And a few months later, during the meeting on November 10, 2014, committee member Mr. Geva noted that a unified project was on the agenda. He further added, "Meuhed, that means that as far as the municipality is concerned, it pushed and was also presented to it, and they reached some authority to build a unified building" (Appendix 14 to the affidavit of Mr. Adi Shinar, Plaintiff No. 4, at p. 162 of its appendices).
- The plaintiffs tried to change the picture that was taking shape.
They referred to the testimonies of various planners who noted that it was not possible to build a building on its own in Lot 102 due to its size, and certainly this was the case after the expropriation. However, the architect Mualem, who testified that he told Ms. Or that it would not be possible to build a high-rise building on Lot 102 independently, did not rule out the possibility of constructing a "gross" 9-story building (ground, seven floors and a roof) with a limited scope of square meters per floor in the current situation (p. 685).
The plaintiffs referred to an e-mail message from Mr. David Reznik (plaintiff 47) dated August 30, 2014, in which he discussed the difficulties in the realization of the project, and the need to build the project on Lot 102 alone (Appendix 7 to his affidavit). However, this initiative does not seem to have gained momentum, and it does not appear that the team committee tried to enforce separation between the fields. If he had done so, it would seem that it would have harmed the members of Group 102, a significant number of whom would have found themselves unable to purchase housing units, while making use of the emission mechanism that was formulated for this purpose.
The plaintiffs further referred in their summaries to the testimony of Ms. Sivan Pardo (plaintiff 25), who testified that she was explicitly told that the group members would be able to part with Lot 104 and build on their own, and that she felt that the defendants had deceived her and her friends. She further testified that in view of the intensity of the feeling of harm she experienced, she was willing to come especially to Israel from Ireland in order to testify (p. 74, Q.16). I can only identify with the feeling of frustration felt by Mrs. Pardo, as well as with the feelings of frustration felt by her friends. However, feelings of frustration and hurt do not, in and of themselves, entitle them to compensation.
- The conclusion that emerges from all of this is that the contractual system presented things as they are, according to which a significant effort will be made to establish a joint construction project for the two lots, even if this will take time in view of planning difficulties, and without a commitment to the number of housing units to be built on Lot 102.
The claim that an undertaking was given for the transfer of rights from Lot 104 to Lot 102 was not substantiated
- The plaintiffs claim in the amended statement of claim (paragraphs 12.5-12.1) the existence of a false representation in which the defendants were partners. According to which Or City and the members of Group 104 were obligated to transfer building rights "as a gift" from Lot 104 to Lot 102, in order to cover the lack of building rights in the latter, due to its small size. According to them, only at a later stage did it become clear that this was a misrepresentation. This did not prevent Greeny City from selling more housing units, without ensuring that there would be a commitment that the plots would be consolidated, and that the fantastic number of units promised to the plaintiffs could be produced. In addition, it was argued that the defendants did not take care to get the members of the 104 group to sign an undertaking to grant the members of the 102 group building rights from their plot, in order to complete the missing housing units.
- The claim should be rejected. It is also inconsistent with the written agreements.
In these agreements, there is no mention of Greeny's undertaking that members of Group 104 are obligated, or will be obligated, to grant members of Group 102 building rights from their land. Again, the contractual system explicitly stipulated that any representation or agreement that is not anchored in it is invalid.