Planners as discussed in both the cases in a negative light in acting ethically in decisions that are directly related to one of most important aspects of American life: segregation. In both the cases, although there was obvious limitations to the way planners act, they are indeed at fault to varying degree.
Baltimore offers a very general issue that many planners face today when it comes to community participation and taking decisions and the quality to the outcomes of these meetings. Although the planners could have gone the distance in understanding the community identity and diversity often times it becomes harder for planners in their roles to wear the hats of sociologists and go about affecting the outcomes through educating the
…show more content…
The mere time constraints in bring a diverse group to the same level of understanding becomes much more complex than a question of acting ethically. It would mean nothing if the planner tried to do this but failed to make the community participants to respond and react sensitively to others and coming up the mutual decisions that harvest the diversity in its growth. Then again the root question of what is a common platform and what is the common good arises as these are very subjective questions. A young homeowner that had moved to the community like Southeast Baltimore even after trying to be sensible to the diversity of the community could have a very different perspective in the vision for the how the community should shape up compared to a homeowner that had been living in the same neighborhood for years and have huge emotional baggage to start with and tries to stick to how it was yesterday than looking forward. Likewise the renters and the low income group have whole different perception of what a community good needs to be serving their interests like affordable housing and basic services. The gulf is too apparent and large to fill and it needs more than a planner to bridge and bring everybody to the same level of understanding to even