Moving Beyond Indignation: Stakeholder Tactics, Legal Tools and Community Benefits in Large-Scale Redevelopment Projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Government and accompanying business interests often favour large-scale urban projects to promote urban growth, attract revenues, and place the city on the world stage. Such projects are primarily oriented towards consumption and spectacle, serving regional, if not global, clientele. Negative impacts – from traffic to displacement – are felt most heavily in the immediately adjacent areas, and developments often contribute to increases in socio-spatial polarization. This paper examines two redevelopment projects, one in South San Francisco, one in Montréal, to assess the tactics and legal tools employed by municipal authorities and local organisations to harness development for social and environmental ends. Associated legal tools include public consultation requirements, citizen ballot propositions, Community Benefits Agreements and Development Agreements. The paper concludes with recommended principles to underpin future development and cautionary notes about the limitations of these tools. Los gobiernos e intereses empresariales que los acompañan, favorecen a menudo proyectos urbanísticos de gran escala, para promover el crecimiento urbano, atraer ingresos, y poner la ciudad en el mapa. Estos proyectos están orientados principalmente hacia el consumo y el espectáculo, al servicio de una clientela regional, si no global. Los impactos negativos –desde el tráfico a los desplazamientos– se dejan sentir con más fuerza en las áreas inmediatamente adyacentes, y su desarrollo a menudo contribuye al aumento de la polarización socio-espacial. Este artículo examina dos proyectos de reurbanización, uno en el sur de San Francisco, y el otro en Montreal, para evaluar las tácticas y herramientas legales empleadas por las autoridades municipales y organizaciones locales para potenciar el desarrollo de los fines sociales y ambientales. Entre las herramientas jurídicas asociadas se incluyen los requisitos de consulta pública, propuestas electorales ciudadanas, acuerdos sobre beneficios a la comunidad y acuerdos sobre el desarrollo. El artículo concluye con recomendaciones para sustentar el desarrollo futuro y una nota de advertencia sobre las limitaciones de estas herramientas. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2562886
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it