"No, it's not talking about it at the moment, if the agreement is as it is, I assume that the developer wants to continue, so as far as he is concerned, it is economically feasible, he is just willing to participate in a lower profit out of the reasonable profit because we see a profit of 16% as a reasonable profit. There are entrepreneurs who are willing for less, so it is already a matter of their discretion. But in general, will I change the terms now and I will add more meters, so we will definitely not be there." [My emphasis is L.B.]
Later in his testimony, the court's expert confirmed that different entrepreneurs could make different proposals, but in the concluding line he testified explicitly on page 25, lines 26 to 30 that:
"... So we know that there are different times that offer something, but it has to be something that is reasonable. I once had an opinion not long ago that I was asked to find out from a developer that someone claimed that there was 117% profitability, so the supervisor told him, 'No problem, bring a developer, ' and no one came, of course, because there is no such viability."
I will note that in the framework of their summaries, the defendants further argued that the more the mistake at the planning stage had become clearer, the more the plans that were submitted for the approval of the planning authorities would have granted larger areas. In support of this argument, the defendants referred to the testimony of the court's expert on pages 29-30 of the transcript. However, this argument of the defendants was raised for the first time in their summaries and therefore, on the face of it, it is a rejection due to the widening of the façade. More than necessary, I will note that although the expert confirmed that there is a possibility that if the incoming situation had been higher, it is possible that the committee would have taken this into account when examining the feasibility under Standard 21, but he further testified that he did not examine whether this was indeed the case in this case , and moreover, the expert also emphasized that the question of whether or not rights were in fact granted is another question and is not a necessary situation (see his testimony from line 33 on page 29 to line 2 on page 30). In addition, I will note and emphasize that in the case of the Reform Institute, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the planning authorities are not subject to Standard 21.1 when planning the complex (ibid. in paragraph 36) and in addition, that the considerations set forth therein do not dictate the considerations in the framework of an evacuation-reconstruction transaction, but rather the negotiations between the parties (ibid. in paragraph 44). This determination also strengthens the conclusion that this argument of the defendants should be rejected - at least since it was raised as a mere speculation that has not been proven.