Moreover, according to the defendants, equality in consideration in the framework of urban renewal requires that the distribution of the considerations be made in accordance with the value of the rights that each apartment owner brings with him to the situation he is entering. Therefore, it was argued that even the consent of another minority or the consent of the majority does not justify forcing the defendants to give up, but rather it must be ensured that the relative equality and just distribution are preserved.
- In addition, the defendants claim that the plaintiffs did not prove that the transaction offered to them was worthwhile and economically feasible, as required. Thus, according to the defendants, the court's expert explicitly determined that the provision of consideration apartments that reflect the correct legal area of the apartments (67.6 square meters) alongside the application of the appropriate coefficient of 0.44, will reduce the entrepreneurial profit rate to only 9.2%, a rate that falls radically short of the minimum profitability threshold of 16% required for projects of this type in the Gush Dan area in accordance with the instructions of the Chief Government Appraiser. The defendants add that according to the expert's testimony in his cross-examination, the value of a built square meter is approximately ILS 38,000, so that the total gap (8 square meters in the base area and an additional 5 square meters in respect of the building rights coefficient) embodies a cumulative economic damage of about ILS 500,000 for each of the defendants' apartments. It was argued that in these circumstances, and in accordance with the case law according to which apartment owners should not be obligated to give up their property or "subsidize" an unworthwhile project in order to preserve the profitability of the developer, they cannot be obligated to enter into a transaction that is not economically worthwhile for them objectively, and therefore, refusal to join it is a reasonable refusal.
In response to the plaintiffs' arguments that acceding to the defendants' demands would lead to a lack of economic feasibility of the project, the defendants claim that it is not their job to bear the price ofsuch a planning, economic or erroneous appraisal that was carried out by the developer. This is especially true since the defendants warned all along regarding the lack of suitability. The defendants also refer to the testimony of the court's expert, who testified that it is quite possible that if the correct area data had been presented to the authorities, it would have been possible to obtain a different scope of rights, which would have allowed for the granting of higher considerations to the apartment owners, without harming the economic viability of the project. The defendants also refer to the expert opinion, in which he explicitly stated that Standard 21.1 does not determine the appropriate consideration for the apartment owners, but rather serves as a professional tool for examining the economic and planning feasibility of a plan, and does not limit the right of apartment owners to conduct negotiations. In addition, the defendants refer to the expert's testimony, in which he emphasized that different developers may offer different considerations under the exact same planning conditions and that the economic feasibility of the developer can be significantly different from the calculation produced under Standard 21.1