Search results

THIS ARTICLE RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TOLERANCE CAN BE SEEN TO FIT MORE INTO ONE TRADITION OF THOUGHT THAN ANOTHER. THE AUTHOR'S SUMMARY VIEW OF THE MATTER IS THAT ONE IS WELL-PLACED TO LOCATE TOLERANCE WITHIN ANY TRADITION, AT LEAST WHERE THERE IS EXPRESS OR IMPLICIT EVIDENCE OF SOME FORM OF CONTENTION FOR IT. INASMUCH AS TOLERANCE IS NOT A UNIVERSAL VALUE (IN THE SENSE EARLIER STIPULATED), AND INASMUCH AS THE POTENTIAL OBJECTS OF TOLERANCE WITHIN DIFFERENT TRADITIONS NECESSARILY DIFFER, THEN IT WOULD APPEAR IN PRINCIPLE TO BE PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO INCORPORATE SOME (NOT ANY) LEGITIMATE AND COHERENT PLEA FOR TOLERANCE WITHIN EVERY TRADITION WITHOUT DOING THE LEAST VIOLENCE EITHER TO THE TRADITION OR TO THE TOLERANCE.

Housing: Who Decides ? consists of a debate between a political theorist and an economist on decision-making in housing. Each author develops a normative argument linking theoretical and policy analyses to establish the abilities of the state and individuals to determine housing outcomes. The issues of redistribution and choice are seen as crucial to this debate. Following these initial contributions the authors engage with each other on specific proposals for the reform of housing policy in the UK.

The conservation and protection of water resources is paramount in the safeguarding of environmental rights and the attainment of sustainable development in South Africa. Although the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (the NWA) seeks to provide a framework for ensuring the sustainable use of water resources, its application has been hindered by capacity and enforcement constraints, a legacy of water pollution (primarily as a result of mining and industrial activities), and poor resource management. To aggravate this situation, the difficulties in effectively implementing the NWA are exacerbated by inadequate public participation in water use licensing processes. Public participation in environmental decision-making has increasingly received recognition for its role in ensuring administrative justice and the protection of environmental rights. While environmental legislation (in many cases) sets out procedures for ensuring that public views are taken into account in environmental decision-making processes, the judiciary has also recognised the pivotal role of public engagement in ensuring administrative justice where environmental rights are at stake. Sound public participation practices play an important role in identifying issues requiring consideration in the context of environmental assessment processes, as well as in ensuring that communities are empowered to monitor, identify and report on potential contraventions of environmental legislation. Water is a vital natural resource which is under significant pressure in South Africa. In the circumstances, effective public participation is crucial to ensuring the protection and equitable use of water resources. It follows that provision for comprehensive public engagement in water use licensing processes is integral to ensuring the sustainable management of water resources. While provision is made in the NWA for public engagement in the context of water use licensing processes, such participation is limited, and in some cases discretionary. This, in turn, has the effect of curtailing the right to an administrative appeal in respect of a decision by the competent authority to grant water use rights. This paper will explore the role of public participation in environmental decision-making with a view to identifying the shortcomings of the NWA in this regard, as well as the effectiveness of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (the PAJA) in supplementing the NWA's shortcomings. It will also consider the implications which recent changes to South Africa's environmental legal framework will have for public participation in water use licensing, particularly in the context of mining-related activities.

We consider how various coalitions influence redevelopment projects in cities, especially as communities demand more inclusion in the development process. Based on qualitative research, we investigate the approval process for the 235-acre megadevelopment project at Port Covington in Baltimore, Maryland, and how stakeholders, including developers, community-based organizations, politicians, and impacted community members view the project, the tax increment financing (TIF) granted by the city, and community benefits agreements (CBAs). Community leaders leaned hard on the development corporation, demanding community and city-wide benefits before a TIF could be approved. We analyze the processes of the Port Covington CBA within the context of the political and economic dynamics of Baltimore. This case study adds to our understanding of how communities respond to corporate-led developments through coalition building, effectively gaining power in how elite governing regimes dictate development in cities.