Is arguing the answer?

As quoted in the conclusion of the reading the approach outlined in this paper presents 'strategic spatial planning as a process of facilitating community collaboration in the construction of strategic discourse, in strategic consensus building'.  

There are different components of Professor Healey's Communicative Argumentative approach; reviewing, analysing, evaluating, inventing and developing new ideas and monitoring. 

This different and diverse approach endeavours to ideally, lead to a consensus through economic and social interactions and relationships.  Through this process direct community involvement is achieved, which aims to avoid marginalisation, recognise the diversity of opinions and include everyone.

Undoubtedly, the aim to include everyone in decision making is impossible. Someone is always being marginalised as their opinions are not being recognised. 

Whilst community involvement is a major aspect of planning, the presence and knowledge that comes from trained and educated planners is essential also.  It is problematic to gather a community and let them give their issues and opinions to each other to debate/argue about, without the input of professionals.

Therefore, is Healey's Communicative Argumentative approach really suitable and realistic? Is arguing the answer? I do not believe it is at all.  As seen in the video clip in Dan and Sarad's presentation, arguing creates uncertainty, confusion and down right squabble.

http://pcdn.500px.net/418266/01569cc60fc694b3fcd186744c0eb7030780eb02/4.jpg

I believe community engagement and involvement is imperative, however there must be the knowledge and education behind decisions.  Planners are trained for a reason and therefore are evidently more knowledgeable and have the experience to determine and evaluate important decisions for future planning.