"The Economic Examination [of Evacuation & Binui Transactions - Y.D.] will examine the question of whether the apartment owners receive the reasonable minimum and whether the proposed consideration is economically feasible taking into account, inter alia, the entrepreneur's profit and the project's data" (Section 5.11 of Standard 21 of the Council of Land Appraisers - The Committee for Appraisal Standardization "Minimal Detail Required in Real Estate Appraisals Carried Out for the Purpose of an Economic Appraisal Examination of the Pinui-Binui Plan" (December 2012)).
A similar position is presented by Namdar in his book, in which he argues that the test of the feasibility of the transaction is, in fact, "the test of the value of the new apartment":
"Ostensibly, in such a project [the Pinui & Binui Project - Y.D.] There are no costs imposed on the tenants... Therefore, the economic result may be only positive, in addition to the renewal of the infrastructure of the entire area that the tenants will all benefit from. However, it seems that the legislature sees importance that the project will ultimately generate an economic benefit for the tenants, and if the value of the new apartment they receive will be similar to or less than the current value of the apartment intended for demolition, then it will be a reasonable reason for the tenant's refusal to agree to the project" (Namdar, at p. 78)."
[My emphases L.B.]
- As a complement to the list of cases detailed in section 2 of the Pinui-Binui Law, the Supreme Court's rulings in Civil Appeal 1002/14 Shomroni v. Kofman (July 9,2014) (hereinafter and hereinafter: "the Samaritan case") are appropriate, as to the manner in which the objectioning tenant's claims are reasonable or not. I will note that in the same matter as well, the Supreme Court was required to refuse a tenant in a TAMA 38 project, however, since it is essentially a similar project, I am of the opinion that the rulings that were made in the same matter are valid here as well:
"Therefore, when he comes to examine a request to approve an agreement, despite the objection of a minority of the tenants, he must first examine the entirety of the circumstances of the matter, including his consideration of the following questions: Was a reason for the objection presented (or is the objection of a 'principled' nature without reasoning)? On the objective level, is the plan intended to improve the situation of all the tenants in the building? Does the plan materially harm the rights of the minority? Was it accepted in bad faith or out of a conflict of interest? Was a concrete alternative plan presented and does it have advantages that are not reflected in the agreement that was presented for approval? Is equality between the tenants maintained? This is a non-exhaustive list of considerations, and of course the supervisor must consider the plan submitted for his approval in accordance with the totality of the circumstances of the matter." (paragraph 27 of the judgment).