Moreover, and even in this the most important thing. An examination of the expert opinion on behalf of the plaintiffs shows that the comparison transactions he made were in relation to private agricultural land in the Gan Yavne local council and not in the city of Ashkelon (ibid., ibid.). However, the expert notes that this is a location "in close proximity to the property that is the subject of the assessment". However, in all the assessment, it is not clear why the Gan Yavne local council was chosen for comparison, as opposed to other nearby localities at a similar distance, such as the city of Ashdod. The expert claimed that he did not find private lands without the potential for a change of designation in the vicinity of the land that is the subject of the lawsuit, and therefore he inspected Gan Yavne (p. 593, paras. 9-13; ibid., p. 594, paras. 9-15). In all accounts, this answer is unsatisfactory. It is not clear why Gan Yavne was chosen by the expert and not by other nearby communities. The expert's answer indicates that he did not find private land in Ashkelon without the potential for a change of designation. If so, it is clear that there is no basis for comparison with the prices of private land for sale in Gan Yavne. It is certainly not known whether, at the end of the day, those private agricultural lands in Gan Yavne have undergone a change of designation, for what purpose, and what is the actual value of the betterment.
In any event, as may be recalled, the plaintiffs noted that the main reason for their decision to purchase the lands in Ashkelon lies mainly in the signed documents presented to them by the deputy mayor of Ashkelon, by virtue of which they assumed that the expected change in the designation of the land they purchased would significantly increase their value. Moving the venue of the hearing, Junger testified explicitly that the representations regarding the land they purchased in Ashkelon taught "that the lands are literally about to be compromised" (p. 161, s. 2). This discount is valid for lands in Ashkelon only. There is no reason to assume that the plaintiffs, in whole or in part, would have purchased private land in the Gan Yavne Local Council, without having before them a similar representation regarding the chances of a change of designation on those lands within the visible range. This is especially true when the plaintiffs admitted in their interrogations that it is not clear how they would have invested their money if they had not purchased the lands in Ashkelon. It cannot be assumed as a retrospective wisdom that everyone would have purchased as a homogeneous group in the Gan Yavne local council. Therefore, I do not believe that the plaintiffs have proven the damage caused to them under this alternative or the factual basis for determining the amount of compensation within the framework of the present case.