Suchergebnisse

How should planners in public institutions restore relationships after they have done things that cause harm to communities? This manuscript examines how Sandercock's therapeutic imagination in planning relates to the public ethics outlined by legal and political theorists. I explore the moral paradox for planning theory of the desire to engage in healing with communities when public institutions remain accountable to democratic majorities. That paradox defines three duties for planners in possession of Sandercock's "therapeutic" imagination who would support healing and change via the profession of planning.

Community members seek benefits-sharing planning agreements to advance their own distributive justice goals by directing benefits to communities. Nonideal theory does much to explain the context and possibilities for these agreements. The agreements forged between communities and development interests seek to address, but not completely achieve, distributive justice via consensus about incremental changes in project benefit distribution. However, implementation and outcomes can vary widely. This article develops theory to conceptualize a practical framework for these planning agreements using nonideal justice theories, granted the triple concerns of inaction, tokenism, and rhetorical trickery posed by ineffective implementation. The Crenshaw Light Rail Project in Los Angeles illustrates the issues in play.