a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

. urban land becoming a profit tool rapidly,
c. dissolution of development paradigm.
This process, questions what the “public interest” on which planning discipline
is founded as a public activity, means with the transformation of development policies.
This transformation process shows that the transformation of the meaning of “public
interest” which basis of “justice” concept and practice.
Planning activity propose a series of interventions to the urban space according
to preliminary acceptances about which rationalities are necessary in giving decisions
about urban spaces as public areas. Among these rationalities, it orients toward the
usage of urban space (physical and non-physical geography) as a social area and
towards the social and individual planning principles of this usage and somewhat tries
to determine the practical process by these principles. Whether clearly expressed or not
mostly a “justice” acceptance take place among these principles and the planning
discipline as a public activity aims the application of principles about realizing the
“just” physical space planning’s. Land-use decisions as meeting the needs at minimum
levels takes place among the tools in realizing these aims. In Turkish practices, health,
education, socio-cultural area, technical infrastructure areas and their areas per person
can be counted among these needs which were defined by act no. 3194. The common
and equal distribution of these spatial needs which are location selection criteria, is
guaranteed by these law and at the same time one of planning principles is carried along
to the legal platform with this law. However, it is evident that these criteria were not
realized as planning principles determined by legal arrangement according to the results
of sample field survey. Additionally, it should be stated also, that there is no case or
disagreement about the unapplication of these criteria and legal arrangement. Whereas,
this legal arrangement represents the right to live in a healthy environment also defined
by the Constitution. At this point, it is seen that although this right which takes place
among the Constitutional rights and legal rights and which is defined by the laws does
not have a response in practical processes. Arguments about insufficient facility areas
on urban land are way of considering this problem as a technical process. However, this
technical process represents the rights of urban settlers, the starting point of the basic
human rights in practising these rights and the simplest expression of a “just” process.
It is seen that <strong>evaluation</strong> about providing the “just” distribution as meeting the
spatial needs on physical space are not on the agenda in Turkish practices. Another
point that should be evaluated is what kind of a distribution process occurs among the
186