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

Abstract

Chinese

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.

Keywords

land use legislation property law property rights real estate developers urban planning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

(1997) Commodity and Propriety: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Alexander

Penalver

Singer

et al . (2009) A statement of progressive property. Cornell Law Review 94: 742–743.

Barber

(2001) The mythical rights developers believe in. The Globe and Mail, 24 October, A20.

Blandy

Wang

(2013) Curbing the power of developers? Law and power in Chinese and English gated urban enclaves. Geoforum 47: 199–208.

Blandy

Dixon

Dupuis

(2006) Theorising power relationships in multi-owned residential developments: Unpacking the bundle of rights. Urban Studies 43(13): 2363–2383.

Blomley

(2004) Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. New York: Routledge.

Blomley

(2013) Performing property: Making the world. The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 26(1): 23–48.

Brookfield Residential (2017) Brookfield Residential Corporate Profile. Available at: http://www.brookfieldresidential.com/investor-relations (accessed 18 September 2017).

Building and Land Development Association (BILD) (2017) Advocacy. Available at: http://www.bildgta.ca/membership/advocacy (accessed 18 September 2017).

10.

Buitelaar

Segeren

(2011) Urban structures and land. The morphological effects of dealing with property rights. Housing Studies 26(5): 661–679.

11.

Cordileone

(2003) Province has power to halt construction: Lawyer says cancelling is undemocratic. Toronto Star, 25 October, K10.

12.

Davies

Atkinson

(2012) The moderating influence of property legislation on planning policy and urban form. Urban Studies 49(16): 3479–3494.

13.

Eidelman

(2010) Managing urban sprawl in Ontario: Good policy or good politics? Politics and Policy 38(6): 1211–1236.

14.

Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario (2015) Available at: http://elto.gov.on.ca/ (accessed 18 September 2017).

15.

Expropriations Act (1990) R.S.O.

16.

Flyvbjerg

(1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Forester

(1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

18.

Freyfogle

(2010) Property and liberty. Harvard Environmental Law Review 34(1): 75–118.

19.

Garber

Imbroscio

(1996) ‘The myth of the North American city’ reconsidered: Local constitutional regimes in Canada and the United States. Urban Affairs Review 31(5): 595–624.

20.

Garner

(ed.) (2014) Black’s Law Dictionary. 10th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Group.

21.

Gottlieb

Adelaja

(2009) The impact of downzoning on land values: A theoretical approach. Agricultural Finance Review 69(2): 206–227.

22.

Guy

Henneberry

(2000) Understanding urban development processes: Integrating the economic and the social in property research. Urban Studies 37(13): 2399–2416.

23.

Hamill

(2015) Common law property theory and jurisprudence in Canada. Queen’s Law Journal 40(2): 679–704.

24.

Honoré

(1987) Ownership. In: Honoré

(ed.) Making Law Bind: Essays Legal and Philosophical. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 370–375.

25.

Johnson

(2007) Reflections on the bundle of rights. Vermont Law Review 32(2): 247–272.

26.

Keil

(2002) ‘Common-sense’ neoliberalism: Progressive Conservative urbanism in Toronto, Canada. Antipode 34(3): 578–601.

27.

Krueckeberg

(1995) The difficult character of property: To whom do things belong? Journal of the American Planning Association 61(3): 301–309.

28.

Lindgren

Clark

(1994) Property Rights Versus Land Use Regulation: Debunking the Myth of ‘Expropriation Without Compensation’. Toronto: CELA.

29.

Lowndes

Roberts

(2013) Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

30.

MacDermid

(1999) Money and the 1999 Ontario election. Canada Watch 7(6): 128–133.

31.

MacDermid

(2009) Funding City Politics: Municipal Campaign Funding and Property Development in the Greater Toronto Area. Toronto: The Center for Social Justice.

32.

MacPherson

(1978) The meaning of property. In: MacPherson

(ed.) Property, Mainstream and Critical Positions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 1–14.

33.

Mallan

(2004) Moraine land deal a boost for green space: Province agrees to swap plan ends years of heated debate. Toronto Star, 24 September.

34.

Mariner Real Estate Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1999) 177 DLR (4th).

35.

Martin

Scherr

City

(2010) Making law, making place: Lawyers and the production of space. Progress in Human Geography 34(2): 175–192.

36.

Metcalf

(2014) Property law culture: Public law, private preferences and the psychology of expropriation. Queen’s Law Journal 39(2): 685–732.

37.

Meurrens

(2010) The doctrine of legitimate expectations. Available at: http://meurrensonimmigration.com/the-doctrine-of-legitimate-expectations/ (accessed 18 September 2017).

38.

Miles

Berens

Eppli

et al . (2007) Real Estate Development: Principles and Process. 4th edition. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

39.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2001a) Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

40.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2001b) Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

41.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2002) Principles: North Pickering Land Exchange and Development. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

42.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2010) Plan Review and Approval Process. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

43.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) (2011) Planning Act Consolidation: R.S.O 1990, Chapter P.13.

44.

Mullan

(2001) Administrative Law. Toronto: Irwin Law.

45.

Olsson

(2016) Subversion in Institutional Change and Stability: A Neglected Mechanism. London: Palgrave.

46.

Pollman

(2011) Reconceiving corporate personhood. Utah Law Review 4: 1629–1675.

47.

Pond

(2009) Institutions, political economy and land-use policy: Greenbelt politics in Ontario. Environmental Politics 18(2): 238–256.

48.

Rogers

Butler

(2005) Canadian Law of Planning and Zoning. 2nd edition. Toronto: Thomson Carswell.

49.

Rohan

(2016) Vested rights. In: Kelly

(ed.) Zoning and Land Use Controls. New York: Matther Bender & Company.

50.

Rose

(2000) Property and expropriation: Themes and variations in American law. Utah Law Review 1: 1–41.

51.

Ruming

(2010) Developer typologies in urban renewal in Sydney: Recognising the role of informal associations between developers and local government. Urban Policy and Research 28(1): 65–83.

52.

Sandberg

Wekerle

Gilbert

(2013) The Oak Ridges Moraine Battles: Development, Sprawl, and Nature Conservation in the Toronto Region. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

53.

Schwartz

Bueckert

(2006) Regulatory takings in Canada. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 5(3): 477–491.

54.

Sevelka

(2008) Expropriation appraisal review. The Appraisal Journal 76(2): 155–167.

55.

Smit

Valiante

(2015) Introduction. In: Smit

Valiante

(eds) Public Interest, Private Property: Law and Planning Policy in Canada, Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 1–36.

56.

Solé-Ollé

Viladecans-Marsal

(2012) Lobbying, political competition, and local land supply: Recent evidence from Spain. Journal of Public Economics 96(1–2): 10–19.

57.

Swainson

(2001) Developers seeking cash if moraine work banned: Homebuilders ask province for compensation. Toronto Star, 3 October, B4.

58.

Swainson

Brennan

(2001) Moraine moratorium law passes: Environmentalists hail, developers hate six-month ban. Toronto Star, 18 May, B1.

59.

The Queen in right of British Columbia v. Tener et al. (1985) 17 D.L.R. (4th).