a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

c. Adjudication process, when considered as being the control of
appropriation to the laws in the spatial cases it is seen that there are many cases
claiming that justice, equality, just processes defined by laws were not realized.
On the other hand, besides controlling whether they are convenient with the
laws, the jurisdiction process also has the characteristic of being the official
place to solve the problems that formed on the “public conscious”. Therefore,
decisions taken at the end of a jurisdiction period should produce results that are
legal, definable, and defensible, acceptable by all social groups’ minds and
conscience. Whole <strong>evaluation</strong>s of the sample area do not indicate to such a
result.
At the end of the period of making, approving and application of
development plan and the duties and authorities given to local and central
administrative in this sense, a more concrete organization is needed to be formed about
their being responsible of the problems that form/come out as the result of lack of
control. In all the interventions that prevent right to live and in danger the survival
which come out as the result of all kinds of work done for the purpose of bringing
service on urban land who the responsible are should be clearly defined. Furthermore, to
give a Constitutional protest right about the negligence can be thought as an alternative.
This kind of obligation definition gives the administrations and individuals a
responsibility in the procedures and accepts the crimes committed on urban land as
“public crimes”. One of the prior conditions of living in a healthy environment is the
provision of “survival” condition by the rule of law.
a. One of the ways of this process can be controlled of decision as the
result of cases. Surveys done on the sample area indicate that the decisions of
the court are not practiced. Balçova small scale crafts area gives service
although its plans were cancelled. Likewise, the demolishment decisions of
houses within the protection site of Balçova geothermal area were not applied.
The results seen in these samples indicate that a more powerful control and
sanction mechanism within adjudication process is needed.
As seen in cases of Özdilek and against the cases against the Highway and
Committee of Protection decisions, in many cases the balance between the public
interest and individual interests is not established. New arrangements in establishing
this balance on the areas where improvement rights of individuals were limited needed
to be done. The tools and application opportunities should be increased for a new
196