Planning Discourse versus Land Discourse: The 2009–12 Reforms in Land‐Use Planning Policy and Land Policy in Israel

Abstract

Land policy and land-use planning policy are two types of public policy pertaining to space. In general, land-use planning policy deals with land-use allocation and property rights, whereas land policy defines the land regime of a society. These differences have shaped a unique discourse for each of these policy types. The purpose of this article is to examine the differences and similarities between the land discourse and the planning discourse by analyzing two public campaigns conducted in Israel against two proposed reforms: the 2009 reform of the Israel Land Administration and the 2010-12 reform of the Planning and Building Law. The findings reveal substantive differences between the two campaigns, manifested in the nature of the leading players, the types of public activities they chose, and most notably in the discourses and the hierarchy of considerations they addressed. The findings raise profound questions regarding universal trends in spatial policy reforms; their influence on the activities of public coalitions and the discourses they adopted; possible future effects of these trends on the differences between the land discourse and the planning discourse; and the impact of these trends on the ability of groups and individuals elsewhere to influence spatial policies (such as planning and land policies).

The End of Agricultural Supremacy: The 2009 Reform of Israel's National Land Policy

“…Some of these organizations even refer to these changes as an impressive achievement for them (Hananel 2012).…”

A “Supertanker” Against Bureaucracy in the Wake of a Housing Crisis: Neoliberalizing Planning in Netanyahu's Israel

“…For him, it was self-evident that the faults embedded in the land-use planning system had a direct impact on the under-performing housing market. 6 Contrary to previous attempts to loosen the grip of the central government, which has been a keystone of Netanyahu's planning reform (Hananel 2013), centralization of planning powers has defined an experimental approach for dealing with the housing crisis.…”

“…This latest bill has facilitated further shortening of the planning process by creating “one‐stop planning” for large‐scale “national housing projects” planned on state‐owned land, and introducing a new top‐level planning authority, the Committee for Preferred Housing Projects (CPHP). The logic of this second‐generation supertanker follows the principle of “one plan for one committee” which was part of Netanyahu's reform of the planning system (Hananel ), but the other way around: the centralization of planning powers instead of devolution. Under new regulation, the Housing Cabinet designates large‐scale housing plans as national projects, and the CPHP is authorized to endorse plans which are not in accordance with approved national and regional plans (except for NOP 35).…”

Towards a ‘Post‐Neoliberal’ Mode of Housing Regulation? The Israeli Social Protest of Summer 2011

“…We have a very small country, but we have made it even smaller because we have a multi-year government monopoly which makes our planning processes the slowest in the world'. 8 As this policy approach was also endorsed by the Trajtenberg Committee, the government pushed forward with reforms that had effectively already been underway since 2009, with an aim to 'shorten, streamline, simplify and speed up the processes of planning in Israel' (Hananel, 2013(Hananel, : 1617.…”

“…In December 2013, the Knesset extended the law a second time, but (in a departure from the previous version) included an important amendment making affordable housing mandatory for every future NHC plan. According to the fundamental principles of national land policy formulated at the first Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, 'land acquired as collective property of the Jews … could not be sold or transferred to private owners, but … could be leased for 49 years' (Hananel, 2013(Hananel, : 1613 The inclusion of a binding obligation is essential because regional and local authorities are often only interested in attracting the so-called 'stronger' population of wealthy upper-and middle-class households who prefer homeownership and want larger apartments. 11…”