This is a growing phenomenon, especially highlighted by Amir Rozio, Vice President of Urban Renewal at the Rozio Group, in an article presenting the issue and potential solutions.
With the shift toward larger complexes including multiple buildings, resistance that used to be limited to a single resident has evolved into collective resistance from an entire building, and sometimes even an organized group of residents, which prevents the advancement of the entire project.
The reasons for resistance are varied: lack of trust in the developer, rigid local leadership, internal conflicts among residents, or unreasonable demands. But the outcome is the same significant planning obstacle that delays all residents in the complex, including those who have already undergone a long process of organization, selecting representatives, and professional guidance.
The law does not address multi-building complexes
Currently, the law allows proceedings against resisting residents when at least 67% of the apartment owners in the entire complex have reached an agreement. This is a significant reduction from the previous 80% requirement, but a substantial problem remains: the law treats the complex as a single entity, not as separate buildings.
This means that a single building where the majority of residents object-even if the rest of the buildings support the project-can delay the entire project. In large complexes where support is widespread across most buildings, the law does not allow the opposing building to be exempted or the project to advance partially.
This planning obstacle leads to stagnation, frustration, and sometimes even safety risks, especially when dealing with old buildings in need of reinforcement and protection. The Urban Renewal Committee at the Israel Bar Association recently published a position paper calling for the term “recalcitrant building” to be regulated in legislation and for legal tools to handle cases where an entire building delays the advancement of an urban renewal project.
The proposal includes the possibility of filing a lawsuit against a recalcitrant building in large-scale projects when at least two-thirds of residents in the other buildings have already signed an agreement, and the local authority supports the plan. The paper emphasizes that in such cases, individual property rights should yield to the public interest and the property rights of the majority, as part of a responsible balancing of rights.
The Bar Association notes that owners in recalcitrant buildings tend to make unreasonable demands, exploiting their asymmetric bargaining position, and sometimes even harm the economic and planning feasibility of the entire project.
Attorney Or Keren, partner and founder of Cohen-Katzav, Keren, Dahan & Co. (KDC), explains: “The current law requires a majority in each building separately, aiming to ensure broad support-but in practice, this requirement has become an obstacle that undermines entire projects. If a single building in a large complex opposes the plan, it can halt an initiative that otherwise enjoys wide support.
To truly advance urban renewal, the legislation must change, allowing progress based on majority support across complexes, applying mediation mechanisms, and treating recalcitrant buildings like resisting residents of individual buildings. Only then can we create certainty and prevent a small minority from blocking the public good.”
Urban renewal is not just a vision-it is a necessity
Especially given the growing housing shortage, rising real estate prices, and the increasing need to reinforce old buildings, any delay in a pinui-binui project is not just a planning failure but also a safety risk. Therefore, the state must lead a comprehensive legislative effort that recognizes recalcitrant buildings, provides a clear action mechanism, and allows supporting residents to secure the future they deserve.
Urban renewal is Israel’s central tool for reinforcing the home front, balancing the housing market, and creating a fair urban environment. This vision must be achievable even when some choose not to participate. It is time for the state to intervene, regulate the legal situation, and enable the majority of residents to advance their future-even if a single building prefers to remain behind.