Extra apartments with Tama 38 (2): Renewing the old.
So who is right?
In a building of 5 occupants, four families wish to promote project Tama 38 (2) whereby a new home is planned instead of the old building. The entrepreneur will provide each family with a new apartment that is more spacious, better designed, with higher specifications, a terrace with a beautiful view, private parking , an elevator, storage and, of course, a safe room. The building itself will be earthquake resistant in accordance with fire department and civil defense standards. In return for his work on behalf of the tenants, the entrepreneur will enjoy a reasonable profit of 25% from the sale of the new apartments. A win-win situation? Well, perhaps not. The fifth family wants to maintain the character of the old house; financial gain, a safe room and even an elevator is not enough to persuade them to endure leaving their beloved apartment for a year and a half and then returning to the building to share it with seven newcomers (and possibly more).
So whose rights prevail? Those of the family not interested in change (after all, who likes change?)? Or the right of the majority to improve their standard of living and the guaranteed increase of their real estate value – easily half a million NIS – how many families earn or save that kind of money in two years?
And there is also the public angle: all of the neighborhood residents will have to contend with increased strain on their schools and transportation. And then there is the municipal angle: why does the state intervene in the planning of my town? And more.
In a country where leaders often remain self-interested, and in an aggressive society that worships the “self”, the answer is only too obvious: the minority among tenants must bow down to the majority and allow them to implement Tama 38.
Although I make a living from this, I am still debating the question.
Real estate boutique.