Public land leasing: an instrument of land value capture to promote urban development and housing in the GTHA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Leasing public land has become an increasingly common practice for governments wishing to retain control over significant public assets while being able to capture land values, promote urban development, as well as create opportunities to address social needs in the community. Although several instruments of land value capture currently exist, there is limited implementation of public land leasing in the GTHA. The strategic use of land is needed in order to execute important city building initiatives, and there are few regions better positioned to take advantage of this tool. As population projections continue to rise sharply, public land will be a critical resource to sustainably grow these metropolitan areas. </p> <p>Urban planners and public authorities can take advantage of ground leasing models to facilitate land redevelopment, affordable housing, and transit-oriented development. However, ideal conditions must still be instituted before cities can successfully capitalize these benefits. The research presented in this paper aims to provide an understanding of the land leasing model in a local and international context in order to help cities and urban planners better comprehend its potential and avoid missed opportunities in the GTHA. </p> <p>Key words: public land leasing, urban development, land value capture, implementation policy</p>
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".