Calcalist, Shlomit Tzur, 05.01.21

The local committee of the Tel Aviv municipality approved an evacuation-construction plan in the Maoz Aviv neighborhood in the north of the city, and without the knowledge of the Ministry of Housing determined that apartments belonging to public housing will not receive additional space, unlike the other apartments in the complex. After Calcalist pointed out the discriminatory clause to the Ministry of Housing, the state sent a scathing letter to the Tel Aviv municipality demanding that the discriminatory clause be repealed.

The Tel Aviv municipality refused to specify how the puzzling clause was born, but announced that the clause would be deleted. The case illustrates how simple it is to approve discriminatory clauses in local planning and building committees, without the knowledge of those who may be affected by the decision.

On December 6, the local committee approved the evacuation-construction initiated by the Aviv Group, managed by Doron Aviv and Dafna Har-Lev. The project includes buildings in the eastern part of the Maoz Aviv neighborhood, between Operation Kadesh, Bnei Ephraim and Kadesh Barnea streets, as part of which four four-story and 96-apartment buildings will be demolished, and four 9- to 11-story buildings and 265 apartments and commercial areas will be built. The committee rejected the objections and unanimously approved the plan.

In contrast to privately owned dwellings that are eligible for the addition of space, the committee decided that state-owned dwellings belonging to the public housing stock will not be eligible for the addition. The committee's decision indicates that none of the local committee members raised a question regarding the puzzling clause, while other issues in the plan, such as parking or the height of the buildings, were addressed.

There is only one apartment in the complex run by the government-owned public housing company Halamish. The fact that the municipality owns half of the apartment increases the absurdity of the decision. The Aviv Group emphasized that this section was not born on their own initiative.

The Ministry of Housing was furious at the decision of the local committee, and in collaboration with the Government Authority for Urban Renewal sent a scathing letter to the municipality, demanding that the section be deleted. "The decision to approve the plan included a condition that, in our opinion, discriminates, does not uphold distributive justice, infringes on state property and incorrect planning, social and economic," wrote Nathaniel Lapidot, head of the Ministry of Housing's senior property division, and Einat Ganon, deputy director of the Urban Renewal Authority.

Lapidot and Ganun further stated that "public housing apartments are the property of the State of Israel, which are used as housing for the eligible population. "It is based on the owners of the apartments, and not on planning considerations, and it violates basic rights. Moreover, there are often large families living in public housing, and the state can not provide them with apartments large enough to meet their needs in light of limited public housing stock."

The excess rights of apartments designated for public housing can be redeemed for monetary consideration

The letter emphasized that even in cases where there is a preference for those entitled to return to apartments that are not enlarged after the implementation of an eviction-construction project, the excess building rights of the apartments intended for public housing can be redeemed for monetary consideration. These funds are transferred to the public housing subsidy fund for the maintenance of the new buildings.

The Tel Aviv Municipality declined to elaborate on how the section was born and why it was approved without the state's knowledge, but said that "the subcommittee on planning and construction decided to delete the section restricting the extension of Amidar / Halamish apartments in the project in question." Amidar / Halamish, and that according to the law, there are mechanisms that allow the tenants of public housing who live in the place to return to the renovated project, among other things while subsidizing maintenance costs. "

The apartment owners are represented by attorneys Efrat Reshef and Guy Farbman from the firm of Guy Farbman, Reshef & Co. The Aviv Group was represented in the objections by attorneys Anat Biran and Doron Shai from Anat Biran's law firm.