Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
I think what PsYcNeT was getting at here is if there has ever been a development stoppage due to the city not having the land available for greenfield development.
Correct?
|
I didn't read it that way and I believe I answered his question to his satisfaction (judging by a "Thank You").
Again, the City does not have to make the land available for greenfield development; when it does, something is wrong, meaning that there is no interest from the private sector (think of Saskatchewan not so long ago). Another example, Calgary's policy on industrial land development – it still does a lot of it despite the strong interest by the private sector, because it knows this interest has not always been there.
The City has the tools to make costs of growth shared widely (if it believes they benefit the whole city) or narrowly (if it doesn't). I argue that the latter is a lot more risky policy/strategy in the long run.