000			02189nab a2200265 4500
999			_c11587 _d11587
003			OSt
005			20210330124829.0
007			cr aa aaaaa
008			210330b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_a Margalit,Talia _945558
245			_aStratified and defensive planning democracy: Hearings on objections to plans in nine Israeli cities
260			_bSage, _c2019.
300			_aVol 56, Issue 16, 2019,(3504-3521 p.)
520			_aThis article contributes to the debate on inclusion and democracy in planning by comparing the answers given by five Israeli district committees to objections to planning proposals in nine cities, and by analysing their discourse in terms of socio-spatial inequality. We investigate how the committees’ answers to various professionals and civil actors, and how the type and degree of effort they invest in justifying their decisions, reflect their views of existing social divisions. We consider current theses on compromises to planning democracy. First, we follow urban regime theorists and compare the planners’ answers to objections submitted by their professional and development peers, and by ordinary people. Second, we follow theories on identity and class-related biases, and compare the committees’ answers to objectors along Israeli socio-spatial and ethnic disparities. Third, we trace planners’ post-political methods to simultaneously protect and legitimate their decisions. We demonstrate evidence of a combination of a positive bias towards the most powerful actors, a negative bias towards the least powerful ones, and many less obvious and neutral answers to those in the middle. We argue that with this array of answers and justifications, Israeli committees preserve a superficial display of inclusion and legitimation.
650			_acitizen participation, _945559
650			_aclass, 关 _945560
650			_ademocracy, _945561
650			_adevelopment coalitions, _945562
650			_aethnicity, _945563
650			_aplanning _945564
700			_a Kemp, Adriana _938076
773	0		_011188 _915499 _dsage, 2019. _tUrban studies
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018810321
942			_2ddc _cART