Planning Policy? Between Long-Term Planning and Zoning Amendments in the Israeli Planning System

Abstract

The Israeli planning system, like many other Western systems, is a regulatory system, meaning that statutory land-use plans are attempts at both setting long-term planning policy and defining planning rights. However, planning in Israel faces a growing gap between its official structure and what is actually implemented. Mainly, an inconsistency exists between the formal top-to-bottom approach of the system and the flexible dynamics that occur in practice. In this paper I focus on the prevalent local zoning amendment procedure and examine its background as well as its implications. Based on this, the paper claims that in Israel, the tension between certainty and flexibility in planning creates a spatially disturbed behavior, which actively tests the bans and limits of existing possibilities.

Population and pavement: population growth and land development in Israel

“…Another is illegal or unplanned development in multiple sectors (commercial centers, residences, storage facilities) as documented by environmental organizations and by the State Comptroller's office; development that is often approved ex-post facto by decision-making bodies. Alfasi (2006) suggests that the combination of mandated flexibility measures for planning at the local level coupled with illegal circumvention of statutory planning guidelines produces results that do not reflect official planning goals. intense climate gradient (ranging from hyper-arid to Mediterranean), and its diverse topography (Frankenberg 1999;Yom Tov and Mendelsohn 1988).…”

An elephant in the planning room: Political demography and its influence on sustainable land-use planning in drylands

“…Further, the ratio of land to housing provided in low-density communities is low thus total land required is large. Finally, environmental planning emphasizes transparency and public participation, and the process by which these farms and communities have been established (in both the Bedouin and Jewish case) has been marked by circumvention of established planning norms (Alfasi, 2006;Yahel, 2006). The physical-spatial outcome of these competing planning paradigms is as of yet undetermined.…”

“…Several proposals advocating the continued expansion of Jewish settlement in the region use the perceived demographic threat of Bedouin as justification, either explicitly (Soffer and Bystrov, 2005) or implicitly (Jewish National Fund, 2005). In her analysis of the disconnect between official plans and what is actually happening on the ground, Alfasi (2006) explains that new Jewish settlements garner significant local and national government support both in contravention of law and planning procedures and through the use of flexible, official planning mechanisms exploited at the local level to circumvent the spirit of national planning laws.…”

“…They see Jewish settlement as the most effective response to the perceived threat of losing control of land resources and the resulting contiguity of Bedouin settlement with Palestinian areas in the southern West Bank (Bachor-Nir, 2004;Soffer and Bystrov, 2005). These bodies have, since the 1990s, provided tacit and active support for the establishment of single-family Jewish ranches and new low-density exurban communities across the Northern Negev, and in particular in areas perceived threatened by Bedouin expansion, even though the establishment of ranches and new communities is not sanctioned by the national planning agenda (Yonah and Saporta, 2002;Alfasi, 2006;Orenstein and Hamburg, 2009). Several proposals advocating the continued expansion of Jewish settlement in the region use the perceived demographic threat of Bedouin as justification, either explicitly (Soffer and Bystrov, 2005) or implicitly (Jewish National Fund, 2005).…”

Development as a Battlefield

“…It included flexible, local spot-zoning amendments to statutory planning schemes, made with the purpose of advancing site-specific projects and public-private (pp) ventures. To this end, authorities strike specific planning 'deals' with private actors that allow the exchange of public goods and tasks-'side benefits'-for extra floor rights (Fainstein, 2008;Tasan-Kok, 2008;Alfasi, 2006;Sagalyn, 2007;Margalit, 2014;Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015). The increase of high-rise ventures designed for local and international elites (Sklair and Gherardi, 2012) was intimately linked to entrepreneurial paradigms of urban growth and development.…”