The planning process is a flow of topics and action steps, where the results from one step initiate study and action in the next step. The flow can circulate, alternate or go in one direction, depending on the particular needs of the planning process. The implementation- a very important step, can be the end of the process, or can be just a step (community development does not stop), and the results of one analysis can influence additional steps. It is also important to review the plans regularly to check for their relevance, since the proposals for development or needs change with time or market needs, and the growth may vary from the general direction described by the master plan.
The decision making process is a complicated one, and the practice of community participation is an important part of it. It is shaped to promote democracy, justice and sustainability, and can be described as an inclusionary process in which all community members have an opportunity to voice their opinion and influence decisions affecting their community. It is considered as a fair, bottom-up, transparent decision making process, which collects input from all stakeholders and builds a consensus on important issues.
However, what is meant to be a bottom-up and knowledge supported democratic process, sometimes results with no implementation, as a result of a fear driven, NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) reaction to anything and everything that represents a change. There is skepticism towards the process and the players, mixed with general anxiety or hostility, driven by economic downturn, diminished resources or just plain uncertainty of the future. But, it is important to understand the fear as there is a lot at stake: vested interest tied with the changes in the community, starting with the financial value of the home to overall quality of life.
The ability to voice an opinion and have a free debate that brings different points of view is a strength of democracy. But is the immobility of the process brought by the strong conflicting points of view its weakness?
There is no question whether it is ethical and pragmatic to hear out all groups who will be impacted by the decision making process. If it is true that the open debate supported by arguments should be the means of a decision making process, and that the rules are framed to minimize the abuse of power and to improve the outcome of most rather than everybody, the process needs both educated and responsive community members and decision makers who are able to recognize that in order for meaningful change to happen, the process is intended as a tool helpful to reach a goal, not as an end in itself.
