In October 2000 (after the intifada had started), the plan for the Sela Observation Tower was deposited for public objections. The developer proposed an observation tower overlooking Jerusalem, rising 140 meters (160 meters including the antenna crowning it) above the highest point of the Hill of Evil Counsel (Government House Hill), close to the existing antenna.

Members of Sustainable Jerusalem together with the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) and the Council for the Restoration and Preservation of Historic Sites in Israel launched a campaign against the plan. Not only do we object to the tower itself, but we also object to the fact that no one asked the residents of Jerusalem if they were at all interested in the project. We saw this as an important opportunity todemonstrate the total absence of a democratic process involving the public. In this case, the arrogance of the project was matched by the arrogance of the process and its disrespect for the public.

Objections at the District Committee stage have to be accompanied by an affidavit and so, in order to permit residents to “exercise” their right to express objections, we erected stands staffed by lawyers, in order to abide by the Planning and Construction Law, where people could sign such affidavits.

Many Jerusalemites did indeed take an interest in the campaign, which was funded with the help of the Haas Foundation, the donor of the promenade on Government House Hill. Many residents were angry that they would not have known about the project at all had it not been for the public information campaign waged at the time by the environmental lobbies. Some 4,500 people signed the objection and another 200 personal objections by planners, intellectuals and public figures were submitted.

Noteworthy signatories included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, architect Shlomo Aronson, poet Haim Gouri and environmental sculptor Danny Karavan. The organizations that objected included the Geographical Society, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, the SPNI, and the Council for the Restoration and Preservation of Historical Sites.

It doesn’t hurt to contemplate where the public campaign against our new Tower of Babel stands today. Have the planning institutions understood that when so many people object to a plan it would be better to reconsider it?

The District Planning Committee appointed an investigator to be responsible forconsidering the objections. It wrote a letter to the SPNI stating that this investigator would hear all the objections and subsequently convey his conclusions to the committee. In actual fact, he heard only some 100 objections and refused to hear the many others, claiming he had not been given a budget for more sessions. It is interesting to note that sufficient public funds from the Ministry of the Interior were somehow available to fund his travel expenses for the purpose of examining towers in Paris and other major European cities.

According to an article in Kol Ha-Ir, in the end the investigator recommended going ahead with the tower because, he argued, “most of the objections are theoretical and not to the point.” In amazement I asked myself: if he was only going to consider grounds for objections that were “to the point,” why the trip to Paris?

Many thousands of those who had objected sought to appear before the Objections Sub-Committee of the District Planning Committee, but they were refused.

Obviously, the District Planning Committee’s decision to go ahead with the tower does not necessarily mean that our battle is over.

We are now facing an issue of absolute principle. According to the rules of sound democracy, are the municipal council and the mayor entitled to make profound changes in the city during a period between elections without consulting the residents? Is the mayor entitled to try to expand the municipal boundaries to the west, or to build an enormous tower, without asking residents what they want? In the modern democratic world, such acts are not considered acceptable. After all, the city belongs to its residents, not vice versa.

In conclusion, it is important to note that the goal of Sustainable Jerusalem members is not to fight for the fun of it, but to adhere to the norms of a civil society and improve the democratic apparatus of city planning.

On May 9, 2002, the District Planning Committee convened to discuss the observation tower planned for Government House Hill. Let me remind you that 4,500 residents of Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel and the rest of the world rallied together to object to the plan, breaking the national record for the number of objections ever submitted against a single plan. Because of the enormous number of objections, it was decided to appoint an investigator to the plan, as permitted by the Planning and Construction Law. The investigator appointed, architect Tibario David, worked for about a year, during which time he read the objections, invited a (miniscule) number of those who objected to meet with him, and traveled to Paris to see what towers look like there.

His main conclusions were these: “In general (apart from a few cases or isolated issues), the objections to the Sela Tower are based on philosophical, spiritual, religious and historical grounds. Those who feel they will be injured by this plan do not put forward serious reasons that are based on property and real estate (land division, building rights, etc.); zoning; physical, economic, or financial damage; or harm to the livelihood of an organization or individual.”

Yes, indeed, we agree with what he says. But what if the beauty, character and uniqueness of Jerusalem are not merely a function of the considerations he deems to be exclusively legitimate?

The committee responded to the first question by saying that an observation tower should be built on this ridge. To the second question it responded thus: “The committee believes that due to the strategic location, on an international scale, it is fitting to conduct an international competition among the world’s finest architects, to plan an observation tower at this site.” It added: “… we have concluded that the design of this symbol should not be entrusted to an individual or to a statutory committee, but to the finest architects.”

On the one hand, we believe that the decision to conduct an international architectural competition is a good one. On the other, there is a genuine paradox in the committee’s decision. To the decisive and more essential question --“Should anything at all be built on the sensitive ridge in East Talpiot, which is located in the visual basin of the Old City, and if so, what?” -- the District Planning Committee decided: “Yes, we think a tower should be built there.” However, with regard to the second question, which refers to the design of the tower, the District Committee is apprehensive about taking a decision because of the importance and sensitivity of the ridge. After all, in any plan the design itself is never the most important element. There will always be some who like it and others who don’t.

In our opinion, the competition has to be opened conceptually. It should be announced that there will be a competition for comprehensive planning of the ridge, which should not be restricted to a tower. Likewise, the judging should be open to members of the general public,those who love Jerusalem and who in their thousands took the trouble to sign objections in the presence of a lawyer, and whose voices were not heard by the District Planning Committee. We believe the plan should not be judged like other plans. Thirty objections do not carry the same weight as 4,500.

We have therefore decided to submit a request to appeal against the District Planning Committee’s decision on the observation tower.

In August 2002, the in Jerusalem submitted a request to the chairperson of the District Planning and Construction Committee for permission to appeal against the committee’s decision of May 2002 to approve the construction of an observation tower near Government House and to conduct aninternational architectural competition for its design. In early October 2002 our request was accepted – i.e., the SPNI was permitted to submit an appeal regarding the observation tower to the National Council for Planning and Construction, the body which will discuss the plans henceforth.

The letter authorizing the SPNI to submit the appeal, written by the legal advisor of the District Planning Committee in his capacity as representative of the committee’s chairperson, stated: “Although the area (of the plan) is small and access is localized, it affects the ‘image’ of the city of Jerusalem.” The letter also stated: “The Committee was aware of the fact that this is one of the most conspicuous elements in the landscape of the Old City basin and because it is, as mentioned, a monument with a significant presence, it could be said that this is an issue of national importance.”

We are currently working on the appeal.

On November 6, 2002, an appeal against the observation tower plan was submitted to the National Council for Planning and Construction. The appeal included reasons based on the following: the location of the site and the sensitivity of the landscape of the visual basin of the Old City, the scale of the project in proportion to its surroundings and to other towers in the city, the damage that would be done to the existing promenades and neighborhoods, the need for public discussion of the plan, the need to examine conceptual and architectural alternatives, etc. The appeal also included legal grounds, including infringement of the right to contest, non-consideration of relevant considerations, inadequate reasoning in the District Committee’s decision, and unreasonableness of the decision.

On May 14, 2003, the plan will be discussed in the Appeals Committee of the National Council.

There are plans to construct more than ten hotels on the Hill of Evil Counsel (Government House Hill, near East Talpiot), nine of which will be built in three complexes. Four of the hotels have already been approved by the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee and are now the subject of an administrative petition submitted by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) after its request to appeal was rejected by the committee. The four hotels have 1,650 rooms among them, which is equal to one quarter of all hotel rooms in the entire city of Tel Aviv. The plans also include 23-storey high-rise construction.

The planned site is the Rachel Yanna’it Ben-Zvi Educational Farm, which was established in 1928 as a unique agricultural training institution for young female immigrants, and the Arab Girls’ College – both structures that should be preserved because of their special character and historical importance.

Detailed plans have not yet been drawn up for the other two complexes and their statutory approval processes have not yet begun. However, two other hotels in the area have been approved – one planned by architect Yehonatan Shiloni on the eastern part of the ridge and the other, on the western side, on land owned by Mrs. Gitta Sherover.

We were on the verge of reaching a compromise with the Israel Lands Administration to make thehotel complex on the ridge more aesthetic, but negotiations collapsed at the eleventh hour and we have now petitioned the courts.

On October 20, 2002, in the administrative court, Judge Yehudit Tsur heard the administrative petition submitted by the SPNI requesting the right to appeal against the District Planning Committee’s decision. At the end of the hearing, the judge asked the two sides (the SPNI and the District Committee) to draft summaries of their arguments and to submit them to the court within 30 days.

In December 2002, Judge Tsur decided that the SPNI should be given the right to appeal the District Planning Committee’s decision regarding the plan for the complex. The appeal was submitted to the Appeals Committee of the National Planning Council in January 2003. That month, the District Planning Committee submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court against Judge Tsur’s decision. No date has yet been fixed for the discussion in the Supreme Court.

On October 20, 2002, in the administrative court, Judge Yehudit Tsur heard the administrative petition submitted by the SPNI requesting the right to appeal against the District Planning Committee’s decision. At the end of the hearing, the judge asked t he two sides (the SPNI and the District Committee) to draft summaries of their arguments and to submit them to the court within 30 days.

In December 2002, Judge Tsur decided that the SPNI should be given the right to appeal the District Planning Committee’s decision regarding the plan for the complex. The appeal was submitted to the Appeals Committee of the National Planning Council in January 2003. That month, the District Planning Committee submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court against Judge Tsur’s decision. No date has yet been fixed for the discussion in the Supreme Court.

The Schocken Residence in Rehavia