Civil Case (Center) 63837-03-22 Aharon Itzkowitz v. Tal Mordechai Naveh - part 12

In order to formulate his opinion regarding the proper entrepreneurial profit, the appraiser will take into account the customary profit in Pinui-Binui projects at that time and in the same area, in accordance with the document "Minimum Entrepreneurial Profit in Pinui-Binui Plans" published by the government appraiser and updated from time to time.  The appraiser, who drafted the opinion, will be able to deviate from the rates set out in the document, with respect to the plan that is the subject of the examination, in accordance with the following parameters, and will explain his determination, taking into account the type of project (evacuation-construction or evacuation-construction), its location, scope, the rate of the owners' consent (to the extent known), exemption or non-exemption from betterment levy (in the particular plan), specific physical limitations, the need for supplementary land, the state of the rental market in relation to the number of evacuees (unsaturated saturated),  Provisions in the plan that require postponement of implementation, etc.  These parameters mainly express the risk involved in the venture" (Section 5.14.13 of the Standard).

"The entrepreneurial profit that will constitute a proper economic incentive in a particular venture depends on many and varied factors, including the timing and location.  Therefore, it is not correct to determine in a general standard what is the proper entrepreneurial profit in a particular plan.  In addition, a general determination of a proper entrepreneurial profit may create a situation in which where the planning will lead, as explained in the introduction to this standard (section 1 above), the general entrepreneurial profit will guide the planning, without knowing at all whether the determined profit is correct and suitable for the particular plan that is sought to be promoted.  In light of the aforesaid, the appraiser-economic calculation in this section is intended to examine the expected rate of profitability from the proposed venture, without defining, in general, what the proper profit is." (Section 5.14 Risha).

103. In other words, the government appraiser must from time to time determine the specific minimum entrepreneurial profit value in accordance with the time of the project and the location of the project, on the basis of which the economic feasibility of the Pinui-Binui plan will be examined, at the stage of the deposit of the plan.
104. Accordingly, on June 13, 2022, the Land Assessment Division published the procedure for the "Minimum Entrepreneurial Profit in Pinui-Binui Plans" (hereinafter: the "Procedure"). In accordance with Section 3 of the Procedure, the entrepreneurial profit rate set for the city of Lod is 17%, subject to the consent of 60% of the apartment owners.  At the same time, the procedure states that it is possible to deviate from the entrepreneurial profit rate, when the deviation rate does not exceed 2% below and 3% above the fixed values.

Decision

105. After examining the arguments of the parties, the evidence they submitted and being impressed by their testimonies, I have reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs' arguments in this matter that the project is economically feasible and that the defendants' refusal to engage in the transaction is unreasonable, for the following reasons:
106. First, the plaintiffs met the burden of proving that the project was financially worthwhile.
107. As stated above, the defendants' argument that the project is not economically feasible is based on the fact that the entrepreneurial profit is low, according to them, and therefore there is a concern that the developer will not be able to meet the project, so that in the end the project will fail and the buildings will become a "construction site".
108. The burden of proving that the project is economically worthwhile is on the plaintiffs. I am of the opinion that they have met this burden.  The plaintiffs attached two appraisal opinions from different time periods, 2020 and 2022, according to which the project is economically feasible.  On the other hand, the defendants did not submit any contradictory or contradictory opinion (the only opinion they submitted deals with the value of the consideration to the apartment owners and not with economic viability).
109. I found that Paz Economics' opinions are reliable, reasoned and professional, which take into account the expenses involved in carrying out the construction work of the project, inter alia, the expenses of planning, transportation and storage, legal representation fees, organization and management, rent for tenants, betterment levies if applicable, purchase tax, yard development, construction of a public building, construction fees, electricity connection, marketing and advertising, management, (unexpected) vehicles, Lawyer, appraiser and supervisor on behalf of the tenants, the cost of purchasing supplementary land, as well as financing expenses.
110. In relation to the 2020 opinion, which determined an entrepreneurial profit of 17.2%, this is an opinion that was prepared for the purpose of approving the plan, it was required to be subject to audit by the local authority and was ultimately approved together with the plan. As of today, the review is available for viewing online.  Paz Eqtesad explained well in the investigation the essence of the opinion, and explained that it was intended to examine the feasibility of the project and the entrepreneurial profit for the purpose of examining the feasibility of the project (par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 276, 25-26, pp. 277, 5-7, p. 279, 24-26, p. 280, 1-9).  I was convinced that Paz Economics' testimony was credible, professional, coherent and that it could be relied upon.
111. The 2022 opinion was prepared for the purpose of updating the data about two years later, and determined that the entrepreneurial profit since the 2020 opinion had decreased, and as of the date of the opinion (2022), it was 16%.
112. As stated above, Standard 21.1 and the procedure that followed it do not constitute a binding legal provision. They only guide the usual minimal entrepreneurial profit.  The entrepreneurial profit rate in the city of Lod is 17% and can be deviated from it by a maximum of 2%, i.e., up to 15%.  The entrepreneurial profit set for the project, both in 2020 and 2022, meets these guidelines.  Thus, the 2020 opinion set an entrepreneurial profit of 17.2%, which exceeds the customary entrepreneurial profit by 0.2%.  The 2022 opinion determined an entrepreneurial profit of 16%, which is within the normal deviation range according to the procedure.
113. Under these circumstances, I was convinced that there is economic feasibility for the project. This reason alone is sufficient to determine that the defendants' refusal to participate in the project due to lack of economic feasibility is unreasonable.
114. Second, the economic feasibility of the project was examined and approved by the relevant municipal bodies, including the District Committee, the Lod Municipality and the Mevo, so that in the end, the plan was approved. As testified by Ms. Aliza Tarona, a social coordinator in the foyer who accompanied the project (hereinafter: " Tarona"), the foyer assisted the residents in organizing for the establishment of the project (the residents' organization, the selection of a representative and a lawyer) and after the start of the project (par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 367, paras. 8-13).  Ms. Taruna testified that the entrepreneurial profit in the project was examined by an economist of the Lod Municipality (par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 370-371) and that the position of the introductory was to carry out the project (p. 367, paras. 14-18).  This testimony was not concealed.  The district committee, after hearing objections, also found the plan economically worthwhile and approved it, even after it accepted (partially) the developer's objection to adding areas to the project.  And to be precise.  The approach of the District Committee, the Lod Municipality and the Mevoa – the municipal bodies whose purpose is to supervise the project, including its feasibility in the economic sense – also has economic feasibility for the project.  Accordingly, the plan began to be implemented, in a way that is another indication of its economic viability.
115. Thirdly, and more than necessary, even if I were able to accept the defendants' argument that the entrepreneurial profit is not high enough, and that the project lacks economic viability, I did not find it necessary to accept their argument that there is a concern that the project will fail and become a "construction site", since the project will be loaned by a lending bank and sufficient guarantees will be provided to the apartment owners, including the defendants. According to the agreement, the developer undertook to finance the project through bank support.  He also undertook that the apartment owners would receive guarantees for the protection of their rights, such as: a bank guarantee according to the Sale Law for the value of the new apartment in an amount determined by an appraiser on behalf of the bank accompanying the zero report, a tax guarantee, an inspection guarantee, and a registration guarantee.  The apartment owners in the project will not leave their existing apartments until their rights are secured by means of guarantees from the lending bank, in the value of the consideration apartment.  Under these circumstances, if the project "fails", the rights of the apartment owners will be protected and secured by the lending bank, at a value higher than the value of their current apartment.  On the contrary, if the defendants are right and the project lacks economic feasibility, then in any case the chances of finding a bank lending to the project are slim, and in any case the project will not be implemented.  In this way, the defendants' concerns should be neutralized.
116. Fourth, I am under the impression that the defendants' refusal to participate in the project on the grounds of lack of economic feasibility does not stem from honest and proper reasons that must be taken into
117. An examination of the defendants' conduct in real time shows that they were not sincerely bothered by the issue of the economic feasibility of the project, in a manner that prevented them from signing the agreement:
     • The defendants did not act at all to check the economic feasibility of the project. The defendants did not ask to meet with the representatives of the foyer who accompanied the tenants in the project, including on the economic issue, in order to examine the economic feasibility of the project or to examine why the foyer believed that the project should be approved even though in their opinion it was not economically feasible (and see the testimony of Ms. Tarna according to which neither the defendants nor their counsel asked to meet with the representatives of the foyer for the purpose of conducting any examination).  In the par. of May 19, 2024, p. 368, paras. 13-20; and the testimony of defendant 2, who confirmed in her interrogation that she did not contact the foyer on this matter, in the par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 440, paras. 9-17, pp. 441, paras. 10-26).
     • The defendants did not file an objection to the plan due to the lack of economic viability. As for defendant 2, the opposite is true.  Its objection was based (inter alia) on the claim that the developer had been approved for concessions and rights that constituted an excessively high incentive addition that was not justified, as it were, for the benefit of the tenants.  How can defendant 2 argue, on the one hand, that the project is not economically viable (i.e., the developer does not have sufficient entrepreneurial profit) and on the other hand, that the developer has too high an additional incentive? These are contradictory claims.  In any event, defendant 2 did not file an application for leave to appeal to the National Council under  section 110(a)(2) of the Planning and Building Law, 5725-1965, against the decision of the District Committee to approve the plan and to reject its objection to the approval of the plan (which, in any case, did not relate to economic feasibility).  In addition, defendant 2 contradictory claimed both that the project lacked economic feasibility and that "the Dana project, in which two old buildings containing 24 apartments are demolished and three new buildings containing 130 apartments are being built in their place, in addition to commercial areas and public areas, is a very far from 'unprofitable' project, and it seems that there is no need to elaborate on this matter" (emphasis added) (paragraph 31 of the original statement of defense).
     • The defendants did not bother to file an administrative petition against the decision to approve the plan.
     • The defendants did not contact the municipality after the approval of the plan and expressed concern or complaint that the project lacked economic feasibility, nor did they object to the subsequent application for a building permit.
     • Even from the defendants' interrogation, I was convinced that the reason for the lack of economic feasibility for the project is simply not the reason why they opposed it.
     • As for defendant 1, in his interrogation contradictions were discovered with statements in his statements of defense and his affidavit of primary testimony. Although in his defense statements he claimed and stated in the affidavit of the main witness that the project lacked economic viability, his interrogation revealed that he had not examined the matter at all and that he did not know the details.  Defendant 1 did not know whether there was a bank accompaniment for the project or at all what a bank accompaniment was and what it meant (par. of June 20, 2024, at pp. 103, paras. 12-26, and also at pp. 104-106).  When asked whether Adv. Naveh had explained to him about the lending bank's undertaking and what the lending bank meant, he replied that it was not a subject he had dealt with and that he "did not remember" (p. 106, paras. 1-19).  The defendant did not know how bank accompaniment affects the project and evaded the question (p. 174, paras. 9-18).  Defendant 1 did not know how to answer questions regarding the guarantees that would be given to the tenants, evaded and changed the subject (pp. 104, 22-26, pp. 105, 1-9).  Defendant 1 was not involved in meetings or meetings in connection with the project and did not try to understand the economic feasibility of the project, and when asked why he did not attend meetings or meetings or send his attorney, he evaded his answer and only answered vaguely that he tried to obtain documents from the developer (without knowing what documents he was missing, as will be detailed below) and that he contacted an appraiser on behalf of the municipality who claimed that there was no feasibility for the project.  Without explaining who the appraiser was, what was said, when, and without presenting minimal evidence to that effect, while trying to transfer the subject to another testimony given in the course of the proceeding, by Mr. Itzkowitz, which is irrelevant and is late in time for the questions he was asked about his actions in real time (pp. 91, 3-26, pp. 92-93).  In the end, he admitted that he was not opposed to the project, but that he had no confidence in the developer (pp. 94, paras. 1-18).
     • This is the place to note that throughout his testimony, defendant 1 did not know how to answer questions and in fact his counsel repeatedly intervened in the interrogation until the court saw fit to comment to her several times, in a manner that could damage the credibility and weight of defendant 1's testimony (pp. 41 s. 21-26, p. 42 s. 1-5, p. 43 s. 26, p. 44 s. 1-3, 85 s. 15-18, p. 87 s. 1-16, p. 122 s. 8-26, p. 123 s. 1-2, p. 147 s. 13-26, p. 148 s. 1-11, p. 160 s. 13-15, p. 162 s. 7-8).
     • As for defendant 2, when she was asked in her interrogation why she was opposed to the project, the issue of economic feasibility was absent from her answers, but she replied that "if the situation had been normal in the first place, the whole process would have been normal, I would have been the first to be in favor" (par. of May 19, 2024, p. 419, paras. 17-20); that the project causes overcrowding (p. 420, s. 23); And that if in 2022 they had told her that Twito and Itzkowitz had agreed to receive identical apartments for consideration to her apartment, she would have signed the agreement (pp. 452, 13-23).
118. Before concluding this part, I also found it necessary to address defendant 1's argument that costs amounting to millions of shekels were not taken into account in Paz Eqtesa's opinion, such as the cost of purchasing a supplementary area from the ILA (Plot 7), the cost of digging groundwater, soil and groundwater pollution and other environmental problems, indemnification costs, compensation in respect of section 197 of the Planning and Building Law. 5725-1965 and the cost of betterment levy.  After examining the claim, I found that it should be rejected.  As for the cost of purchasing supplementary land, contrary to defendant 1's claim, it was taken into account in the opinion (paragraph 13 of the 2022 opinion; testimony of Paz Economics in par. of May 19, 2024, p. 331, p. 332, s. 1).  As for the other expenses, Paz Economics explained in the investigation that at the stage when the opinion was prepared, it was not possible to estimate the amount of the costs, so that the opinion was drafted, as is customary, for a stage in which the final costs are not yet known (Par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 332, paras. 12-26, 333 Q. 2-23).  From the testimony of Shepaz Economics, which was not concealed, I am not convinced that these costs have the potential to affect the economic viability of the project, in a manner that justifies the defendants' refusal.  The opinion also takes into account unexpected costs, so it is reasonable to assume that the costs that defendant 1 claims were not taken into account, can be included in the unexpected costs.
119. To complete the picture, it should be noted that I have not lost sight of the plaintiffs' argument in their summaries that the claim of lack of economic feasibility is a planning argument that must be raised before the district committee. Because of the result I reached, I did not find it necessary to address the claim.
120. In these circumstances, it has been proven that the project is economically worthwhile and that the defendants' refusal due to the lack of economic feasibility does not constitute a reasonable refusal in the circumstances of the case.

Unequal considerations for some of the apartment owners and a violation of the principle of equality between apartment owners in the project

121. The defendants' main argument in this context was that there are apartment owners who receive excess consideration: the Twito family receives a large six-room apartment, increased rent, division and interior design, an upgrade of the kitchen and cabinets, an exemption from paying supplementary land to the ILA, insurance against damage and risks, and participation in the maintenance of the building; and the Itzkowitz family, which owns a small apartment, will receive a commercial unit, increased rent and upgrade increases (paragraphs 7-8 of the affidavit of the main witness of defendant 1; paragraphs 21-28 of the affidavit of the main witness of defendant 2). It should be noted that the defendants claimed that there were other apartment owners who received excess consideration, but in their interrogation they neglected the other apartment owners and focused only on the apartments for consideration for the Itzkowitz family and the Twito family (defendant 2: par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 447, s. 23-26, p. 448, s. 1-20; defendant 1: par. of June 20, 2024, p. 77, s. 15-26, p. 78, s. 1-21).  Moreover, the claim regarding other apartment owners has not been proven.  Therefore, the discussion below will take place only in relation to these two apartments.
122. In this context, it should be noted that the defendants' claim of the lack of equal consideration was merely argued in the statements of defense, without specifying who those apartment owners were who received excess consideration. Only in the affidavits of the main witness on their behalf did the defendants mention the identity of the apartment owners who, according to them, received excess consideration.  In his interrogation, defendant 1 testified that "there is another apartment, six rooms, 130 square meters, and no one knows to whom" (par. of June 20, 2024, p. 82, paras. 20-21).  This lack of knowledge is inconsistent with the fact that already after the cancellation of the administrative fine on September 28, 2023, Mr. Adir Keinan announced that the owner of the apartment receiving the six-room apartment was the Twito family.  This was also stated in the affidavit of the main witness of Mr. Adir Keinan, of Mr. Twito and of defendant 1 himself.
123. In support of their claim, the defendants attached the opinion of Ms. Pnina Even-Chen dated February 28, 2024 (the defendants' opinion), entitled "An examination of the value of the two apartments of defendants (1) and (2) in relation to the plaintiffs' apartments in a Pinui-Binui project in the plan [...]" (Appendix 6 to the affidavit of the main witness of defendant 2). A reading of the opinion shows that its conclusions are twofold.  The first is that the valuation of the apartments claimed in the Paz Economics opinion does not take into account the value differences of the apartments due to the location of the apartments on the floor, the area of the apartments, the area of the vacant yard, density and more.  The second is that there is a difference in value between the apartment of defendant 2 and the apartment of the Itzkowitz family and the apartment of the Twito family.  The Itzkowitz family apartment has a dental clinic (commercial) where the value of a commercial property  is generally higher, by 30% of the value of a residential property.  The Toyoto family apartment has an additional area of 40 square meters due to parking/storage built without a permit.
124. The plaintiffs claimed that the apartments of the Twito and Itzkowitz families were unique apartments. The consideration for the Twito family stems from the addition of the area adjacent to the apartment even before the project begins.  and the consideration for the Itzkowitz family is a commercial unit because the apartment is used by Mr. Itzkowitz for his occupation – as a dental clinic (paragraphs 103-108 of the affidavit of Mr. Keinan's main witness).
125. In support of their claim, the plaintiffs attached an additional opinion dated May 2, 2024, regarding reference to the defendants' opinion (the supplementary opinion). In this opinion, it was argued that the conclusions of the defendants' appraiser Even Chen in the defendants' opinion are erroneous: first, the consideration apartments must be examined in accordance with Part B of Standard 21.1.  The appraiser examined the considerations in accordance with Standard 15, which deals with the preparation of allocation and balance tables (allocation and balance tables are part of the plan documents).  Facility No. 15, the defendants' appraiser concludes that there was room to change the percentage of relative value in the land that was determined for the defendants' apartments.  However, insofar as the defendants have claims regarding the preparation of the allocation and balance table, they should have raised them in the framework of the objection to the plan, and not now, after its approval.  Second, the defendants' appraiser examines the value of the defendants' apartments as of the date of approval of the plan, and it is not clear whether it is based on a higher value per built square meter.  For if the value per square meter built was higher in the building, as claimed by the defendants, then this value should also have been in all the typical units in the complex, so that in any case the relative value in the allocation and balance table of each apartment would have been preserved.  Therefore, this examination has no bearing on the matter of the relative percentage of the land.  Third, the key to consideration for typical apartment owners is uniform and identical – 10% of the existing apartment area.  Fourth, with regard to the claim of lack of equality in consideration due to the Itzkovitz apartment, the defendants' appraiser presents a claim in which the value of a commercial built square meter is about 30% higher than the value of a residential built square meter, without presenting a market survey or reference to support the claim.  The purpose of the determination is unclear, since in any case, the consideration that the Itzkowitz family will receive reflects 10% of the area of the existing unit (whether it is used for residential or commercial use).
126. On behalf of the plaintiffs, an affidavit was submitted by Mr. Risher Twito, who stated that due to the fact that an area of about 24 square meters is attached to the apartment, his consideration apartment takes into account the area attached to it. In addition, minor changes were agreed upon in the apartment's specifications.  Attached to his affidavit was a certificate of rights that the area was lawfully attached.

Decision

127. In the case before us, I am not persuaded that there is an inequality between the considerations and the apartment owners. The defendants' refusal to enter into an agreement due to inequality is unreasonable.
128. First, the defendants' objection to the claim of lack of equality due to the alleged excess consideration of the Itzkovitz and Twito families does not amount to a reasonable refusal under the law. As a rule, the examination of the claim of lack of equality is done in a substantive manner.  The consideration for each apartment does not have to be the same.  The examination is whether the consideration was calculated on the basis of an identical calculation or whether the calculation was made on the basis of a practical and professional appraisal.  See the ruling of the Honorable Judge H. Ovadia in Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 49303-10-20 Nir v. Shashua (Nevo, July 12, 2023), at para. 100 (an appeal was filed against the judgment to the Supreme Court, which ended in a settlement, Other Municipality Applications 8330/23 Uri Shasha v. Nili Nir et al. (Nevo 20 August 2024)) (hereinafter: "Shashua Case"):

"The court is required to examine the equality between the considerations granted to the owners of the apartments in the project in a substantive manner, and the required equality does not necessarily mean that all apartment owners will receive the same consideration as the owners of a neighboring apartment in the condominium.  It appears that in the circumstances of the case, there is substantial equality in the project, and the defendants did not claim or prove that the consideration they would receive was less than that received by the other apartment owners in relation to the registered area of their apartment, or that the consideration offered to them was calculated on the basis of a different calculation for the addition of the expanded area in their apartment in relation to the other extended apartments in the project, or that the calculation was made not on the basis of a practical and professional appraisal."

129. In the Shashua case, the claim of lack of equality was rejected. It was held that since the refusal defendants did not prove that the consideration they would receive was less than that received by the other apartment owners in relation to the registered area of their apartment, that the consideration offered to them was calculated on a different basis or that the calculation was not based on a substantive and professional appraisal, their refusal is unreasonable (paragraphs 100 and 105 of the judgment).
130. In the matter of a different appeal - civil (Tel Aviv) 13039-12-20 Nissani v. Habib (Nevo, April 26, 2021) (hereinafter: "the Nissani case"), the Honorable Justice L. Bibi ruled that the rule of thumb for examining the claim of lack of equality in consideration is the scope of the areas that each apartment receives, i.e., whether each of the apartments receives substantially similar land additions, as opposed to similarities in value or added value.  Although the judgment does not deal with an evacuation-reconstruction project, but rather with a TAMA 38 project for reinforcement, the reasons there are appropriate for our purposes.  See verse 60:

"The concentration of the above teaches first, that the examination of the equality between the additions to each of the apartments will be examined categorically, and when the rule of thumb will be whether each of the apartments receives substantially similar land additions, with a difference in imaginary value or the value addition they add to each of the apartments.  Second, it is clear that there are some of the apartment owners who benefit or suffer more from the building additions, but in order for his objection to be heard, the violation of his rights must be substantial, otherwise the remedy for such tenant will be, at most, in compensation payments."

131. In the Nissani case, the claim of lack of equality was rejected, since the recalcitrant tenant received the same consideration as the other tenants (para. 72).
132. See also Miscellaneous Appeal - Civil (Tel Aviv District) 14413-02-22 Shochat et al. v. Peretz et al. (Nevo, April 26, 2022) (appeal against the decision of the Land Registry Supervisor in the framework of which an order was issued for the execution of demolition works and the reconstruction of a condominium). In the same matter, the Honorable Justice L. Bibi reiterated her rulings in the Nissani case.  An application for leave to appeal against the judgment was filed with the Supreme Court in  Civil Appeal 4443/22 Yocheved Peretz v. Shlomo Shochat (Nevo, August 7, 2022).  The request for leave to appeal was rejected on the grounds that despite the importance of the principle of the legal question of whether the economic aspect has decisive weight in the existence of discrimination on the part of the opposing tenant, in the circumstances of that matter, the question was a theoretical question that did not justify granting leave to appeal.
133. In our case, in accordance with the criteria that were determined, the defendants did not prove that the consideration they would receive under the agreement was less than that received by the other apartment owners who own the same registered area, or that the consideration offered to them was calculated on the basis of a different calculation or that it was not based on a practical and professional appraisal. All apartment owners in the project receive an additional area of 10% of the registered area, a storage room, parking and a balcony.
134. In this context, it is worth noting that the Pinui-Binui Law does not stipulate that a reasonable refusal is a refusal that stems from the lack of equal consideration in the project. Section 6 of the Pinui-Binui Law states that a person acting on behalf of a developer who is interested in executing an evacuation and construction transaction, a person who receives or is about to receive from the developer a change that is not negligible compared to other apartment owners in the same cluster, and whose salary depends on the existence of an evacuation and construction transaction, shall report on his own initiative to the apartment owners in the cluster any change in consideration, which is not negligible, that an apartment owner in the cluster will receive, in comparison to other apartment owners in the same cluster (section 6(a)(2) and section 6(b) to the Pinui-Binui Law).  The section does not state that there is a prohibition on transferring considerations that are not equal or that a refusal on the basis of lack of equality is a reasonable refusal.  All it determines is the duty of disclosure and transparency in this matter.  Without setting any conclusions on the matter, it is possible that the appropriate legislative arrangement in this case is to provide relief in the form of an appropriate compensation ruling to the apartment owners who were deprived, and not to prevent a project in which all the apartment owners are interested except for the refuseniks.
135. Second, the plaintiffs proved that the apartments of Itzkowitz and Twito are not identical to the other apartments in the project, and therefore the consideration for their apartments is different.
136. As a rule, the issue of equality in consideration should be examined between equals and not between different ones (Different Appeal - Civil (Tel Aviv District) 48996-10-18 Mazal Kaleb v. Ben Uri (1973) Public Works and Building Company in a Tax Appeal (Nevo, December 9, 2018), the Honorable Justice L. Bibi, at para. 19).
137. Parts B and C of Standard 21.1 outline the guiding principles for an appraiser in an economic appraisal examination to examine whether the transaction offered to apartment owners in the project is economically feasible and the various considerations for apartments (as opposed to Chapter A of the standard mentioned earlier, which examines economic feasibility for the developer for the purpose of an economic feasibility study).
138. Section 6.11(a) of Part B of the Guideline stipulates that "the key of consideration for the owners of the typical apartments will be uniform, taking into account the differences between the areas of the existing apartments, and additional areas such as balconies, areas adjacent to the apartments, etc., will also be taken into account."
139. Section 7.11 of Part C of the Standard guides the principles for examining excess consideration for a particular apartment owner, according to which the data of the apartment must be taken into account in comparison to the data of the typical apartments in the building. The criteria for examining the characteristics of the apartment are the area of the apartment, the linkages that affect the value of the apartment, the location of the apartment, significant internal renovation that was done up to 7 years before the scheduled date, as well as additional rights or other economic benefits attributed to the individual apartment compared to a typical apartment of its kind.
140. As explained by the Honorable Justice Y. Kasher in the matter of the Institute for Reform, at paragraphs 41-43:

"Standard 21.1 includes three parts, which are intended for different purposes and at different stages of the planning process.  While Part A, in which the consideration levels discussed above are noted, is intended to assist the planning authorities in examining the economic feasibility of the project, Parts B and C are intended to assist in examining the economic feasibility of a transaction offered to apartment owners by a developer.  Parts B and C differ from each other in that Part B deals with an assessment that is conducted at the request of a group of apartment owners, while Part C deals with an assessment that is conducted at the request of a particular apartment owner or in relation to a particular landlord at the request of the other apartment owners.  An assessment according to these parts is indeed used by the court in examining the reasonableness of the consideration.  [...]