Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Who should profit from urban planning? An increasing number of stakeholders currently demand that planning policy leads to added value for the entire urban society and not just for individual groups: Designing for the common good! One instrument of public real estate policy that negotiates the common good could be a conceptual allocation of public property (Konzeptverfahren). This instrument allows cities to allocate their land based on the quality of the idea for development and use instead of price-based bidding. In public invitations to tender, municipalities define a set of criteria that applicants can or must meet. The aim of this publication is to evaluate the orientation of such tenders towards the common good using a list of criteria compiled from the following existing assessments: The Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch); the city yield (Stadtrendite); a proposed federal policy to support not-for-profit housing companies (Wohngemeinnützigkeit); the Common Good Balance Sheet (Gemeinwohlökonomie); the Better-Life-Index (Wohlstandsforschung) and the common good criteria as defined in the federal tax code (Gemeinnützigkeit nach Abgabenordnung). Although there may be some variations in definitions of common good, at the core of these assessments are social criteria, ecological sustainability, and opportunities for participation. Beside these dominant categories, each assessment is supplemented by less common criteria which are grouped into six additional categories, giving an overview of how the common good is currently defined. This paper examines 28 invitations to tender based on the conceptual allocation of public property (Konzeptausschreibungen). Of these 28 invitations, each from a different German city, it was found that all contained, to some extent, the criteria for forming common good. As such, these tenders can be considered as supporting the common good. This script finds, however, that the categories participation, education and health should resonate more strongly in future tenders. The instrument (Konzeptverfahren) offers municipalities the opportunity to set development goals that are based on local needs and public interest criteria. But, as the comparison shows, there are significant differences between tendering procedures. Therefore, it should not be concluded that tendering based on the conceptual allocation of public property guarantees public interest-oriented urban development.

common good ---  real estate ---  conceptional allocation ---  public property ---  public interest

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Federal property issues - especially those involving divestiture - create political disputes at all levels of government. Federal Property Policy in Canadian Municipalities analyzes the emergence of many of these issues involving military bases, airports, and other facilities in communities across Canada. With careful analysis the contributors show the underlying patterns and causes of these conflicts and their resolutions while emphasizing intergovernmental relations and the social forces that are active in property issues. Contributors examine general federal policy as well as issues pertinent to British Columbia, the Toronto waterfront, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The unprecedented number of cases discussed in these essays provides general conclusions and recommendations for a new orientation that will take local interests and preferences into account from the outset of decision-making. Public property is an understudied field of public policy, particularly as it concerns municipal government. Federal Property Policy in Canadian Municipalities presents a comprehensive treatment of federal property, changes in policy, and the effects these changes have on various levels of government. Contributors include Jeff Braun-Jackson (Memorial University of Newfoundland), Pierre Filion (University of Waterloo), Michael C. Ircha (University of New Brunswick), Leonard Wade Locke (Memorial University of Newfoundland), Robert MacKinnon (University of New Brunswick in Saint John), Kurt Peacock (University of New Brunswick in Saint John), Christopher Sanderson (Government of Manitoba), Tracy Summerville (University of Northern British Columbia), Stephen Tomblin (Memorial University of Newfoundland), Gary N. Wilson (University of Northern British Columbia), John Young (University of Northern British Columbia), and Robert A. Young (University of Western Ontario).

Government property --- Federal-city relations --- Municipal government --- City-federal relations --- Federal-municipal relations --- Urban-federal relations --- Central-local government relations --- Public property --- Property --- Public administration --- Socialist property --- Management. --- Law and legislation

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Government property -- United States -- Maintenance and repair -- Costs -- Accounting. --- Public buildings -- United States -- Maintenance and repair -- Costs -- Accounting. --- Government property --- Public buildings --- Government - U.S. --- Law, Politics & Government --- Political Institutions & Public Administration - U.S., General --- Maintenance and repair --- Accounting --- Costs --- Accounting. --- Government buildings --- Public property --- Law and legislation --- Buildings --- Public works --- Civic centers --- Property --- Public administration --- Socialist property