Property Rights, Redevelopment Areas, and Toronto Ratepayer Associations in the 1950s
Material type: ArticlePublication details: Sage, 2019.Description: Vol 45, Issue 2, 2019 (279-299 p.)Subject(s): Online resources: In: Journal of urban historySummary: In the 1950s, Toronto ratepayer associations inserted themselves into debates about property relations and the appropriate use of the City’s new redevelopment authority as then being tested by elected officials and developers. Two case studies are presented: a designated redevelopment area where the City failed to close a deal with development firms, and a request, ultimately denied, by a developer group to to have the City establish another area to acquire the properties they had failed to. In both cases, ratepayer associations did not question City expropriation of private property if done for a sufficiently public purpose but argued vehemently against City expropriation of land from one set of private owners to benefit another. Although it is not possible to fully know the effect ratepayer associations had on these failed attempts of using redevelopment authority, they should be seen as urban social movements organized to protect local property rights from developers and a new interventionist local state.Item type | Current library | Collection | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E-Journal | Library, SPAB | Reference Collection | v. 45(1-6) / Jan-Dec 2019 | Available |
In the 1950s, Toronto ratepayer associations inserted themselves into debates about property relations and the appropriate use of the City’s new redevelopment authority as then being tested by elected officials and developers. Two case studies are presented: a designated redevelopment area where the City failed to close a deal with development firms, and a request, ultimately denied, by a developer group to to have the City establish another area to acquire the properties they had failed to. In both cases, ratepayer associations did not question City expropriation of private property if done for a sufficiently public purpose but argued vehemently against City expropriation of land from one set of private owners to benefit another. Although it is not possible to fully know the effect ratepayer associations had on these failed attempts of using redevelopment authority, they should be seen as urban social movements organized to protect local property rights from developers and a new interventionist local state.
There are no comments on this title.