After two days of a marathon, I turned to write in an orderly manner why I chose, together with the members of the Change Council, to change our decision from three weeks ago, so that instead of 0% improvement levies throughout the city (with the exception of the Carmel Ridge) in urban renewal plans (plans for complexes that received approval from the Urban Renewal Authority and not for buildings Individuals), we approved 25% improvement levies throughout the city (except for the Carmel Ridge).
Why did we change our position?
The essential position has not changed. Already then, as today, the key criterion for our position: imposing public duties in the area of the lot on the developer. This criterion did not exist in the original proposal.
If the proposal that was brought last Sunday (24/4/22) had been brought up at the previous meeting, we could have voted on it already then after the development tasks in the area of the lot were included in the formula for the offset from the improvement.
When we decided to give a 0% improvement levy, our position was that the alternative to the improvement levy would be for the developer to be charged with public duties in the field he is building: the establishment of kindergartens, a milk drop, a synagogue, a youth club, an amusement park, etc.
After the previous meeting, the professionals in the engineering director and the legal consultancy contacted us and said that they accept our position to impose public duties on the developer in the area of the lot, but in order to be able to offset the amount of the improvement, an improvement levy must be set and we decided to set it at 25% in the whole city when the amount of the public duties will be offset from the gross improvement.
The same professionals pointed out to us many other facts that were not presented in the original plan, and especially the fact that the money received from the development fees and grants will not make it possible to finance all the public tasks outside the plot, such as, for example, the expansion of schools and roads.
At the end of the day, the new proposal of the professional team included the adoption of our position that a 50% improvement levy cannot be imposed, except in the Carmel Ridge, and this is contrary to the position of the mayor who insisted on imposing a 50% improvement levy on entire neighborhoods yearning for urban renewal for political and non-professional reasons, in order to to prevent urban renewal in them.
Our responsibility to the city of Haifa and the residents who live in it, especially those who live in the areas in need of renewal, led them to agree to the reconvening of the yeshiva to ensure that our demand for the performance of public tasks that will be offset by the improvement will be realized.
We did this to ensure that urban renewal plans were implemented after the paralysis of the local committee in promoting these plans. Residents are begging for the promotion of a plan, the engineering director is handling a slow pace that has lasted for many years and in the process the residents still get to snatch an order for dangerous buildings. These are residents with daily hardships and lack of means who, due to the lack of hands of the municipality and its leader, are forced to deal with an order for dangerous buildings. This is what we want to change.
Why did we set 25% for the whole city (except the Carmel Ridge)?
In the proposal brought before us, 0% was set for areas with development restrictions or lack of attractiveness. This is allegedly determined in areas such as Kiryat Haim, Halisa, Wadi Nisnas, Shaar Aliya and more.
We believed that there is no place to differentiate significantly between different areas of the city. There should be one law for all neighborhoods. Residents of Kiryat Eliezer, for whom a levy of 25% has been established, are no different in their situation from residents of Kiryat Haim or Hadar. For example, the Hadar district is an area with high potential for urban development with a mix of uses that will also include commerce and offices, therefore, entrepreneurs will have incentives accordingly.
In some areas, the professional team recommended a 0% improvement levy based on a master plan that was not approved by the council and according to which the mayor insists on a densification plan when it is clear that it is not feasible and the residents are interested in a demolition and construction plan and rightly so!!. An example of this is the Mansfeld compound intended for condensation. Although the space where the complex is located needs to be preserved, this does not mean that the residential buildings are to be preserved and certainly that it will not be economical for any entrepreneur to thicken them as presented, so that they will be required to complete the plan with donations - donations that are not available.
In other cases, urban renewal is not expected at this stage regardless of the amount of the improvement levy. Moreover, we have additional mechanisms to enable urban renewal such as additional multipliers, a mix of uses when the complex will also include commercial uses, hotels and offices which will make the project economic (as was done in Be'er Sheva). These decisions will be made as part of the discussions in the local committee while referring to the unique characteristics of each region.
In other areas, they wanted to give an exemption from the improvement to ensure low construction that would serve a certain sector that is not interested in building at height while discriminating favorably against other residents.
In light of all this, we believed that there is no room to hold the stick at both ends - to go against us on the decision to zero percent improvement levy, but to see this as an incentive for some areas. The same mechanism we have now approved will be beautiful for all regions using the tools I mentioned to deal with the characteristics of the different regions.
What was excluded by us?
In condensation programs that have already been approved, we have excluded projects and given a full exemption from the improvement since there we will not be able to use the additional tools to ensure the realization of the project.
Why were the 2 projects in Neve David not excluded, for which they were supposed to receive '32 million NIS'?
In posts on behalf of the mayor and her activists, they claimed that in our decision to define the entire city as 25% without discrimination, we prevented receiving 60 million shekels in the 50% levy recommended in the program.
Don't fall into this trap. The question was not whether the levy received from two projects excluded in Neve David would be 62 million or 31 million. The question was whether the city will receive 32 million or nothing and the residents who will continue to live in houses are about to fall because the developer will not implement the plan.
Contrary to what was claimed by the mayor (who again presented confusion and lack of knowledge in the material submitted to us), the improvement levy for the area plan was not determined by the local committee. The plan approved by the Committee (TBA) stipulated that an improvement levy would be paid according to the law. Which law? The law in force at that time stated that the authority had the authority to grant a 0% improvement levy, as was indeed done in the Almog project. Furthermore, the appraisal report attached to the plan was prepared on Base 0% improvement levy.
If we had approved a 50% improvement levy the program would have become unprofitable. what is the meaning? The developer would not take the risk in construction (standard 21 precisely defines the mechanism) and would not build for tenants who have been waiting ten years for their project to start.
What we had to decide was 0 or 32 and we chose 32 million shekels that will definitely go into the municipality's coffers and not an imaginary fiction that the mayor pumps up through her operatives.
Why did we end up in this farce?
The final version of the proposal was sent to us on Wednesday at 20:00 on Pesach, when the next day we celebrated Monday's eve with a long weekend, the meeting was scheduled for the Sunday immediately after. We could have acted to cancel the illegally convened meeting, we did not want to do so in order not to offend in the city. That's why we made sure to hold an urgent Zoom meeting of the members of the Change Council already at noon, to clarify the issue and formulate an informed position. All at the expense of our work time.
Proper conduct by the mayor even earlier, without waiting until the last moment to incorporate our comments that were given even before the public's participation, would have prevented the farce. However, the mayor forced in her original proposal to bring a different position that includes many significant areas of the city with an absurd levy of 50%.
After the last meeting, the mayor announced that her proposal had passed and wanted to take credit for herself without understanding the difference between the various proposals, what was the change that was made and what was finally approved (confused, did I mention it?).
And finally, the Change Council acted very responsibly despite the criticism of the change in our position. It's easiest to be oppositional barbarians who don't promote anything in practice, are busy spouting slogans and, as always, are also ignorant of the facts.
Who knows what the development plan is for the railway area in Baba Hillel Silver, in the same buildings that the Carmel Tunnels pass under. These buildings are dangerous buildings and what is their future??
Thank you for the detailed explanation Sarit Vishar Kah for your hard work for the city and its residents
The truth is, I don't understand anything about it and I don't know anything, and I didn't understand what she said at all, but let it be so dear that they build in Haifa because it is important for development. They won't do it like that, the city will sink even more than it was
Wow??
What a difficult job.
Also to study such a professional field with partial information that is presented every time anew at the last minute.
And also to stand up to poisonous propaganda that is fed through,
And also to show public responsibility and flexibility.?
That's why in the previous decision on 5/4 she offered a 0% improvement levy on this area
I wonder why?
Everything strives for one thing and it is high-rises in areas that have become ultra-Orthodox. Akiva St., Bezalel, Shiloh, Hermon and the whole area. The witch has a lot of supporters out there and that's what it will be.
This city is plagued by racism. Only the mountain neighborhoods, namely the Carmel and its areas, are being renovated and rejuvenated. Neighborhoods like the German Colony. Anilwitz Street, a long street with tenements from the 50s that are crumbling, do not receive any plan except for the collection of property taxes. Such a neighborhood for that matter in Tel Aviv, the Sharona complex is worth millions. Simple shame.
Alona, you are wrong...
The municipality certainly helped development in the German colony. She helped eliminate an open public space that could have been used for the residents' well-being and eliminated a parking lot and attached both to the construction of the Schumacher Hotel.
By all means, a parking lot is not a construction clearance. There are old housing estates there that are falling down in an amazingly beautiful area. It's a shame