Resistance and Response in Planning

The thoughtful contributions that follow are instructive in their similarities. They suggest that “ resistance ” is often just a simple synonym for “ opposition. ” In this broad “ pluralist ” sense of resistance, environmentalists resist highway advocates in California (Norgaard); preservation advocates resist affordable housing proponents in lower Manhattan (Zukin); supporters of sustainable design battle preservationists in Queensland (Dedekorkut and Burton) and Stuttgart (Novy). In New York (Lubinsky) and Rhode Island (Agyeman and Stewart) local leaders organize to resist legacies of racism, while in London (Keith) planners and politicians counter the power of capital. Planners fi nd themselves on all sides of these disputes, and activists, seeking to avoid appearing parochial, appeal to costs and bene fi ts, public welfare and interests, standing rights and regulations. In liberal democratic contexts, this is business as usual, but in two of our cases mobilized citizen resistance has faced largely unresponsive state power. In Guam (Guåhan) we see resistance to an imperial military presence (Lee and Na ’ puti); in Singapore resistance to unchallengeable state authority (Smith). Lubinsky ’ s case of New York City schools and Norgaard ’ s case of high-speed rail in California suggest that, in the U.S., plans without strong public support will fl ounder. In all the cases, we can wonder whether resistance to change is driven by racism or conspiracy theories, threatens a greater good, or re fl ects justi fi able distrust of oversold initiatives or governmental overreach. Generally the con fl icts discussed here involve what Aysin Dedekorkut Howes and Paul Burton describe as planners ’ “ perennial attempts to reconcile the possibility of localised harms (real or perceived) with bene fi ts to a wider group resulting from proposed development. ” Frank