real estate developers in disputes over land, especially their role in shaping the legislative framework governing land use. The argument is that property law is not simply an objective system of rules interpreted by lawyers, judges and the courts. Neither is it a singular concept protecting private property rights. Rather, it is a complex concept and institution that emerges in practice through political processes, such as social movements, the exercise of power and influence by elite actors, and strategic acts by political actors navigating diverse and competing agendas. The empirical evidence informing this argument derives from case study research of land conflicts on the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Toronto region, Canada, with particular attention given to the relationship between real estate developers, social movement actors, and politicians involved in resolving the conflict.

Re-directing developers: New models of rental housing development to re-shape the post-apartheid city?

“…However, we also note that there has been an appreciation by some authors of the way in which municipal policies and regulations establish the institutional environment for developers (Adams and Tiesdell, 2010; Healey, 1998; Trevellion, 2002); and that territorialised pathways of regulation and governance require that developers actively ‘localise’ their practices, to some extent re-shaping governance in the process (Brill, 2018; de Magalhães, 2002; Leffers, 2018). In many different contexts, there exists the potential through negotiation, contestation and state power to bring forward benefit to actors who are not the developer: whether this is for occupiers, public benefit, private appropriation by public actors, or redistribution of property gains for political interests (Shatkin, 2017; Weber, 2015).…”

“…But financialisation is not the whole, or even the main process shaping investment in urban development: in any given context there are a diversity of developers -in size, orientation, motivations and objectives -who relate in different ways to planning and governance objectives (Coiacetto, 2001;Leffers, 2018). Thus, we want to suggest that there remains scope in specific contexts to explore a range of possibilities for housing development, including both state-led and collaborative initiatives between states and developers.…”

From God’s home to people’s house: Property struggles of church redevelopment

“…They are sometimes discouraged from insisting some valuable religious principles because of the constraints imposed by the developers. Although the parishioners think that the joint venture with the developer who masters the technical knowledge on planning, law and policies (Leffers, 2018) has restricted their right to religious life, the Diocese did not consider itself as a passive actor in the negotiation process. The Diocese, assisted by a group of lawyers and other professionals, was competent to deal with the developer in a business environment (Interview 12).…”

Land developers as institutional and postpolitical actors: Sites of power in land use policy and planning

“…A growing body of research has investigated the role of developers in urban and regional governance institutions and in processes of spatial restructuring, especially in the global South (Dodman, 2008; Sabbi and Mensah, 2016; Shatkin, 2016; Weinstein, 2014). Research on developers in the global North sheds light on developers’ influence on land policies, especially in British, American and Australian cities (Coiacetto, 2006; Fainstein, 2001; Ruming, 2009) and, to a lesser extent, Canadian cities (Leffers, 2018; Sandberg et al., 2013). Focusing on the UK, MacLeod (2011: 2633) highlights the ‘relational processes’ of land use conflicts in studies of urban politics.…”