Illegal geographies and spatial planning: developing a dialogue on drugs

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONIn 2015 a special issue of this journal dedicated to illegal geographies contained six studies on the "relationships between clandestine economies and the political geographies of law enforcement" (Banister, Boyce and Slack, 2015, p. 365). The unifying thread between the papers was their focus on illegal drugs, with some interesting nods to the role of land use planning (Polson, 2015).More recently, in another journal De Leo (2017, p 216) discusses the "links between urban planning and organised crime". Responding to this emergent body of scholarship in geography and planning we unpack and problematize the links between illegal drugs and spatial planningthe drugs-planning nexus. Moreover, in developing a dialogue on drugs we set the context for a new research agenda for the territoriality, governance and planning of contemporary cityspaces. The first point to make is that a reading of the academic literature reveals the overwhelming majority of planners do not dedicate their mind or motives to the massive issue of illegal drugs.Historically planning discourse has been framed under umbrella narratives such as the public interest (Lennon, 2016) and sustainable development (Davidson and Gleeson, 2014); today the trendy concepts are competitiveness (Boland, 2014), climate change (Wilson and Piper, 2010), resilience (Mehmood, 2016), health and wellbeing (Tewdwr-Jones, 2017). The eclectic nature of modern spatial planning encompasses almost every issue facing the modern city, from children's diet to the futurity of the planet. We deliberately emphasise the adjective almost because there is one notable, to us perplexing, omission in the intellectual focus of planners. Souza (2006, p. 333, our inset) explains "drug trafficking [and use] is an important challenge…for urban planning".However, there is a limited number of papers addressing drugs from a planning perspective (e.g. ). Regarding practice, at different spatialities of the UK's planning framework health, wellbeing, crime and anti-social behaviour are mentioned; however, in comparative terms drugs, and their often deleterious spatial and social consequences, are not discussed in any substantive or systematic manner in any planning strategy or policy document. Thus, drugs seemingly do not occupy the mindset of planners in universities or councils. Even in an era of inter-professional working and healthy urban planning the issue remains disconnected from praxis. Instead, drugs are largely the focus of other social science disciplines (e.g. geography, sociology, criminology and economics) and responsibility of other public officials. 2For us drugs are a planning problem. This necessitates planning scholars and practitioners to be just as familiar with the drugs debate as they are with child obesity or global warming; i.e. moving beyond simplistic stereotyping of 'druggies' and sensationalist statements such as 'drugs cause crime' and 'drugs kill'. These at best misleading axioms, peddled by professionals (e.g. scientists, politicians and the police 1 ) an...

Planning, platforms, participation: city resilience and illegal drugs in Belfast

“…In this context we are cognisant of the connectivities between "local communities and their surrounding ecosystems... [and] global scales" (Folke et al, 2010: 2), and "the processes and dynamics that affect people and/or their environments...occurring across scales (from local to global)" (Béné et al, 2010: 12). Specifically this concerns how a massive global drugs trade connects to and has implications for local communities in Belfast (Boland et al, 2018). Collectively, these approaches reveal the factors that influence resilience thinking in Belfast, whilst enabling us to identify important issues not being discussed that should form part of the resilience debate.…”

“…Most obviously these include the significant stresses inflicted upon their own lives by users and addicts (e.g. the ravages of addiction, mental and physical illness, prison and death); the significant stresses suffered by demented and/or bereaved family members; the significant stresses impacted on various elements of the public health and criminal justice systems; and the significant stresses (justified or not) related to growing concerns over exposure to drug paraphernalia (Boland et al, 2018). given this, it is inconceivable that drugs do not represent a genuine and hugely significant 'chronic stress' in Belfast's resilience debate.…”

“…It is clear that individuals, families and communities are terrorised and tormented by drugs gangs and paramilitary groups who implement their own form of violent restorative justice ranging from night time punishment attacks to broad daylight assassinations. Thus, it is evident that drugs are undoubtedly a huge 'chronic stress' for politicians, the police and planners (Boland et al, 2018) as they struggle to contend with escalating drugs related violence and entrenched community fear. So there are serious and ongoing challenges for city leaders, for the areas affected and ultimately the (occasionally innocent) people who suffer the consequences with disfigured limbs, compromised mobility and loss of life.…”

“…Problematically, in Belfast thus far the resilience debate has been scripted by established elites, as evidenced by the invitee only event that started the resilience journey, and the prescriptive CRF template. Boland et al (2018) (Boland, 2014) -so public recognition of the 'chronic stresses' (in terms of health, economy and violence) does not fit the contemporary script of a 'post conflict/violent city' (Shirlow, 2006;Murtagh & Shirlow, 2012;Murtagh, 2018).…”

“…Therefore, the opportunity to use planning for resilience to improve the lives of poorer working class communities -those sections of society who are in many ways adversely affected by these challenges -is sadly deficient. As to why this is the case there is evidence that drugs are too sensitive to include in local planning debates (Boland et al, 2018). If this is a sign of things to come, then we are concerned that Belfast's resilience journey could degenerate into predictable 'policy conservatism' rather than more optimistic 'radical transformation'.…”