Publication Date

1977

Document Type

Article

Abstract

In the United States and in much of the Western world, private economic initiative and private property are accorded sufficient pro­tection-either constitutionally or statutorily-to hamper the effi­cacy of public planning and implementation. Political fragmenta­tion in metropolitan areas, extensive private land holdings, and constitutional entitlement to a reasonable economic return from regulated land insures that, in the United States, both land use plans and the regulations implementing them will be incompletely realized.

Beleaguered Western planners, then, weary from ongoing battles with neighboring, egocentric communities and legions of specula­ tors, developers and profiteers, might be expected to look with envy at the contrasting situation in Israel. Ninety percent of Israel's land is nationally owned, more than one-half of the construction is gov­ernment-initiated or subsidized, and legal tools to implement plan­ning are plentiful. In addition, Israel has some clear-cut planning problems, such as a shortage of land and water, an imbalance of population, and ongoing immigration which provide ample incen­tive for the undertaking of planning.

In spite of its formidable resources for planning and implementa­tion, however, Israel's actual performance at the local level has been less than precise. In fact, the divergence between plans and results may lead one to question whether the ultimate utopias that Western planners seek will be the product of enhanced planning power, or whether such nirvanas will follow only from a collective heightening of individual consciousness-an event that may transcend (or underlie) basic legal reform. In view of these possibilities, this article will first examine the implementation process of a typical urban land use plan in a medium-size Israeli town. More specifically, it will compare the legal and institutional resources for implementa­tion to the actual implementation at the local level. Then, some speculation will be attempted on the reasons for the observed dis­crepancy and on the limits of planning efficacy in general.

Publication Title

Urban Lawyer

Volume

9

Issue

3

Download

Included in

Land Use Law Commons

Share

COinS