Petah Tikva Approves Original Yarkonim Plan Despite Israel Lands Authority Opposition
The Subcommittee for Planning and Building in Petah Tikva recently recommended advancing the Yarkonim development plan according to the original alternative, which is based on equal and full land consolidation and division among all landowners. This decision, published yesterday and subject to amendments, contradicts the Israel Lands Authority's (ILA) position, which sought to exclude the central residential area from the consolidation mechanism and retain full rights over it. According to a valuation published last week by the Real Estate Center, the difference between the two alternatives could reach approximately 468 million shekels, which under the city's preferred plan would be distributed among all rights holders.
The Yarkonim development plan, located north of Petah Tikva and south of Highway 5, has been in planning for over two decades. It covers about 5,500 dunams along the Yarkon stream and aims to create a large green lung including a 1,200-dunam urban park for sports and recreation, a 1,100-dunam national park, and 650 dunams of agricultural land. The plan also includes significant urban development with around 2,800 housing units, 400,000 square meters of employment space, and 30,000 square meters of commercial area. Progress was delayed partly due to local authorities' concerns over the costs of developing and maintaining the large park.
The subcommittee emphasized that maintaining the original, equitable rights division mechanism is crucial for securing funding sources for park development. The plan received preliminary approval from the local committee in late 2021. However, in late 2022, shortly before the deposit hearing, the ILA requested permission from the Deputy Legal Advisor to the Government, Attorney Karmit Yulis, to promote a separate plan for its lands. In December 2024, Yulis allowed two separate alternatives to be discussed, leaving the final decision to planning bodies.
The local committee now states that the original alternative "provides the highest certainty for economic feasibility, plan implementation, and public access to the park," which is the plan's main goal. Conversely, the ILA-backed alternative, which excludes the central residential area (Area E) from the general consolidation, "creates a shortage of revenue resources for park development" and would require alternative state funding before plan approval. The city could also suffer financially if the ILA's alternative is approved, receiving only 13% of the land value increase as betterment levy instead of 50% under private land ownership.
At the heart of the dispute is the ILA's demand to create a separate balance table for Area E, which contains about 1,060 housing units, to keep all residential rights for itself. A recent appraisal by real estate appraiser Gilad Nir estimates the average land value per housing unit in Area E at 800,000 shekels, with employment land at 2,000 shekels per square meter and commercial land at 6,000 shekels per square meter. The total value of Area E is estimated at 848 million shekels. ILA lands constitute only about 11.8% of the consolidation area. Under the equitable division, ILA would receive rights worth about 380 million shekels, but under its preferred alternative, it would receive the full 848 million shekels, creating a 468 million shekel gap at the expense of private landowners.
Attorney Zvi Shuv, representing many private landowners, criticized the ILA's attempts to exclude private owners from their rightful shares through artificial separations, calling it a violation of property rights. He stressed the need for professional representation to ensure fair and transparent division in the final plan. Shuv also noted that the slow progress of the Yarkonim plan is partly due to concerns about the high costs of developing the large park, which covers about four-fifths of the area, while only one-fifth is designated for construction. He warned that the ILA's push to cancel long-standing planning decisions and claim double rights could severely harm the plan and landowners' rights, urging increased rights shares and opposition to the ILA's aggressive approach.
