Abstract
This paper brings the conceptual and methodological apparatus of the relational approach to the emergent conversation on displaceability – which is a novel concept underscoring the perpetual risk in urban environments of potential eviction, highlighting the ever-present tension between belonging and upheaval in contemporary urban settings. Drawing from case studies in Tel-Aviv and occupied East Jerusalem, I delve into two distinct local real estate valuation mechanisms: Tel Aviv’s Standard-21, which assesses project feasibility, and Jerusalem’s Article-219, a directive for appraising unauthorized construction. Set against Tel Aviv’s market driven context and the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, these mechanisms elucidate the local nuances of displaceability. Together, these cases underscore how valuation techniques perpetuate displaceability as a consistent and normalized facet of urban development. Yet, the paper also demonstrates how displaceability engenders resistance, as the acceptance of displacement as an inevitable urban reality prompts potential displacement victims to utilize the same socio-technical tools pointed against them to challenge this reality. Beyond a mere global overview, this paper delves into how displaceability is shaped by specific local socio-technical conditions. By emphasizing these nuances, it unravels both the intricate influences of regional factors and the overarching global implications of displaceability.
Introduction
In the vast expanse of urban studies, the act of displacement has long held the spotlight, revealing stories of uprooted lives and transformed neighborhoods (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020; Hirsh et al., 2020). Yet, as our cities and societies morph, it is evident that the dynamics of urban life are no longer defined solely by the act of displacement. Instead, a new term, ‘displaceability’ emerges to address a more pervasive concern (Yiftachel, 2020). Coined for our contemporary era, displaceability speaks to the condition of being perpetually at risk, living in the shadow of potential eviction. It is not just about the physical act of being moved, but the haunting, ever-present danger of it. This shift in focus, from tangible displacement to the looming threat thereof, uncovers a profound aspect of modern urban life: a constant tension between belonging and potential upheaval, where one’s right to engage with the city and its rhythm is always on the line.
The global implications of displaceability necessitate empirical investigations, demanding an understanding of how it manifests in tangible, real-world scenarios. This paper aims to fulfill this requirement by proposing a novel approach to investigating displaceability: analyzing it through the framework of real-estate valuations in urban settings. I anchor the methodology in a relational approach (Callon, 1998; Latour, 1991; Law, 2004), which posits that the essence is not rooted in inherent characteristics but rather in the interplay between various human and non-human actors. In line with this perspective, rather than seeking a universalized essence of displaceability, the paper delves into localized acts of real-estate valuations. By doing so, it aims to uncover the myriad ways in which displaceability materializes in diverse urban environments, offering a nuanced and granular understanding of this emergent phenomenon.
The elucidation of ‘displaceability’ as a concept not only broadens our understanding of urban citizenship beyond mere displacement but also calls for innovative approaches to study its impacts. It is within this context that the necessity for empirical investigation becomes apparent. In response to this need, the paper offers an innovative framework for studying displaceability, using real-estate valuations in urban environments as a key analytical tool. These valuations, although sometimes sidelined in academic discourse (for notable exceptions see: Davy, 2024; Weber, 2015; Crosby and Henneberry, 2016; Ansenberg, 2022; Mooya, 2016) wield considerable influence over the urban fabric. In other words, real estate valuations do not act as static markers but evolve as dynamic forces, generating changes that transform skylines, move communities, and reshape societal stories. A re-evaluation of a plot’s worth, whether occupied or vacant, reflects shifts far beyond mere financial transactions; it echoes alterations in the pulse and character of a city. By examining localized acts of real-estate valuations, my research aims to uncover a deeper understanding of how displaceability is enacted. This investigation serves as the research question, focusing on the various dimensions this emergent phenomenon assumes across different urban settings. Through this lens, insights into displaceability’s enactment offer a nuanced exploration of its impact and manifestations in diverse locales.
Building on the investigation’s broader framework, this research delves into two distinct real-estate valuation tools and their field manifestations: In Tel Aviv, the focus is on ‘Standard-21’, an economic viability test designed to ensure that urban-regeneration plans are not just fiscally sound but also generate ample profits for developers. Turning to occupied East Jerusalem, the analysis revolves around ‘Section-219’ of the Israeli Planning and Construction Law, which stipulates penalties for unauthorized constructions, setting them at double the value of the illegal structure. These tools are explored within two contrasting contexts in Israel: Tel Aviv, with its reputation as a finance-centric nexus, and East Jerusalem, characterized by its occupied status and deep-seated ethnic tensions. Such juxtapositions highlight the divergent ways in which valuation tools shape their respective realities. Moreover, it reveals that these methods not only illuminate displaceability’s nuances but, in some cases, also serve to mitigate its effects, underscoring the ironic necessity of employing the tools that facilitate displaceability to combat it.
The paper begins with an exploration of displaceability, advances to delineate its methodological framework and research context, and subsequently engages with case studies in Tel Aviv and occupied East Jerusalem. Within these examinations, it scrutinizes ‘Standard-21’ in Tel Aviv to assess its influence on displaceability in a market-oriented environment and delineates instances wherein valuation acts as a mitigatory mechanism against displaceability. Pertaining to East Jerusalem, the study investigates the repercussions of fines on unauthorized constructions on displaceability, complemented by a counter-narrative that elucidates reduced displaceability facilitated by valuation practices amid occupation. The manuscript concludes by articulating the profound impact of real estate valuations on urban narratives, underscoring their extensive implications for societal structures and spatial configurations.
Literature review
In recent years, displacement has emerged as a central theme in urban studies, reflecting the widespread concern over the involuntary relocation of individuals and communities across both the global north and the global south (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020; Hirsh et al., 2020; Walks and Soederberg, 2021). For instance, in India, large-scale development projects have displaced millions, while in cities like London, gentrification and housing affordability crises have similarly uprooted communities (Watt and Morris, 2024). Defined broadly, displacement refers to the compulsory relocation of individuals from their homes, workplaces, or communities. Displacement encompasses a range of involuntary movements, including development-induced displacement, eviction, and the more subtle forms of displacement such as gentrification, which collectively reveal the diverse mechanisms through which individuals and communities are forcibly relocated (Hirsh et al., 2020). This phenomenon occurs due to a myriad of factors, encompassing ethnic cleansing and violence in contested or informal areas, as well as through the implementation of policies and projects aimed at urban renewal, and economic development. Such initiatives, ostensibly designed to improve urban infrastructure and stimulate investment, often result in escalated property values and living costs. Consequently, these conditions force the original inhabitants, who can no longer afford their residences or commercial spaces, into displacement. This economic-driven displacement contrasts with more direct forms of displacement, such as the use of physical force, highlighting a spectrum of forces that uproot communities from their established locales (Yiftachel, 2020). Urban politics significantly influence the dynamics of displacement. Policies and decisions at the local government level can both worsen and alleviate the conditions leading to the forced relocation of residents. Such political actions have profound implications, extending displacement’s effects beyond mere physical relocation (Watt and Morris, 2024). The emotional toll and erosion of social cohesion can lead to a profound sense of loss and identity crisis among affected individuals. Moreover, displacement disrupts access to essential services, eroding established social networks and economic opportunities, thereby compounding its impact on community well-being (Zaban, 2023).
Scholarly discourse has delineated the multifarious catalysts of displacement, delving into the capitalistic ethos of urban development that foregrounds market-driven growth at the expense of resident welfare. Critical examinations within this field have identified capital investment, real estate speculation, and the commodification of public spaces as pivotal to the displacement narrative, elucidating how these factors instigate a pattern of gentrification and societal segregation (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020). Beyond the economic dimension, academic discussions also probe the salient role of identity conflicts, religious tensions, environmental challenges, and gender dynamics, framing displacement as a phenomenon deeply entrenched in the socio-political tapestry of urbanity (Hirsh et al., 2020). These insights reveal the nuanced and intersecting layers of influence that shape displacement, emphasizing its status as a complex, socio-economic, and politically charged process.
Studying displacement presents notable methodological hurdles (Watt and Morris, 2024). The complex nature of its causes and effects makes quantification and comprehensive understanding challenging. These challenges notwithstanding, communities facing displacement are not passive victims. Activists and affected groups deploy various resistance strategies, from grassroots mobilization to legal challenges, aiming to safeguard their right to remain and shape the urban development process. This activism underscores the resilience and agency of communities in confronting the forces of displacement (Yntiso, 2008).
An important limitation in the study of displacement has been its tendency to view it as a series of isolated events. Transitioning from this perspective, the concept of displaceability emerges as newly recognized and innovative. According to Yiftachel, it remains insufficiently examined (Yiftachel, 2020). Displaceability marks a significant shift, providing a deeper insight into vulnerability as an ongoing condition in urban settings and highlighting the broader, systemic nature of these vulnerabilities. It accentuates the continuous risk of losing access to essential rights and resources, thereby portraying a novel urban reality, and fostering a newly conceived sense of belonging across cities globally.
The consequences of displaceability extend across vital aspects of life, including housing, educational opportunities, employment prospects, access to healthcare, and even jeopardizing the fundamental right to citizenship (Watt and Morris, 2024). This condition disproportionately burdens vulnerable cohorts, including minorities, immigrants, women, the elderly, and young renters (Yiftachel, 2020), although its reach is progressively extending to encompass traditionally more secure demographic segments. Such an expansion illuminates displaceability’s pivotal role in shaping the contours of modern urban citizenship (Yiftachel and Cohen, 2022). Within this context, an individual’s exposure to displacement emerges as a critical measure of their urban citizenship’s vitality, with heightened vulnerability indicating diminished municipal rights and affiliations (Avni et al., 2022).
Displaceability is rooted in the concept of precarity, a condition that has emerged prominently in the current socio-economic landscape, characterized by uncertainty and insecurity in employment, identity, and social engagement (Standing, 2014). This condition delineates a growing class of people across the globe who lack the traditional securities associated with employment, including long-term contracts, predictable wages, and access to social protections. The precariat, as they are known, not only face job instability but also endure a profound identity crisis, lacking a stable occupational narrative to guide their lives. Their precarious position is exacerbated by a labor market increasingly dominated by flexible, short-term contracts and the gig economy, which demands constant adaptability without providing the stability or benefits historically associated with full-time employment (Standing, 2014). Displaceability extends the notion of precarity to the spatial dimension of individuals’ lives, particularly in urban environments. It encapsulates the vulnerability of the ‘urban precariat’ to being physically and socially displaced, reflecting not just the instability in the labor market but also the precariousness of housing and access to essential services.
Central to understanding displaceability is the recognition of how it is produced within a complex framework of institutional and policy mechanisms. This framework encompasses a range of regulatory and administrative processes, such as licensing requirements, school and service registrations, and the enforcement of financial agreements. These elements play a crucial role in shaping the degree to which individuals and communities are exposed to the risk of displacement, effectively determining their resilience or vulnerability to the forces that drive displaceability (Herman, 2020). Through this lens, the discourse on displaceability enriches the scholarship on displacement by offering nuanced insights into the systemic and pervasive risks that characterize urban living, particularly in the wake of capitalist speculation and commodification and in the shadow of colonial legacies. It calls for a deeper examination of the economic, political, and social dynamics that influence urban experiences and rights, setting the stage for the development of more inclusive and equitable urban policies.
This paper utilizes the relational approach to examine urban displaceability, highlighting the interdependent relationships between human decisions and non-human entities, such as real estate valuation tools. The relational approach, rooted in Law’s concepts of relational materiality and method assemblage (Law, 2004), and in Latour’s concept of Actor-Networks (Latour, 1991), acknowledges that urban dynamics are shaped by the complex interactions within networks of both human and technological actors. It shifts away from seeing these tools as mere passive reflectors of market conditions, recognizing instead their active role in constructing the urban fabric (Ansenberg and Marom, 2024; Faraias and Bender, 2010; Shilon and Kallus, 2018).
Real estate valuation tools, crucial in determining the condition of displaceability, do more than just prioritize economic indicators over community stability. They fundamentally alter the landscape by shaping the interpretation and the very nature of these indicators. The process involves not merely inputting and outputting data but transforming this data through specific formulas, resulting in outputs that can diverge significantly from the raw inputs. This manipulation of data underscores the tools’ influential role in redefining economic conditions, thereby impacting the susceptibility of communities to displacement. In other words, instead of merely reflecting market trends, these tools actively participate in the market’s construction, contributing to a socio-technical network that determines urban displaceability (Callon, 1998).
By challenging traditional narratives that attribute displacement solely to market dynamics, this paper points to the critical influence of valuation tools in shaping perceptions of value and stability within urban areas. It illustrates how these tools, through their adjustments and interpretations of data, contribute to a reality where displacement becomes more likely for long-standing residents.
Building on this foundation, a significant body of research highlights the critical, yet often overlooked, impact of algorithms, formulas, and valuation mechanisms on urban development (Ansenberg, 2022; Christophers, 2014; Crosby, 2019; Weber, 2015). These tools, far from being mere neutral computational aids, emerge as pivotal forces in molding urban landscapes and life experiences. An exemplar of this dynamic is Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a valuation formula used within urban redevelopment projects in the Midwestern United States, as researched by Rachel Weber (Weber, 2015). Tax Increment Financing operates by converting anticipated future tax revenues generated by increased property values into present-day investment funds, thereby influencing urban development paths and governance. Additionally, Neil Crosby and John Henneberry’s work on the financialization of the UK’s urban built environment (Crosby and Henneberry, 2016) offers another perspective, illustrating how commercial property valuation formulas significantly influence urban development trends. Both examples underscore the relational aspect of urban development, focusing on the interactions between human agents and technological entities. This perspective is crucial for understanding how technological tools and human decision-making co-construct urban reality.
Thus, this relational viewpoint offers a nuanced understanding of the urban ecosystem, portraying real estate valuation and other financial technologies not as inert or impartial, but as influential entities in urban development and the emergence of displaceability. These mechanisms actively insert specific values and presumptions into the urban framework, impacting choices related to development, investment, and space conservation. Consequently, they play a critical role in defining the experiences of those dwelling in these spaces, illustrating the complex interplay between technological systems, human decisions, and urban life.
In integrating this analysis into the broader discourse on displaceability, the paper contributes a critical dimension to our understanding of urban displacement. It underscores the complexity of the interactions that define urban living and its challenges, moving beyond conventional narratives to explore the nuanced ways in which non-human actors participate in the shaping of urban spaces. Through this lens, the study invites further exploration into the multifaceted interactions between human and non-human actors, aiming to forge a deeper understanding of the forces at play in urban displacement and the development of more holistic approaches to addressing its impacts.
Methodology
This article combines findings from two qualitative studies conducted in Tel Aviv and in occupied East Jerusalem between the years 2016–2017, and 2021–2024. The initial study, carried out in Tel Aviv from 2016–2017 over a span of 15 months, was an in-depth ethnographic investigation focusing on the municipal council’s engagement in planning and construction activities. The study examined the operations of various planning departments and committees within the Tel Aviv Council. Specifically, it involved attending meetings of the local planning committee, the city’s primary authority in planning decisions, composed of elected council representatives, and participating in the City Engineer Forum, a professional assembly consisting of personnel from all planning departments within the urban council. The study also concentrated on examining each of the zone-specific planning departments, which oversee the four distinct city zones. Additionally, it involved interviewing and shadowing employees across these departments as well as the office of property taxation, alongside other relevant departments including transportation, conservation, and infrastructure. The investigation also involved conducting an in-depth analysis of several urban regeneration projects. This included actively tracking their progress by collaborating closely with council-affiliated planning teams, conducting interviews with key stakeholders such as local tenants, developers, and freelance architects, attending court hearings concerning these plans, and participating in public meetings involving tenants, the council, and developers.
To deepen my comprehension of the relationship between real estate valuations and urban planning, with the goal of mastering their interconnection, I conducted a parallel study. This study focused on the practices and operations of appraisers. I interviewed 23 appraisers who were involved in the urban regeneration plans that I was following, serving as appraisers for one of the parties involved in those plans. Additionally, to immerse myself in and comprehend the underlying principles of this epistemic culture, I participated in real estate valuation training courses and attempted (though unsuccessfully) four out of the 12 licensing exams. Furthermore, I observed 10 real estate valuation arbitration processes, akin to legal proceedings, and meticulously analyzed valuation reports, court hearing protocols, and appraisers’ professional literature.
The exploration of real-estate valuation practices in occupied East Jerusalem, carried out from 2022–2024, involved conducting a series of 35 unstructured interviews. These interviews targeted appraisers from distinct groups: those representing the Jerusalem municipality, those advocating for the local Palestinian populace, arbitrators, and unaffiliated appraisers, including those associated with the Israeli government. In addition to exploring their general experiences, specific emphasis was placed on understanding their experiences working in East Jerusalem, especially noting the differences encountered here in comparison to other regions. The goal was to garner as balanced a perspective as possible, highlighting the nuances of real estate appraisal in a politically sensitive area. Efforts were made to select participants who were not only representative of the varied interests at play but also possessed significant experience in the field. Most appraisers interviewed brought with them extensive expertise, some having worked in the area for dozens of years, thus providing deep insights into the complexities and unique challenges of operating in East Jerusalem.
Supporting these interviews, I utilized MAXQDA software to systematically organize, analyze, and interpret a collection of documents, including 50 valuation reports from the Jerusalem municipality, 50 appeals by Palestinian appraisers, and 100 arbitration verdicts, along with a deep dive into 25 arbitration court protocols. The software’s capabilities were pivotal in structuring the dataset for comprehensive analysis, allowing me to uncover patterns, discrepancies, and notable trends across the documents.
This process involved a detailed examination of the methodologies used in valuations and appeals, identification of differences in approaches between municipal and Palestinian appraisers, and pinpointing gaps within arbitration verdicts and court proceedings. The objective was to achieve a nuanced understanding of the valuation dispute process, by highlighting consistencies and variances in practices, thereby offering insights into the dynamics at play in property valuation conflicts within occupied east Jerusalem. To supplement these findings, five ground tours in East Jerusalem were organized between October 2022 and March 2023. These tours were led by me for two of the sessions and by a retired appraiser previously employed by the Jerusalem council for the remaining three. The purpose of these tours was to traverse occupied East Jerusalem, familiarizing with the area and inspect specific properties subject to arbitration court deliberations. During these tours, I was provided with detailed insights into the reality of the ground situation. This included observations on the area’s appearance, the living conditions, and the complexities and challenges faced when operating within such informally structured areas. These firsthand experiences were crucial in understanding the nuances and intricacies that could not be fully captured through interviews, and document analysis alone. Additionally, the tours facilitated direct interactions with a few local homeowners entangled in arbitration court proceedings. These conversations offered invaluable perspectives from the residents affected by the valuation disputes, further enriching my understanding of the social and human dimensions involved in these processes.
Contextual background
This study examines two real estate valuation tools within contrasting urban contexts, focusing on their effects on displaceability. Standard-21 assesses the economic viability of private development projects, and its application within Tel Aviv’s private development regime is analyzed to understand how viability examinations amid urban regeneration participation is shaping displaceability. Concurrently, Section-219, an article within the Israeli Planning and Construction Law that mandates fines for unauthorized constructions to be double the unauthorized property’s value, is scrutinized in the context of occupied East Jerusalem. This examination highlights the impact of valuation tools in complex ethnic environments on displaceability.
Standard-21
Standard-21 is a valuation tool devised by the Israeli Appraiser Standards Committee to evaluate the economic viability of privately led construction projects, ensuring they are capable of yielding sufficient returns for developers, with a targeted profit margin of 25% to 30%. 1 This margin reflects the considerable risks for developers associated with urban regeneration, including uncertainties in obtaining planning permissions, variations in construction costs, market instability, operational expenditures, and financing difficulties. Recent studies examining the functionality and effects of viability tools, such as Standard-21, indicate that their significance surpasses mere financial assessments, as they play a critical role in delineating the parameters and distinctive features of urban regeneration endeavors (Ansenberg, 2022; Christophers, 2014; Crosby, 2019; Crosby and Wyatt, 2016; Weber, 2015).
For example, it has been demonstrated that financial viability assessments often prioritize developer profits over community benefits, such as affordable housing or infrastructure improvements as it allows them to argue for lower contributions towards community amenities by asserting financial non-viability (Crosby and Wyatt, 2016). Additional studies further observe a transition of viability exams into a ‘closed system’ or ‘black box,’ at which point it becomes a dominant force in shaping the dynamics between political and professionals figures. As shown by Christophers (2014) this process emboldens political authorities to exert control over urban development decisions, often sidelining residents’ interests and needs in favor of technical and economic considerations. This dynamic underscore the growing influence of (so called) technical assessments in dictating the terms of urban development and affordable housing, highlighting a shift towards decision-making processes that are less transparent and more influenced by professional and political agendas. Therefore, the increasing centrality of viability assessments provides developers and politicians with significant leverage to advance their agendas with minimal opposition, illustrating a nuanced power dynamic where viability assessments are strategically employed to favor specific outcomes, thus questioning their claimed neutrality (Crosby and Henneberry, 2016). Moreover, in areas deemed ‘infeasible’ for development, it has been reported that viability assessments often block construction, reducing development opportunities and increasing displacement risks (Ansenberg, 2022).
The well-documented connection between urban regeneration and displacement (Dixon, 2007; Geva and Rosen, 2018; Knox, 2017), underscores the significance of displaceability, or the increased risk of being displaced, as a critical outcome of urban regeneration efforts. Urban regeneration, by its nature a protracted endeavor, not only contributes to but also exacerbates displaceability. This stems from its lengthy process, which can span dozens of years, from initiation to fruition, thereby embedding the risk of eviction as a continuous threat over an extended period. This enduring risk of displacement, which may last for several decades, highlights the profound uncertainty faced by residents throughout the urban regeneration process. This phenomenon, characterized by the protracted nature of urban regeneration initiatives and their consequent prolonged periods during which the risk of eviction looms, constitutes a challenge of global dimensions (Knox, 2017). Notably, this issue manifests with equal pertinence in Israel, serving as the specific locus of investigation for this study (Zaban, 2023).
The impact of displaceability on areas undergoing urban regeneration is notable, particularly in communities where long-standing residents frequently hesitate to upgrade their homes, often for decades. This reluctance stems from the uncertainty surrounding anticipated urban transformations, causing their surroundings to deteriorate amidst the looming prospect of change (Zaban, 2023). Such an atmosphere of anticipation also affects renters, who, wary of imminent displacement, hold back from community investments (Crosby, 2020). As property values escalate, younger generations find it challenging to continue living in their childhood neighborhoods, a phenomenon that fragments families (Dragan et al., 2020). This wave of urban renewal, while introducing modernity, risks sidelining local traditions and businesses (Ansenberg, 2022). The elderly, having spent years in their neighborhoods, grapple with the disruption of relocation (Wang et al., 2022). Additionally, discussions surrounding urban redesign stir community divisions, with residents’ varied aspirations and benefits often at odds, thereby straining community ties (Geva and Rosen, 2018).
In building upon the insights from previous studies, this paper aims to explore the complex dynamics by which viability assessments, particularly through the lens of Standard-21, shape and perpetuate the phenomenon of displaceability within the context of privately led urban regeneration projects. This exploration seeks to illuminate the nuanced mechanisms through which such assessments not only forecast but actively contribute to the evolving landscape of displacement risks, thereby influencing the lived realities of communities facing urban redevelopment.
Section-219
Section-219, a component of the Israeli Planning and Construction Law, mandates a penalty of twice the value of the unauthorized property for unauthorized construction on the property’s owners, thereby exacerbating tensions and complexities within the already volatile environment of occupied East Jerusalem. This area, a focal point of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has seen its challenges magnified recently due to an escalation in hostilities, reaching levels of intensity and volatility previously unseen. The post 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem has led to significant socio-political changes, resulting in increased confrontations between the Palestinian residents and the Israeli defense forces, law enforcement, and settlers (Shtern, 2019). Moreover, the construction of barriers to segregate and neglect certain areas is indicative of a broader strategy aimed at altering the economic and political fabric of East Jerusalem (Shlomo, 2017). This strategy not only favors the development of specific zones but also exacerbates disputes in others, thereby contributing to the overall tension and complexity of the situation. In light of these events, over 20,000 buildings in East Jerusalem are considered unauthorized under Israeli Planning Law. This classification places owners at risk of either being fined or facing eviction, thereby contributing to a state of displaceability for residents. This circumstance not only pertains to the inhabitants of these unapproved dwellings but also encompasses all other Palestinian residents who, akin to those residing in the unauthorized properties, may promptly encounter unauthorized scenarios. Consequently, they become susceptible to potential hazards like demolitions, displacement, retroactive taxation, and financial sanctions (Abu Hatoum, 2021; Abuzaid and Yiftachel, 2022).
The Israeli authorities continuously monitor and assess the conditions, development, and fiscal values of these unauthorized properties. This practice has given rise to two parallel paths of government-residents conduct: a legal path and an economic path, which are both characterized by official evaluations of the seemingly illegal properties for either penalization purposes or for future demolition. While the legal evaluations reflect a standard judiciary conduct, the economic evaluations are exceptional in relation to the professional norms of real-estate valuations. This is due to the fact that despite being officially perceived as illegal by the Israeli government, the constructions are de-facto appraised as if they were legal (or “pseudo-legal”), a process that allows the extrapolation of their ‘real’ market value. Thus, real-estate valuation practices that are seemingly mundane in other environments gain extra complexity in the case of East Jerusalem’s grey space context (Avni and Yiftachel, 2014), raising questions such as: Which urban property markets should provide points of reference? Should these be the Israeli West Jerusalem markets, the West Bank markets, or the ‘illegal’ East Jerusalem market? In practice, as the head of the Israeli Government Appraiser’s Board admitted in an interview (11.6.2023), both options are equally valid, depending on the specific appraiser and the situation. Real-estate valuations thus become actors who directly implement this state of affairs. The significance of Section-219 within this complex framework is striking. As previously noted, under the Planning and Construction Law, fines for unauthorized construction can reach up to twice the current market value of the concerned structure. Consequently, the inquiry concerning the professional decision-making protocols of appraisers assumes heightened significance within the framework of these practices.
In conclusion, Article 219 exemplifies the multifaceted challenges of displaceability in East Jerusalem, serving as a pivotal junction where legal, economic, and socio-political threads intertwine. This provision not only amplifies the precariousness faced by Palestinian residents but also underscores the significance of property valuation in the broader discourse on legality, economic assessment, and the ever-present threat of displacement. Thus, it stands as a critical marker in understanding the nuanced interrelations that define the lived reality of the occupation.
Standard-21 - Market led displaceability in Tel-Aviv
The analysis thus far has underscored the significance of urban regeneration initiatives as major drivers of displaceability, imposing an ongoing risk of eviction for local inhabitants. This dynamic stems from the extensive and enduring nature of such regeneration efforts, which unfold over years or even decades, perpetually leaving communities in a state of susceptibility. The forthcoming discussion aims to shed light on the role of Standard-21 in sustaining this vulnerable state. By adopting a more nuanced perspective, it will be shown that Standard-21 is not merely a passive element in urban regeneration but acts as an intermediator with considerable agency. This capability allows Standard-21 to significantly influence the direction and outcomes of urban regeneration, by dictating planning and economic frameworks, endorsing market-driven approaches to redevelopment, affecting urban characteristics, and shifting power relations within the planning landscape. In recognizing Standard-21’s agency, it becomes clear that its interactions can lead to varied consequences, not only exacerbating displaceability but also potentially offering means to mitigate such vulnerabilities. Thus, this section endeavors to present a balanced exploration of Standard-21’s dualistic role in urban environments, illustrating its capacity to both foster and alleviate conditions of displaceability.
Steering the planning & economic boundaries
In the initial stages of urban regeneration planning the application of Standard-21 is crucial for determining the project’s ‘multiplier.’ This concept refers to the essential ratio of new construction compared to existing buildings. The process of calculating this multiplier involves an intricate analysis of expected future revenues from the sale of properties redeveloped as part of urban regeneration efforts. These projections are meticulously compared against the total anticipated costs, which encompass construction expenses, compensation for the improvement of properties owned by existing residents, and the fulfillment of tax obligations.
The endeavor to achieve a 25% profit margin, as prescribed by Standard-21 guidelines, is far from straightforward. It typically necessitates extensive negotiations among various stakeholders. This includes appraisers representing developers, who consistently seek to reduce the estimates of expected revenues to justify extensive construction activities, and for the same reason, argue that all anticipated costs are higher, and council appraisers, who are tasked with ensuring the feasibility of the project while aiming to limit excessive construction. Additionally, local residents play a crucial role, as they seek to maximize the benefits received in exchange for their agreement to the development plans.
Therefore, the application of Standard-21 in urban regeneration projects is not merely a matter of financial analysis but involves a dynamic and often contentious negotiation process. This process aims to reconcile differing priorities and expectations among developers, local authorities, and residents. The meticulous debate over each item in the cost versus expenses table underlines the complexity and critical nature of these discussions. This intricate balance of interests highlights the importance of Standard-21 in guiding the financial planning and stakeholder negotiation processes in urban regeneration projects.
Upon the establishment of the multiplier following extensive negotiations that scrutinize every facet of the proposed plan, this figure is often safeguarded as a fixed reference point for years, steering all construction projects encapsulated within the urban regeneration initiative. This persistence largely stems from the planning authorities’ hesitance to adjust the plan’s multiplier, despite the passage of time and the potential obsolescence of the original projections in terms of profitability analysis. Consequently, from the initiation of the planning process and over the ensuing years, the multiplier solidifies its status as a foundational principle. It guides both developers and regulatory bodies in determining the scope of feasible development and rejuvenation within the targeted urban area. This approach underscores the significance of the multiplier in shaping the trajectory of urban regeneration projects, anchoring the expectations and strategic decisions of all stakeholders involved in the endeavor.
To illustrate how Standard-21 shapes the planning boundaries, I shall provide an example from the La Guardia Project - a significant endeavor initiated by the Tel-Aviv council in 2009 that holds the objective of transforming a suburban area into a vibrant city center. As part of the La-Guardia initial plan, specific multipliers were established (ranging from 1:3 to 1:4), prescribing the required ratio of new construction concerning the existing buildings. Since then, 10 plans that were made for the street strictly followed these calculations (without seriously taking into consideration the fact that the area’s values have most definitely seen a sharp increased since then) and thus permitting only the construction of buildings that are 3–4 times bigger in size then the existing ones. Despite the advocacy of certain residents for a reduction in the multipliers to safeguard the green environment and preserve the neighborhood’s character, revisiting the plan posed substantial complexities, resulting in the council’s continuous refusal to make the requested changes, thus maintaining the original numerical values.
From the above discussion we learn how Standard-21, serving as a compliance-based valuation formula, functions as an intermediary that significantly contributes to the condition of displaceability in the context of urban regeneration projects. The process through which the ‘multiplier’ is determined and subsequently solidified into the project’s fabric illustrates a critical interaction between technical planning mechanisms and human agency. This multiplier, once established, becomes a dominant factor that shapes the project’s direction, often at the expense of community needs and environmental considerations. Its rigidity and the planning authorities’ reluctance to revisit this cornerstone figure result in a scenario where local communities are marginalized, their ability to influence development outcomes severely limited - sometimes, as in the case of the La Guardia Road project - for dozens of years. The creation and inflexible nature of the multiplier not only dictate the scale of construction activities but also prioritize economic considerations over the well-being and preferences of the existing population, setting the stage for displacement. Thus, through the lens of Standard-21’s application in cases like the La Guardia Project, it is possible to observe how technical methodologies interweave with societal dynamics, ultimately facilitating a landscape where the potential for community displacement is both a direct consequence and a continuous threat.
The tilt towards market-centric regeneration
A public’s participation meeting that took place in the outskirts of Tel-Aviv taught me that the Standard-21 files are not simply responsible for the amount of the newly added construction, but, as a result of the same calculations, are responsible for the provocation (Muniesa, 2014) of the very viability of construction itself.
I observed this trend firsthand during a meeting at a run-down community center on the fringes of Tel-Aviv. The gathering aimed to collect input from residents, a standard procedure during the early stages of every plan. As the meeting progressed, it became evident that the figures were not aligning. Based on Standard-21’s guidelines, developers would only invest in the area if they could replace each old apartment with eight new ones.
These one-to-eight ‘multiplier’, the biggest I have witnessed during my entire fieldwork, made the future regeneration process highly unlikely. Seeing as these economic conditions made any further planning under these terms unattainable, the planning team explained that its central challenge is to find ‘solutions’ to this economic reality. These solutions were based on the merging of multiple small plots into a few sizable lots on which extremely tall skyscrapers will rise. Hoping that the mere existence of a plan will provide some certainty regarding the future of the area, which means less controversy regarding the estimated profit margins, which in turn will increase the local values and entice developers, the planning team tried to create the conditions that might allow for this to happen.
The picturesque descriptions of the head architect, which portrayed a bright future where this dusty neighborhood is transformed into an ‘urban pearl’, with a high street that will resemble the coveted Iban-Gavirol ideal - Tel-Aviv’s longest and most fashionable semi-commercial semi-residential road, could not disguise the fact that the ‘planning perspective’ was pushed aside in favor of the valuation necessity according to which only if a huge, most definitely untenable, number of new apartments will be built, is there some hope that 1 day, in the remote future, the area might be reconstructed.
The implementation of Standard-21 in the Tel-Aviv outskirts significantly increases the risk of displacement by creating unattainable economic conditions for redevelopment, like the one-to-eight replacement ratio. This regulatory framework inadvertently commodifies the area, pushing for high-rise developments that escalate property values and exclude more socially oriented, government-funded options. As a result, residents are left in a state of limbo, awaiting market adjustments that seldom align with Standard-21’s stringent requirements. This extended uncertainty exacerbates the community’s vulnerability, as the transformed urban landscape and inflated property values threaten to displace existing communities, compelling them to leave their homes and neighborhoods without viable alternatives. In other words, by acting as a tool intended to provoke change, Standard-21, in its role as a policy mechanism, forces the local community to endure prolonged periods of hardship, often lasting many years, sometimes decades. This leaves them in a vulnerable state until the market shifts. And indeed, during the public participation meeting itself, the local residents preferred to use their limited time with a council representative to voice their concerns about what they perceive as local ‘cultural problems’—including littering from upper-story windows, dilapidated buildings, and a general feeling of insecurity—rather than discussing the proposed construction project and its core valuation formula.
Redefining neighborhood characteristics
At the heart of urban regeneration, Standard-21 emerges as a pivotal hub around which all negotiations orbit, shaping the intricate dance between developers, homeowners, and city planners. This document not only delineates the scope of construction projects and influences construction activities but also sets the stage for a complex narrative of negotiation and displacement. Constant negotiations engender a state of displacement, placing the local population in a perennial state of vulnerability. They are compelled to fiercely negotiate to maintain their conditions, facing the risk of significant loss if they cannot remain focused and resilient. This delicate balance underscores the necessity for cooperation amidst a backdrop where the dynamics of negotiation strive to pull stakeholders apart.
In the preceding sections, I delved into the nuances of the Standard-21 documents, underscoring their critical role in shaping construction activities and determining the extent of construction projects. Yet, a deeper examination reveals that these documents transcend their mathematical foundation. They encapsulate socio-material processes - a melding of debates and tangible influences - all converging towards one goal: achieving the 25% profit mark.
Navigating the costs and revenues columns in these documents presents a balancing act. Developers aim for optimal profit margins, while homeowners engage in ongoing negotiations with them, and planning departments seek an equilibrium that aligns with the city’s broader interests. Standard-21, acting as an active participant with agency, mandates the satisfaction of specific data requirements, thereby influencing the dynamics of this balancing act by shaping decisions and outcomes in urban regeneration projects.
Central to these discussions is the choice of construction materials, with decisions informed by detailed price lists that outline the cost-per-meter for various materials. The distinction between ‘standard’ and ‘premium’ materials often blurs, affecting choices like tile selection, heating systems, window installations, and countertops. Developers grapple with whether to adhere to ‘standard’ quality or opt for luxury, betting that future returns will justify the higher upfront costs.
But the conversation extends beyond infrastructure. The human element is deeply intertwined, with developers providing assurances about construction quality as a strategic element in negotiations. The minutiae of details become focal points of debate, from the positioning of an apartment within a building to the distribution of units among developers and homeowners. Amenities like parking, gardens, and balconies, along with considerations like alternative housing during renovations, add layers of complexity to budget discussions. Regulatory requirements also have significant budgetary implications.
Taxation adds another layer of complexity, with local and state taxes imposing various regulations. While tax incentives encourage property renovation, predicting these costs amid fluctuating real estate values is challenging. In my Tel-Aviv ethnography, I have repeatedly witnessed how this unpredictability serves as a tool that both developers and homeowners exploit, adjusting the Standard-21 calculations to their advantage.
The revenue sections of Standard-21 are also battlegrounds of ongoing negotiation, where developers typically aim to justify the lowest possible future selling prices. This tactic is strategically employed to secure enhanced development rights, aiming to meet the 25% profit margin mandated by the Standard-21 document. Conversely, the council and residents’ endeavor to argue for higher valuations, presenting a counterbalance to the developers underestimate estimates. This tug-of-war reflects the contrasting objectives of each party, with developers seeking more favorable conditions for profit maximization, while the council and residents push for assessments that reflect a more optimistic market potential.
In conclusion, what might have once been seen as discrete, specialized activities now intersect within the Standard-21 document’s cost/revenue table. This integration illustrates the complex nature of urban planning and underscores the indispensable role of Standard-21 in guiding the trajectory of urban initiatives. As these negotiations unfold over the years of crafting the urban regeneration plan, they catalyze displacement, casting the local population into a perpetual state of vulnerability. In this dynamic environment, the local community’s ability to navigate these negotiations becomes critical to their survival, highlighting the importance of cooperation in the face of forces that seek to divide.
Decentralizing political influence & power dynamics
Urban planning in Israel is a strictly regulated process. Each urban plan needs local committee approval before possibly escalating to the Regional Planning Committee. These local committees, composed of unpaid, elected members, often struggle to fully comprehend the highly technical documents due to a lack of expertise and time. These documents are meticulously prepared by a team of planning professionals, creating a contrast between their comprehensive creation and the committee’s limited understanding.
In Tel-Aviv, when a developer is seeking to advance a plan, she must enlist an architect for planning. This architect must liaise with the appropriate council planning sub-department to obtain all necessary data and to be assigned a supervisor who will guide the plan’s development in alignment with the council’s viewpoints on key issues. Once the supervisor approves the draft, the architect must then engage with other specialized planning sub-departments (including Transportation, Conservation, Strategic Planning, Education, Infrastructure, City-Architect, Economic Valuation, and Law) for their feedback, and subsequently refine the plan as necessary.
Ultimately, the draft undergoes evaluation at the City Engineer’s Forum, a gathering that includes delegates from all planning sub-departments led by the city engineer and the head of the planning department. Here, the architect and their team engage in a thorough dialogue about the plan and its role within the cityscape. Post discussion, the plan may require revisions or may progress to the Local Planning Committee for final validation. Rarely, the proposal may be rejected or referred to the Regional Planning Committee for further consideration.
Once the draft proceeds from the City Engineer’s Forum to the Local Planning Committee, it is considered to be endorsed by the entire professional planning department. This sentiment is echoed by the city engineer’s guarantee to developers - “the plan will be approved in the local planning committee if I want it to” (11.9.2017).2 This declaration underscores the role of planning professionals as the primary orchestrators of the planning process, with elected council representatives perceived as a hurdle to be navigated. A senior architect affiliated with the council once shared his perspective that if he held the city engineer’s position, his priority would be: To provide certainty to the developers that everything that was agreed upon with the planning department will be approved by the local planning committee... [as this is the only way to make sure that] developers will cooperate with the planning department and all planning processes will go smoothly (15.08.2017).
Council planners describe various strategies to circumvent the influence of Local Planning Committee members. The significant volume of plans and complex, technical reading material presented at each session effectively exclude most committee members from meaningful participation in the planning process. Political commitments often lead members to remain silent during sessions, aligning their votes with the planning department’s preferences. The Standard-21 documents take centre stage in the planning department’s strategic maneuvering, serving as a pivotal tool leveraged in their tactical engagement with elected members. These documents are treated as foundational facts, or unassailable truths upon which all further planning depends. For example, they frequently act as constraints to plan modifications. This is substantiated by prevalent contentions that changes could disrupt the economic feasibility of a project due to the unalterable essence of the Standard-21, a steadfast pillar in the planning process. To illustrate, during the planning process for a major urban project in Tel Aviv, the economic viability assessment effectively thwarted discussions surrounding potential alternatives, in a manner akin to the La-Guardia Road meetings where it was stated that: The request to decrease the amount of construction is not possible as all quantity is based upon the Standard-21 document (11.8.2016).
These instances underscore the potent role of Standard-21 documents in constraining modifications within the planning process. Nevertheless, despite these explicit instances, the enforcement of economic-viability imperatives is often implicitly acknowledged in private discussions, rather than explicitly stated in formal settings.
From an ethnographic perspective, based on my year-long observation of all Local Planning Committee meetings, the Standard-21 documents were presented akin to other ‘factual’ metrics. These metrics, such as the land size or the projected amount of new construction, were often introduced early in the plan’s draft or PowerPoint presentation or embedded within complex technical tables. These ‘hard facts’ constituted the immutable groundwork upon which the plan was constructed.
As described above, the Standard-21 framework permeates every aspect of the planning process. It informs not only the overarching plan but also intricate details such as apartment sizes, local residence impacts, and more. These facets are negotiated using the Standard-21 as a benchmark, or foundational facts, establishing the parameters of successful argumentation. The progression of a plan from the planning department to the planning committee is underpinned by the Standard-21 logic, which aims to secure a profit margin of 25 to 30%. This underpinning stabilizes the entire planning network. The planning department’s responsibility is to ensure compliance with the Standard-21 guidelines. The political committee, incapable of destabilizing the economic underpinnings of the plan, often witnesses a blurred distinction between politics and planning, as observed during the ethnography.
In conclusion, the outlined process not only fosters a condition of displaceability among local communities by prioritizing economic imperatives through Standard-21 guidelines and complex negotiations, but it also leads to a significant loss of control for these communities over the planning process. As the intricacies of the planning documents and the professional jargon alienate local politicians - who are meant to represent community interests - the power shifts towards the planning professionals, and developers. This shift dilutes the political accountability that is crucial for ensuring community needs are addressed, leaving residents in a state of vulnerability and exacerbating their risk of displacement as urban development priorities focus on financial gains over social and community stability. This process engenders a state of displaceability rather than immediate displacement because it creates an environment of uncertainty and risk for communities, without necessarily leading to immediate forced removal. The loss of control and diminished political accountability mean that communities live with the constant threat of displacement, as decisions are made that prioritize economic gains over their well-being, thus perpetuating a precarious existence within the urban landscape.
Standard-21 ability to generate scenarios devoid of displaceability
In the complex world of real estate valuations, its role as a mediating factor in the production of displaceability emerges, leading to varied manifestations of displaceability across different contexts. Yet, it is crucial to note that while real estate valuations active involvement has often contributed to the production of displaceability, it equally possesses the potential to produce alternatives to this phenomenon.
Illustrative of the intricate dynamics at play, in Tel Aviv, the council’s construction company independently leads urban regeneration efforts, prioritizing enhanced security and risk mitigation before partnering with developers. Such a strategy facilitates a reduced profit ratio in the standard-21 calculation, ultimately benefiting local residents by attenuating the severity of displaceability.
In the forthcoming section, we will delve into this illustrative case that serve to elucidate the intricate relationship between displaceability and real estate valuations. By closely examining these instances, the intent is to shed light on the inherently local nature of displaceability. This case study underscores the significance of local forces and their capability to shape, amplify, or mitigate the impact of displaceability.
Reducing the standard-21 in Tel-Aviv’s urban renewal plan
Throughout the fieldwork, it became increasingly evident that the Tel-Aviv council is developing a keen awareness of the consequences stemming from its interaction with Standard-21. Consequently, it developed a set of tools to interact with it: 1. It facilitated the creation of homeowner association fee payments by securing the developer’s commitment to cover these expenses for the initial 10 years, specifically targeting residents who are not investors. Subsequent to the renovation and construction of luxury new apartments, these fees have escalated substantially, transitioning from a nominal sum of several dozen NIS to exceeding a thousand NIS. 2. It promoted a regulation that enables residents, particularly those in the elderly demographic, to partition their recently acquired homes following urban regeneration. This initiative aims to facilitate the possibility of renting out a portion of the residence, thereby generating supplementary income from rental proceeds, and it was undertaken with varying degrees of success. 3. It integrated diverse factors into the plans aimed at diminishing expenses, consequently leading to a reduction in the requisite profit. These factors encompassed a reduction in the allocation of parking spaces, the creation of smaller apartment units, a limitation to a maximum of eight floors to obviate the necessity for dual elevators, and other analogous measures.
All these procedures stem from endeavors to strategically influence the calculations dictated by Standard 21, thus underscoring the municipality’s profound recognition of the influential capacity inherent in this feasibility assessment.
Another substantial endeavor in this vein is undertaken by the subsidiary firm for planning and construction under the aegis of the Tel-Aviv municipality, known as ‘Ezra and Bitsaron’ (EB, henceforth). EB actively sought out buildings projected to undergo urban regeneration, and subsequently offered their residents the opportunity for potential inclusion under its purview. With this objective in mind, EB established multiple offices within Tel Aviv’s vicinities slated for imminent urban regeneration. These offices served as centers for dispensing support and disseminating information to the community residents. Concurrently, EB proactively deployed agents to traverse the local environs, engaging in direct communication with the populace. The primary intent behind these initiatives was to garner the endorsement of a significant proportion of property owners within these locales, effectively positioning EB as the preferred choice, akin to selecting a developer who advocates for the building’s proposed plan.
The proposition put forth by EB to the residents is characterized by its straightforwardness. The company commits to funding the planning phase, which entails a substantial monetary outlay in the order of several million NIS. Furthermore, EB offers assistance to residents in identifying a developer, albeit in a subsequent phase following plan approval. This sequential approach substantially mitigates risk for the developer, who enters the project at a juncture where the plan has already secured approval, eliminating the need to contend with the uncertainties associated with substantial modifications or potential rejections. Consequently, developers are inclined to accept lower profit margins given the diminished risk exposure. The variance between the reduced profit margins and the conventional 25% profit margin will be allocated toward the betterment of the local community, thereby alleviating the impact of displacement.
As an integral component of my research endeavor, I undertook a comprehensive examination of EB’s planning procedure for a specific building situated on La Guardia Road in East Tel-Aviv. This planning endeavor culminated in the formulation of a notably harmonized blueprint, which effectuated considerably lesser alterations to the local milieu. Moreover, this evolved plan manifested an array of benefits for the local populace, including the provision of more spacious dwellings, incorporation of verdant rooftop areas, and the establishment of public parks that are strategically conceived as communal hubs, thereby serving to safeguard the local community. Additionally, the plan exhibited a commitment to restrain the deployment of opulent structures that could potentially induce the displacement of residents.
Remaining in sync with market dynamics and adhering to Standard 21 calculations, EB effectively harnessed these factors to its advantage. By skillfully manipulating the viability assessment, the company aimed to foster a local environment characterized by reduced susceptibility to displacement and enhanced security for the resident population. This exemplifies how, when strategically interacted with, REV can mitigate displacement as much as it can facilitate it.
Section-219 – ethnic led colonial displaceability in east Jerusalem
In East Jerusalem, real estate appraisers face a unique challenge with their interaction with ‘Section-219,’ a regulation that imposes a penalty twice the value of any unauthorized constructions. This situation requires a deep understanding and interaction with a complex valuation formula, which, in essence, operates with its own set of rules. Appraisers are tasked with more than just applying this formula; they must navigate through a dense landscape of standards and legal requirements. Their role is critical in ensuring property valuations are conducted with precision and in full compliance with this regulation, embodying a careful balance between professional judgment and the autonomous nature of the valuation process itself. Such a task is compounded by the scarcity of essential data, making the process fraught with unpredictability. This unpredictability not only challenges appraisers’ ability to perform their duties but also contributes to the instability faced by the community, as the potential for displacement looms larger with every assessment that may or may not accurately reflect the true value of the properties in question.
Against this backdrop, appraisers encounter several pivotal dilemmas: 1. 2. 3.
Considering the three examples provided, it is crucial to recognize the dynamic interplay between the formal valuation formulas and the personal judgment of the appraiser. Faced with the absence of clear data and explicit agreements, appraisers are compelled to not just find but creatively produce data that aligns with the required valuation formulas. This necessity for creativity in data production opens considerable space for appraisers to exercise professional discretion. However, this discretion comes with its own set of challenges and responsibilities, as the choices made can significantly impact the outcomes of valuations and, by extension, the lives and stability of the residents in East Jerusalem.
Building on the complexities identified in the appraisal process within East Jerusalem, the scarcity of available data notably exacerbates these challenges. Palestinian residents’ hesitance to report property transactions to the tax authority’s database emerges from concerns over potential land confiscations, a profound mistrust in the Israeli administrative system, and apprehensions about being perceived as legitimizing or normalizing relations with the occupying Israeli authorities. This database, pivotal for valuation methodology, is supposed to compile comprehensive data on sales prices across the nation. Additionally, the absence of detailed information on construction expenses, encompassing material costs and labor charges, further complicates the valuation process, highlighting the intricate task appraisers face in a context deprived of crucial data.
Appraisers employed by the Israeli authorities characterize this situation as follows: You find yourself in a realm of obscurity when delving into the intricacies of East Jerusalem. The true property prices within the market remain privy solely to those who have engaged in property sales within the region. Grasping the dynamics of this market is akin to unraveling an enigma. It is a market characterized by opacity and deception, frequently labeled as a 'market of misinformation (21.2.2012).
As elucidated by an appraiser affiliated with the Jerusalem council, the lack of comprehensive data creates a predicament wherein Jewish appraisers encounter challenges in ascribing values they deem precise, for example in the context of levying taxes upon the local Palestinian community: We are being taken advantage of in the most egregious way, but we have no means to fight back. We are left with no data, no contracts, and no information. Everyone is suffering as a result, including the Jerusalem council, the Israeli tax authorities, and the Israeli National Insurance. Palestinians are able to construct large complexes and pay significantly less in taxes than a Jewish person would for a simple renovation such as converting a balcony into a room. This is a form of reverse discrimination (22.2.2012).
As previously noted, these factors exert a comparable influence on Article 219 valuations, leading to their downward adjustment owing to the scarcity of accessible data. In this context, the application of REV generates a scenario within the ethno-conflict milieu of East Jerusalem, wherein the Palestinian community stands to gain. Consequently, according to a Palestinian appraiser, their experience with displaceability is somewhat mitigated: The official taxes bills from the Jerusalem council state that the cost per meter is 900 NIS, however, based on my own evaluation, I believe it to be 3000 NIS. As an appraiser, my primary objective is to minimize the betterment taxes bill for my client, even if it means deviating from my personal assessment of the cost per meter. Therefore, I will declare the cost per meter to be 700 NIS (31.1.2022).
This underscores the notion that, when adeptly interacted with, REV can alleviate the pressures of displacement.
The appraisal process under Section-219 within the fraught urban context of East Jerusalem, already delineated as a complex interplay between rigorous professional standards and a significant dearth of data, not only underscores the challenges inherent in real estate valuation but also reveals a nuanced capacity to exacerbate the conditions of displaceability amongst the local Palestinian population. This augmentation of displaceability risk is facilitated through several nuanced mechanisms inherent within the appraisal process itself.
Firstly, the constrained availability of reliable market data necessitates a degree of interpretative flexibility on the part of appraisers, particularly those operating under the auspices of Israeli administrative authorities. This flexibility, while ostensibly a means to navigate data scarcity, permits the selective utilization of atypical transaction records - such as those involving rental agreements with institutions that, by regulation, maintain a presence in East Jerusalem. These agreements, often reflecting above-market rates due to the unique exigencies of the location, can be extrapolated by appraisers to justify elevated valuations across broader sectors of the property market. Such an approach, while leveraging actual transactional data, distorts the market baseline to the detriment of the local Palestinian populace, increasing their fiscal liabilities and, by extension, their vulnerability to displacement.
Furthermore, the absence of comprehensive transactional data places Palestinian residents at a significant disadvantage, unable to contest inflated appraisals effectively. The onus of proof shifts towards these residents or their representatives to provide substantial evidence of lower market values, a task rendered Sisyphean by the overarching lack of accessible, reliable data. This imbalance not only entrenches the authority of the initial, possibly inflated, appraisals but also exacerbates the fiscal and existential precariousness of Palestinian property ownership in East Jerusalem.
Moreover, the latitude afforded to appraisers within the regulatory and methodological confines of Section-219 valuations, described candidly by a senior appraiser as being “objective, in favor of the council” (1.12.2022), underscores an inherent bias within the appraisal process. This bias, operationalized through the strategic selection and interpretation of data, facilitates the imposition of higher valuations and associated fines. While appraisers are bound by the formal structure of their profession and the methodological dictates of the valuation formulas, the interpretive gaps engendered by data scarcity become conduits for discretionary assessments that can significantly impact the financial and existential stability of Palestinian residents.
In conclusion, the interrelation between the valuation methodologies prescribed by Section-219, the localized scarcity of data, and the discretionary practices of appraisers emerges as a complex mechanism that, far from being neutral or uniformly mitigative, possesses the capacity to significantly exacerbate the displaceability of the Palestinian community in East Jerusalem. This dynamic, characterized by the potential for both under- and over-valuation, imbues the appraisal process with a degree of unpredictability and instability, further complicating the socio-political and economic landscape of East Jerusalem and reinforcing the precarity of its Palestinian inhabitants.
The precarious situation in the neighborhood of Issawiya serves as a poignant illustration of how uncertainty regarding valuation and fines exacerbates the condition of displaceability, highlighting a palpable threat and insecurity that impacts residents irrespective of whether the actual fines imposed align with or exceed market expectations. Recently, a significant development transpired with the passage of a general plan for Issawiya, marking a historic opportunity for local residents to regularize their unauthorized properties in accordance with the new planning directives. A critical precondition for this regularization process, however, entails the settlement of all outstanding fines.
The unpredictability of these fines, potentially oscillating between extremes due to the specific, tangible data that appraisers might employ in different sectors of the neighborhood, introduces a layer of unpredictability. This variance stems from the discretion allowed in the appraisal process, as previously discussed, where the scarcity of clear market data can lead to highly variable outcomes in property valuation and, consequently, in the calculation of fines.
As a result, and given that the precise amount of these fines will only be disclosed subsequent to initiating the regularization process, many residents may be deterred from engaging with the authorization scheme. This reluctance is further compounded by the municipality’s limited leverage in encouraging participation in the process.
In a recent interview, a senior council official articulated concerns that the unpredictability of fines could fundamentally undermine the plan, maintaining the residents of Issawiya in a perpetual state of displaceability (10.1.2024). This state is characterized by a lack of formal property authorization, continuous apprehension regarding potential fines or eviction, and the absence of avenues to transition toward a more secure tenure.
Such dynamics underscore the critical intersection of real estate appraisal practices, regulatory frameworks, and the lived experiences of vulnerability and instability among the residents of East Jerusalem. The case of Issawiya exemplifies how the inherent uncertainties within the valuation process not only affect financial outcomes but also perpetuate a broader condition of insecurity, hindering efforts towards normalization and stability in the community.
Conclusion and discussion
In a comprehensive research journey across Tel-Aviv and East Jerusalem using a relational approach, I delved into the intricate relationship between real estate valuation practices and the condition of displaceability. Specifically, the study focused on Tel Aviv and East Jerusalem. Here, I examined two types of real estate valuations: Standard 21, an economic viability exam for urban regeneration plans, and Article-219, a legal provision guiding appraisers on how to determine fines for unauthorized constructions.
The persistent shadow of displaceability reveals a compelling paradox at the heart of real estate valuation. These valuation instruments, traditionally understood to measure property worth, can become a double-edged sword. On one side, they bear the potential to accentuate the factors leading to displaceability, while on the other, they can be repurposed as shields, warding off the adverse implications of this phenomenon. This duality is exemplified by the cases of Tel Aviv and East Jerusalem. In Tel Aviv, the council’s construction company strategically utilizes real estate valuation tools through urban regeneration efforts to reshape the Standard-21 calculation. By strategically reducing the Standard-21 calculations in Tel Aviv’s Urban Renewal Plan, particularly through initiatives aimed at diminishing expenses and fostering community support, the Tel Aviv council, notably through ‘Ezra and Bitsaron’ - its subsidiary firm for planning and construction, actively reshapes the feasibility assessment process. This proactive approach underscores the municipality’s profound recognition of the influential capacity inherent in this valuation methodology, inadvertently increasing displaceability by potentially raising property values and attracting wealthier demographics, thus pressuring existing communities. Conversely, in East Jerusalem, the scarcity of available data due to underreporting inadvertently provides the Palestinian community with a buffer against higher taxation, effectively mitigating their experience with displaceability. However, this lack of data can also heighten displaceability by giving authorities greater power to directly impact the local population through fines, displacement, and other forceful measures. This scenario underscores the intricate interplay between valuation tools and socio-political contexts, emphasizing that valuation is not merely a fiscal exercise but deeply entangled with broader urban narratives.
Building on the scholarly insights from the literature review into the multifarious catalysts of displacement and the critical influence of urban politics on the dynamics of displacement, this study sheds light on how real estate valuation practices contribute to the perpetuation or mitigation of displaceability. Scholars such as Hirsh et al. (2020) have emphasized the role of policies and decisions at the local government level in exacerbating or alleviating displacement conditions, a theme echoed in the findings from Tel Aviv and East Jerusalem. Moreover, the literature review highlights the complexities of displacement, encompassing economic, social, and political dimensions. This complexity resonates with the nuanced analysis of real estate valuation practices in the context of displaceability, illustrating how these practices intersect with broader socio-political narratives to shape urban landscapes and community experiences.
Real estate valuation tools, when viewed through the lens of displaceability, transcend their conventional roles as neutral measurements of property value. They play a pivotal role in shaping the condition of displaceability itself, exerting influence on its perception and outcomes within urban landscapes. Depending on how they are interacted with and contextualized within socio-political narratives, these tools can either exacerbate the risk factors leading to displacement or serve as strategic instruments for innovative mitigation solutions. This research demonstrates that displaceability is not merely a byproduct of urbanization but rather a critical dimension significantly influenced by the very tools intended to measure urban progress and value. Valuation practices emerge as more than just metrics of financial worth; they become powerful levers capable of either destabilizing communities or safeguarding them from the disruptions of change.
The cases of Tel Aviv and East Jerusalem underscore the necessity for stakeholders to move beyond transactional perspectives and embrace a holistic view that considers the human and non-human dimensions of urban dynamics, as discussed in the literature review. As cities progress on the path of development, it is incumbent upon urban planners, policymakers, and community leaders to recognize the profound implications of displaceability. They must acknowledge valuation tools, along with similar urban features, not merely as neutral measures but as instrumental in shaping the futures of communities. Only through such recognition can we aspire for urban landscapes where change advances to the benefit of existing residents and ensures the endurance of communities amidst urban transformations.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (1622/18 and 1247/23). The paper was also supported by the The Lady Davis Fellowship, and the The Minerva Center for Human Rights in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Correction (September 2024):
The article has been updated with author' second affiliation, funding information and biography since its original publication.
