# Domain Coverage Checklist, israeli-urban-renewal-owner-guide Generated: 2026-08-31. Primary research read directly from the statutory text layer on nevo.co.il (four statutes, fetched and text-extracted 2026-08-31), not from secondary guides. Secondary sources in this domain were found to be wrong at a high rate, see "Known bad figures". Scope of the skill: explain the process to an APARTMENT OWNER. It does not read the user's own signed agreement, does not value their apartment, and does not tell them what they are owed. ## Must cover (core) - [ ] The two legal tracks are separate regimes with separate statutes, separate majorities, and separate deciding forums. Pinui-binui runs on chok pinui u-vinui (idud mizmei pinui u-vinui), 2006 and is decided by a COURT. The strengthening track runs on chok ha-mekarkein (chizuk batim meshutafim mipnei re'idot adama), 2008 and is decided by the MEFAKE'ACH al ha-batim ha-meshutafim. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/73988.htm s.2(a); https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/999_901.htm s.5, s.5a. Why core: an owner who reads the wrong statute gets the wrong threshold and the wrong forum. - [ ] "Rov meyuchas" for pinui-binui is a THREE-PART composite, not a single percentage. Owners holding at least two thirds of all apartments in the makbetz, AND at least three fifths of the apartments in EACH beit meshutaf in that makbetz (special rule: in a beit meshutaf of only four or five apartments, at least three apartments and more than two owners), AND more than half the common property in each beit meshutaf attached to their apartments. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/73988.htm s.1 definitions. Why core: every flat "80 percent" or "67 percent" figure in circulation is wrong or incomplete. - [ ] A SEPARATE and lower majority governs the economic-viability question: more than two fifths of the apartments in each beit meshutaf and more than two fifths of the common property. Source: same page, definition of "rov meyuchas ... le-inyan kevi'at kedaiut kalkalit". Why core: it is the threshold for getting a shamai pinui-binui appointed, a distinct right. - [ ] Strengthening track, majority BY WORK TYPE. Work whose purpose is building a new apartment: two thirds of the apartments plus two thirds of the common property, approved by the mefake'ach (s.5(a)). Demolition and rebuild (s.5a): two thirds plus two thirds, in a building with at least four apartments and more than two owners. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/999_901.htm Why core: the majority varies by work type within the same statute. - [ ] Strengthening track, BUILDING-SIZE sub-dimension. For a beit meshutaf with SIX APARTMENTS OR MORE, the majority for demolition and rebuild is computed under s.4 of the pinui-binui law, mutatis mutandis, not under the plain two-thirds rule. Source: s.5a(a1), same page. Why core: most real buildings have six or more apartments, so the plain rule is the exception. - [ ] TEMPORAL SPLIT on the demolition-and-rebuild majority. Before tikkun 8 (in force 1.7.2023) the threshold was FOUR FIFTHS of apartments and four fifths of the common property. It is now two thirds. Source: amendment note on s.5a at https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/999_901.htm Why core: the superseded four-fifths figure is still repeated as current across the web, and a claim filed under the old regime was measured against the old threshold. - [ ] TEMPORAL SPLIT on what "the strengthening plan" means, and the correct answer to "is TAMA 38 over". Tikkun 7 (in force 10.7.2022) REPLACED the definition of "tochnit ha-chizuk". It previously meant only TAMA 38. It now means any of three things: TAMA 38 as in force from time to time; a plan prepared under TAMA 38's provisions that permits a building permit without approving a further plan; or a plan applying to a building requiring strengthening under s.70a of the Planning and Building Law that conditions its realisation on strengthening by demolition and rebuild or to the earthquake standard. The last two exclude a plan applying in a pinui-binui complex. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/999_901.htm s.1, definition of "tochnit ha-chizuk", with the pre-2022 text shown in the amendment note. Why core: this is the single most misreported point in the domain. The owner-protection statute did NOT lapse with TAMA 38. The Knesset widened the definition in 2022 so that the majorities, the mefake'ach's jurisdiction and the refusal grounds keep applying under the municipal plans that replaced TAMA 38. A skill that says "TAMA 38 ended, this law no longer applies" is wrong. - [ ] The seven statutory grounds on which a refusal to sign is REASONABLE, s.2(b) of the pinui-binui law, enumerated in full: (1) the transaction is not economically viable, with the shamai pinui-binui's determination creating a rebuttable presumption; (2) no alternative housing offered for the construction period, and for a person with a disability, alternative housing without the required accessibility adaptations; (3) no adequate securities offered, and where the shamai set conditions, no adequate guarantees that they will be met; (4) special personal circumstances making the agreed terms unreasonable for this owner; (5) disability-specific grounds regarding the permanent replacement apartment and its adaptations, or compensation for their value; (6) an owner who is a KASHISH living in the apartment who was not offered at least one of the listed alternatives in addition to a replacement apartment; (7) an owner aged 75 or a person defined as terminally ill, who was not offered a s.2(b)(6)(a) alternative. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/73988.htm s.2(b). Why core: this is the owner's actual legal leverage and the direct answer to "can they force me". - [ ] KASHISH is defined DIFFERENTLY in the two statutes and this is a live trap. Pinui-binui law: 70 years old at the date the first pinui-binui transaction in the building was signed, AND resident in that apartment for at least two years at that date. Strengthening law s.5(b1): 75 years old at the date the first transaction under the strengthening plan was signed. A further 75-year threshold appears separately at s.2(b)(7)(a) of the pinui-binui law. Source: both statutes, s.1 definitions and s.5(b1). Why core: an owner told the wrong age threshold either forfeits a protection or asserts one they do not have. - [ ] The statutory MINIMUM CONTENT of the transaction, which is what an owner should check is present at all: the principles for determining the temura each owner receives; the maximum dates for approving a detailed plan, obtaining a building permit and delivering the new apartment; the identity of the party that will perform the building work or the conditions for choosing it, including its experience; and an undertaking by the yazam to provide guarantees in the owner's favour. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/501_590.htm s.1, definition of "iskah lefi tochnit ha-chizuk"; parallel wording in the pinui-binui law. Why core: this is a published statutory checklist, so pointing at it is explanation rather than an opinion on the user's own contract. - [ ] The MEARGEN (organizer) is separately regulated by chok hitchadshut ironit (heskemim le-irgun iskaot), 2017, and owes statutory duties directly to the owners: to act in their interest be-ne'emanut, be-hoginut u-ve-derech mekubelet; to disclose every material item of information he holds, INCLUDING whether he is acting on behalf of a yazam; and to answer an owner's request for information within seven days (s.11). He may not contract where he has a personal interest unless he disclosed it and got written consent (s.12). Any stipulation under the law that is not in the owner's favour is VOID (s.15). Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/501_590.htm Why core: this is the lawful, sourced answer to the submitter's concern about whose side the professionals are on. - [ ] The MEMUNEH le-inyan pniyot dayarim be-hitchadshut ironit, s.7 of chok ha-rashut ha-memshaltit le-hitchadshut ironit, 2016: an advocate with at least five years of relevant experience, subject to no authority but the law; investigates owners' and occupiers' complaints including complaints of UNREASONABLE PRESSURE applied to an owner to get consent; must decide within 90 days, extendable by up to 90 further days cumulatively; and a finding that the complaint is justified because of a breach of law is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE in any legal proceeding. Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/142343.htm s.7. Why core: it is free, statutory, independent, and it is the correct destination for exactly the grievance the skill's users arrive with. - [ ] The organizer agreement EXPIRES if the statutory milestones are not met, the organizer gets no compensation for that expiry (s.10), and the Memuneh can issue the owner a certificate that it expired (s.16(c)). The Memuneh's determination can also support removal of the he'arat azhara under s.7a of the Rashut law. Source: both statutes. Why core: an owner who believes they are locked in forever usually is not. - [ ] PRE-SIGNATURE duties, s.1a of the 2006 law: a kinus of the apartment owners before the first transaction is signed, and a mismach ikarei hatzaa delivered to EVERY owner in the building not later than two weeks before that first signature, setting out the temura principles, the securities offered and the developer's professional experience. s.1b adds notice of the first signature and delivery of the transaction documents. Why core: the most actionable pre-signature right in the domain, checkable by the owner against their own calendar with no professional input. - [ ] LAPSE CLOCKS, enumerated separately PER TRACK because the periods differ. Pinui-binui, s.1d(a): half the owners within 2 years; three fifths within 4 years; detailed plan submitted within 4 years 6 months (that last limb disapplied in a complex declared under s.14(a)(1) of the Authority law). Strengthening, s.5g: half within 18 months; the s.4 rate or the majority permitting application to the mefake'ach within 3 years; permit application ACCEPTED within 3 years 6 months. Both extended by one year where the complex has at least 120 units. Where at most 40 percent of the apartments are public housing, the first-limb proportions count only the non-public apartments. Why core: quoting one track's clock on the other misdates an owner's exit by years. - [ ] WHAT CANCELLATION ACTUALLY DOES, s.1d(a) and (d): a majority of owners in the building, INCLUDING owners who are not parties to the transaction, resolve at a general meeting; written notice goes to the developer; thereafter a contracting owner may cancel and is NOT treated as having breached, with the developer entitled to payment only under regulations made by the Minister of Justice. Why core: the fear of being sued for breach is the main thing keeping owners in dead projects, and s.1d(d) is the provision that answers it. - [ ] THIRD TRACK: war-damaged buildings, under chok shikum nizkei milchama be-derech shel hitchadshut ironit, 2026. A destroyed building is one the LOCAL AUTHORITY ENGINEER determined was destroyed or must be demolished after war damage. Its special majority is disjunctive: a majority of owners holding a majority of apartments in each of most buildings in the declared area, OR at least four fifths of all apartments in the area. Why core: an owner whose building was hit is this skill's user, and answering them from either other track is wrong. Note this is the one track where four fifths is genuinely the figure. - [ ] PREDATORY SIGNING (hachtama pog'anit), s.5b of the 2006 law and s.5d of the 2008 law: four circumstances in which the Memuneh may declare the transaction VOID, including misleading the owner about how many owners had agreed by the signing date. Why core: it is the most common pressure tactic reported, and it is a statutory voiding ground. - [ ] DISCLOSURE DUTY AND WITHDRAWAL, s.6 of the 2006 law: anyone acting for the developer, paid by the developer or the builder, or whose fee is contingent on the deal, must disclose that in the first approach and in the agreement, and must report non-negligible temura differences between owners. Breach lets an owner withdraw consent even after signing binding. s.6a voids any stipulation not in the owner's favour. Why core: the sourced answer to "whose side is this person on", with a remedy attached. - [ ] PROCEDURAL-DEFECT CANCELLATION at the 40 percent mark: s.1c of the 2006 law and s.5b(e) of the 2008 law. Signed before the kinus or before the offer document, a majority may cancel while under 40 percent have signed, without being treated as in breach. Why core: a live early-window exit that is distinct from the lapse clocks. - [ ] FORM AND CONTENT ARE PRESCRIBED, s.1e of the 2006 law and s.5g1 of the 2008 law: the Minister of Justice sets requirements whose breach renders the transaction void, and the Memuneh may confirm that. - [ ] COST OF CANCELLING, the 2025 regulations under s.1d(e): a published per-apartment schedule, zero in several cases, topping out at 10,000 NIS on the pinui-binui track and 1,800 NIS on the strengthening track. Why core: bounded, published exit cost is the direct answer to the fear of open-ended liability. - [ ] s.4 of the 2008 law: SIXTY PERCENT for apartment enlargement, completing that statute's majority ladder. - [ ] GUARANTEE VOCABULARY, presented as market instruments and explicitly NOT as a statutory checklist. What is statutory is only s.2(b)(3) (inadequate betuchot make refusal reasonable) and the minimum-content undertaking to provide guarantees. No statute behind this skill names a specific instrument. Why core: owners cannot ask about what they cannot name, but overstating it invents a legal duty. - [ ] The owner's right to their OWN independent advice, and an accurate description of who the orech din ha-dayarim is and who engages them, stated without telling the user to skip legal advice. Pair with the Memuneh route above. Why core: it is the submitter's real insight and the skill's reason to exist. ## Should cover (advanced / edge cases) - [ ] Court's power to DISREGARD an objecting owner's rights when computing the majority, where the objection stems from unlawful building or use of the common property or unlawful splitting of the apartment, subject to evidentiary conditions and a more-than-half consent showing (s.2(a1) of the pinui-binui law). Source: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/73988.htm - [ ] The shamai pinui-binui mechanism: appointment under s.2a(b), the list of eligible appraisers under s.2b, and the presumption its determination creates. Source: same. - [ ] Remedies against a refusing owner are TWO and the court chooses: damages in tort toward the consenting owners, or approving the transaction and appointing an advocate or accountant, not an owner in the complex, to contract on the refusing owner's behalf (s.2(a)(1) to (2)). Source: same. - [ ] Organizing agreements are expressly NOT real-estate brokerage, so the Brokers Law does not apply to the organizer (s.14 of the 2017 law). - [ ] Confidentiality duty of the organizer (s.13 of the 2017 law). - [ ] That a land-taxation relief regime for pinui-binui exists in the Land Taxation Law, WITHOUT encoding its ceilings or conditions, and that the applicable figures must be confirmed with the Tax Authority or a tax professional. See "Out of scope" for why the figures are excluded. - [x] Guarantee types: DONE in v1.1.0, as market vocabulary with the statutory line drawn explicitly. Adequacy remains out of scope by design. ## Out of scope (explicit, with rationale) - Reading, scoring, or opining on the user's own signed agreement. This is iyutz mishpati and chivui daat mishpati, reserved to an advocate under s.20(4) of chok lishkat orchei ha-din, and s.20 is disjunctive so the service being free is not a defence. This exclusion is the reason the skill exists in its present shape. - Telling the user what temura or compensation they are owed, or whether their deal is fair. That is both legal advice and, on the valuation limb, the reserved act of a shamai mekarkein. `israeli-property-appraisal` is the skill that handles comparable-sales data, under its own counsel-supplied notice. - Deciding whether a given refusal is reasonable, or whether a given owner is a dayar sarvan. The statute assigns that to a court or the mefake'ach on the specific facts. - Drafting an objection, a claim, or any document for submission to the mefake'ach, a court, or the Memuneh. The skill assembles principles and questions the user writes from, per the remove-the-instrument rule. - Specific tax ceilings and exemption conditions under the Land Taxation Law. Naming a ceiling would import a second regulated profession (iyutz mas / roeh cheshbon), and the figures are amended on a different cycle than the rest of this skill, so encoding them here would drift invisibly. The skill names the regime and routes to the Tax Authority or a tax professional. - Structural and engineering questions about whether a building needs strengthening. Reserved to a licensed engineer. ## Known bad figures Each of these was found in circulation and is contradicted by the statutory text. | Figure in circulation | Where it appears | What the statute says | |---|---|---| | Pinui-binui needs "80 percent" of owners | Widely, including law-firm guides | There is no 80 percent rule. It is a three-part composite: two thirds of the makbetz, three fifths per building, more than half the common property. Source: s.1 of the pinui-binui law. | | Pinui-binui "dropped from 80 percent to 67 percent in 2024" | Secondary guides and news | The composite definition is not a flat 67 percent either, and the two-thirds limb is only one of its three parts. Do not restate either figure bare. | | TAMA 38/2 requires 80 percent | Law-firm pages, still published | Four fifths was the pre-tikkun-8 text. Since 1.7.2023 the threshold is two thirds plus two thirds, and for buildings of six or more apartments the computation routes to s.4 of the pinui-binui law. | | TAMA 38/1 and 38/2 both need two thirds, flatly | Kol Zchut's TAMA 38 page | Directionally right for the current text but omits the six-or-more-apartments routing rule and the pre-2023 four-fifths regime. | | "TAMA 38 has ended, so the protections no longer apply" | Common inference from the 2022 expiry coverage | Tikkun 7 widened "tochnit ha-chizuk" in 2022 to cover the successor municipal plans, precisely so the protections continue. | | Kashish means 70 (or means 75), one number for the whole domain | Most guides pick one | It is 70 plus two years' residence in the pinui-binui law, 75 in s.5(b1) of the strengthening law, and 75 again at s.2(b)(7)(a) of the pinui-binui law. Three thresholds, different triggers. | | The six-apartment rule sets a different (higher) majority | Inferred from the bare cross-reference in s.5a(a1); this skill shipped the error in v1.0.0 | s.4 of the pinui-binui law is a discount on a large owner's counted weight, not a threshold. The majority stays two thirds plus two thirds. | | All seven refusal grounds apply on every strengthening-track project | Widely assumed | s.5(b1)(2) imports only grounds (1), (3) and (4) on the new-apartment track. Only s.5a(a2), the demolition track, imports all seven. | | The pinui-binui tax exemption is perek chamishi 5 of the Land Taxation Law | Common, and it was in this skill's own commissioning brief | Pinui-binui is perek chamishi 4, opening at s.49yod-tet. Perek chamishi 5 (s.49lamed-gimel) is the TAMA 38 building-rights exemption. The skill deliberately states no chapter, but do not introduce the wrong one on a future update. | | Chok pinui u-vinui (pitzuyim) and chok pinui u-vinui (idud mizmei pinui u-vinui) are two statutes | Common, and it was in this skill's own commissioning brief | They are the same statute. Amendment 6, in force 29.10.2018, renamed it. Citing both double-counts one law. | ## Authoritative sources - https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/73988.htm , chok pinui u-vinui (idud mizmei pinui u-vinui), 2006. Verify: rov meyuchas definitions, s.2 refusal regime and the seven grounds, kashish at 70. Renders as clean text to a plain HTTP client, so snippets are verifiable without a browser. - https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/999_901.htm , chok ha-mekarkein (chizuk batim meshutafim mipnei re'idot adama), 2008. Verify: definition of tochnit ha-chizuk and its 2022 replacement, s.5 and s.5a majorities, the six-apartment routing rule, kashish at 75, the mefake'ach's role. - https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/142343.htm , chok ha-rashut ha-memshaltit le-hitchadshut ironit, 2016. Verify: s.7 Memuneh, the 90-day clock, prima facie evidentiary effect, s.7a. - https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/501_590.htm , chok hitchadshut ironit (heskemim le-irgun iskaot), 2017. Verify: mearge definition, s.11 duties, s.12 personal interest, s.15 void stipulations, s.16 route to the Memuneh. - https://www.gov.il/he/departments/government_authority_for_urban_renewal , the Authority. Verify: current contact route for the Memuneh, published decisions. NOTE: gov.il returns 403 to plain HTTP clients, so verify this one in a real browser, not with curl. ## Notes for the next update The four nevo pages carry inline amendment notes showing superseded text. When re-verifying, read the amendment note as well as the operative text, because this domain's changes are prospective and the superseded rule frequently still governs projects already in flight.