{"id":2089,"date":"2026-08-31T10:47:19","date_gmt":"2026-08-31T10:47:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/?p=2089"},"modified":"2026-08-31T10:55:35","modified_gmt":"2026-08-31T10:55:35","slug":"has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/","title":{"rendered":"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d Under this model, every apartment owner in an existing building receives an identical increase in floor area (for example, 12 square meters), regardless of the size of his or her original apartment. However, the precedent-setting judgment rendered by Judge Gilad Hess of the Tel Aviv District Court in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or Personnel Services Ltd. v. Baboo, shattered this convention and redefined the meaning of \u201cequality\u201d in Pinui-Binui projects.<\/p>\n

1. Introduction and Factual Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n

The judgment was rendered by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court in an action brought by rights holders and a developer against two apartment owners who had refused to execute a Pinui-Binui agreement.<\/p>\n

Under the agreement, each apartment owner was to receive a new apartment having the same floor area as his or her existing apartment, together with a uniform addition of 12 square meters, a balcony, a parking space, a storage unit where feasible, as well as alternative accommodation and rental payments during the construction period.<\/p>\n

The central dispute did not concern the project itself or its general provisions, but rather whether the uniform allocation of consideration disadvantaged owners of larger apartments and, consequently, whether such refusal constituted an \u201cunreasonable refusal\u201d under the Pinui-Binui Law.<\/p>\n

2. Balancing the Right to Property Against the Promotion of Pinui Binui Projects<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court began its analysis by recognizing that an apartment owner\u2019s refusal to transfer his or her rights in real property implicates the very core of the right to property. This right also includes the freedom not to dispose of one\u2019s property, particularly where the property constitutes a residential apartment. Nevertheless, the legislature has established a mechanism that, under certain conditions, enables an apartment owner to be compelled to participate in a Pinui-Binui project.<\/p>\n

According to the judgment, the statutory mechanism operates in two stages. First, the consent of a \u201cqualified majority\u201d of the apartment owners is required. Second, once the requisite majority has been obtained, the court may examine whether the apartment owner is objecting on reasonable grounds or is unreasonably refusing to consent, and, where appropriate grounds exist, may compel the owner to proceed with the transaction.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasized that the mere existence of an objection is insufficient to prevent the project from proceeding. Conversely, the power to compel participation is not automatic, and the court must examine the circumstances of the transaction as a whole, including its economic viability, the security arrangements provided, the alternative accommodation, the tenant\u2019s individual circumstances, and the fairness of the allocation of consideration.<\/p>\n

3. The Economic Viability of the Project<\/strong><\/p>\n

The defendants argued that the project was not economically viable, inter alia, because the application for a building permit that had been submitted was rejected. The Court rejected this argument and held that the burden of proving the project\u2019s economic viability rests with the developer, and that, in this case, the burden had been discharged by means of an economic appraisal report.<\/p>\n

The report submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs determined that the developer\u2019s entrepreneurial profit stood at approximately 14%, and that the apartment owners would receive new apartments whose value was tens of percent higher than the value of their existing apartments, in addition to increased floor area, a balcony, a parking space, a storage unit, a protected room (MAMAD), and payment of rent during the construction period. The Court found that the report had not been refuted during cross-examination.<\/p>\n

It was further held that a distinction must be drawn between an approved plan and an individual application for a building permit. The approved plan is the document establishing the planning rights in the property, whereas the permit application constitutes a licensing stage intended to implement those rights. Accordingly, the rejection of a building permit application in a particular configuration does not, in itself, establish that the project is economically unviable, nor does it prevent the submission of a new application consistent with the plan.<\/p>\n

4. Inequality in the Allocation of Consideration as Grounds for Reasonable Refusal<\/strong><\/p>\n

The principal practical innovation in the judgment lies in the Court\u2019s analysis of the principle of equality. The Court held that although the Pinui-Binui Law does not expressly enumerate inequality in the allocation of consideration as a statutory presumption of reasonable refusal, case law has recognized that an unequal allocation of consideration may justify opposition to an agreement.<\/p>\n

The Court nevertheless distinguished between formal equality and relative equality. Formal equality exists where every apartment receives the same increase in floor area or the same package of consideration. Relative equality, by contrast, seeks to take into account the differences between the existing apartments, particularly the floor area of each apartment and its proportional share in the common property and development rights.<\/p>\n

In a demolition-and-reconstruction project, the apartment owners do not transfer identical assets to the developer. Accordingly, determining that all apartment owners will receive an identical addition, without taking into account the differences between the existing apartments, may alter the relative proportions of the parties\u2019 rights and reduce the proportional share of the owner of the larger apartment.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasized that there is no uniform test suitable for every project. In certain projects, such as projects in which additional construction is provided without demolition and reconstruction, a uniform consideration may be regarded as equitable. In demolition-and-reconstruction projects, by contrast, a proportional test may be preferable, taking into account the floor area of the original apartment and the owner\u2019s proportional share in the common property.<\/p>\n

5. The Relationship Between Apartment Floor Area, Common Property and Development Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The basis for applying relative equality was the relationship between the floor area of the apartment and the owner\u2019s share in the common property. The Court referred to Section 57(a) of the Land Law, pursuant to which the proportion of the common property attached to an apartment is determined according to the ratio between the floor area of the apartment and the floor area of all apartments, unless otherwise provided in the bylaws.<\/p>\n

In the absence of an alternative agreement, the Court held that development rights are likewise divided among the apartment owners according to their respective proportional shares in the common property. Accordingly, the owner of a larger apartment may transfer a larger share of the development rights to the developer, and the principle of equality therefore requires an examination of whether the consideration received by that owner reflects his or her proportional share.<\/p>\n

6. The Appropriate Remedy: Equalization Payments<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although the Court found that the uniform consideration mechanism infringed the principle of equality with respect to Defendant No. 2, it did not consider that such infringement required dismissal of the action or that it entitled the defendant to frustrate the project. Instead, the Court held that a proportionate remedy should be examined, balancing the harm caused to the apartment owner against the interest of all apartment owners in implementing the project.<\/p>\n

The Court attached weight to the fact that 35 out of 37 rights holders had signed the agreement, including four out of the five owners of apartments exceeding 100 square meters in area. This fact supported the conclusion that the harm suffered by Defendant No. 2 did not justify setting aside the transaction, particularly where apartment owners of larger apartments in similar circumstances had agreed to the consideration provided.<\/p>\n

An additional consideration was the overall limitation on the total floor area available in the project. The pool of additional floor area amounted to 360 square meters, and any additional allocation to the larger apartments would, according to the Court, come at the expense of the smaller apartments. Since the plan required a minimum area of 50 square meters for each residential unit, reducing the consideration allocated to the smaller apartments could have prevented implementation of the project.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court held that the appropriate remedy was to require the payment of equalization payments in respect of the difference between the additional area granted to Defendant No. 2 and the proportional additional area to which she was entitled.<\/p>\n

7. The Appeal Against the Judgment and the Position of the State<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is important to emphasize that the judgment does not constitute the final word on the matter. On July 12, 2026, an appeal against the judgment was filed with the Supreme Court, arguing, inter alia, that the District Court\u2019s determination that the uniform consideration model does not comply with the principle of equality could cause significant disruption in the urban renewal sector and impair the ability to promote projects based on a uniform consideration mechanism. The appeal remains pending, and therefore no final Supreme Court precedent has yet been established on this issue.<\/p>\n

Alongside the appeal, and following the issuance of the judgment, the Ministry of Justice and the Government Authority for Urban Renewal published guidance addressing consideration mechanisms in urban renewal projects. The guidance does not provide that every project must grant consideration proportionate to the size of the apartment. Rather, it clarifies that the parties may agree upon either a uniform consideration mechanism or a proportional mechanism.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the guidance recognizes that where there are material differences between apartments, such as an exceptionally large apartment, a garden apartment, a penthouse, or an apartment possessing other unique characteristics, it is possible to consider providing tailored consideration to groups of apartments sharing similar characteristics.<\/p>\n

The guidance further provides that an adjustment to the consideration need not necessarily take the form of additional floor area. In the case of a larger apartment, it may be reflected in a larger apartment, monetary consideration, an apartment on a higher floor, upgraded specifications, or the opportunity to select an apartment before the other apartment owners. At the same time, the guidance emphasizes the importance of transparency toward all apartment owners where one apartment owner receives consideration that differs materially from that provided to the others.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, at this stage, the picture is more complex than a determination that the \u201cera of uniform consideration\u201d has come to an absolute end. The judgment raises a significant question regarding the uniform model and requires the fairness of the consideration to be examined from a relative perspective as well. However, the pending appeal and the guidance published by the governmental authorities demonstrate that the question of the appropriate mechanism for allocating consideration has not yet been conclusively determined, and that a uniform consideration may remain possible, depending on the circumstances and the parties\u2019 agreement.<\/p>\n

8. The Outcome of the Proceedings and the Practical Significance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The claim against Defendant No. 1 was granted in its entirety. The Court approved implementation of the transaction and appointed an attorney to execute the agreement and the documents required for its implementation on her behalf.<\/p>\n

he claim against Defendant No. 2 was also granted, subject to the payment of equalization payments in the amount of NIS 141,360.<\/p>\n

The judgment emphasizes that a claim of inequality in consideration cannot be examined independently of the circumstances of the project, the planning constraints, and the effect of any modification on the other apartment owners. Furthermore, the appropriate remedy need not be the frustration of the project, and the prejudice may be remedied through equalization payments. This underscores the importance of examining the consideration on an individual basis, in relation to each apartment owner\u2019s original apartment and his or her rights.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The judgment establishes that in a demolition-and-reconstruction project, uniform consideration for all apartments is not, in itself, sufficient to ensure equality. The analysis must also take into account the floor area of the original apartment, the proportional share in the common property, and the development rights.<\/p>\n

At the same time, where the infringement can be remedied through equalization payments, and where changing the consideration could frustrate the project and prejudice other residents, the transaction may be enforced subject to compensation.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, it is still too early to conclude that this constitutes a final revolution. The appeal that has been filed, together with the guidance published by the Ministry of Justice and the Government Authority for Urban Renewal, presents a more flexible approach, pursuant to which the consideration mechanism may be adapted to the characteristics of the apartments and the project, and the parties may even agree upon uniform consideration.<\/p>\n

For further information please contact<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Hanan Efaim, Adv.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Amit Kovos, Adv.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Office: 03-691-6600\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Office: 03-691-6600<\/p>\n

Email: hanan@ekw.co.il<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0E-mail: amit@ekw.co.il<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d Under this model, every apartment owner […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1525,1521,1528,1524,1527,1522,1529,1530,1523,1526,1520,742,744],"class_list":["post-2089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-12-square-meters","tag-apartment-owners","tag-appeal","tag-balcony","tag-consideration","tag-equality","tag-gilad-hess","tag-ministry-of-justice","tag-pinui-binui","tag-pinui-binui-law","tag-uniform-consideration-model","tag---en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nHas an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo - ekw<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo - ekw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ekw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-31T10:47:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-31T10:55:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"EKW\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"EKW\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"EKW\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1270a21676acc302bbd91343d5d842ca\"},\"headline\":\"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-31T10:47:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-31T10:55:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2086,\"keywords\":[\"12 square meters\",\"Apartment Owners\",\"Appeal\",\"Balcony\",\"Consideration\",\"Equality\",\"Gilad Hess\",\"Ministry of Justice\",\"Pinui-Binui\",\"Pinui-Binui Law\",\"Uniform Consideration Model\",\"\u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\",\"\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/\",\"name\":\"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo - ekw\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-31T10:47:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-31T10:55:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1270a21676acc302bbd91343d5d842ca\"},\"description\":\"For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/\",\"name\":\"ekw\",\"description\":\"EKW Law Offices\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1270a21676acc302bbd91343d5d842ca\",\"name\":\"EKW\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ekw.co.il\\\/en\\\/author\\\/aviadekw-co-il\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo - ekw","description":"For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo - ekw","og_description":"For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/","og_site_name":"ekw","article_published_time":"2026-08-31T10:47:19+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-31T10:55:35+00:00","author":"EKW","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"EKW","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/"},"author":{"name":"EKW","@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/#\/schema\/person\/1270a21676acc302bbd91343d5d842ca"},"headline":"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo","datePublished":"2026-08-31T10:47:19+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-31T10:55:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/"},"wordCount":2086,"keywords":["12 square meters","Apartment Owners","Appeal","Balcony","Consideration","Equality","Gilad Hess","Ministry of Justice","Pinui-Binui","Pinui-Binui Law","Uniform Consideration Model","\u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea","\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/","url":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/","name":"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo - ekw","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-08-31T10:47:19+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-31T10:55:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/#\/schema\/person\/1270a21676acc302bbd91343d5d842ca"},"description":"For many years, Israel\u2019s urban renewal sector operated under an almost sacrosanct working assumption: the \u201cUniform Consideration Model.\u201d","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/has-an-egalitarian-revolution-in-urban-renewal-actually-taken-place-an-analysis-of-the-landmark-judgment-in-civil-case-no-42823-03-24-keren-or-v-baboo\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Has an Egalitarian Revolution in Urban Renewal Actually Taken Place? An Analysis of the Landmark Judgment in Civil Case No. 42823-03-24, Keren Or v. Baboo"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/","name":"ekw","description":"EKW Law Offices","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/#\/schema\/person\/1270a21676acc302bbd91343d5d842ca","name":"EKW","url":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/author\/aviadekw-co-il\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2089"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2095,"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2089\/revisions\/2095"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekw.co.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}