On January 31, the Knesset's Internal Affairs Committee discussed Yitzhak Goldknopf's (Minister of Housing and Construction) request to grant bereaved families and families whose members are still being held captive in Gaza continued resident status, which in essence will allow them to retain permits that will enable them to reside in public housing.
The proposal is an amendment to the Public Housing Law. It entitles those who were once permitted to live in apartments but no longer do to automatically regain that original status. This amendment aims to specifically support families affected by the October 7 massacre who are currently undergoing a bureaucratic process so as to not be evicted.
Notably, there are very few families who need this amendment, and all of them are single-parent ones. Even the committee chairman and legal adviser expressed surprise at this all too specific a law, which, in a best case scenario, may help three famines at most, but in a worst case scenario, will create discriminatory differences even between victims affected early or late in the war, and between victims of hostility and the most vulnerable individuals in Israeli society, neglected by the Public Housing Law since 2009. The law's implication is also that the price of the status of a continued resident is blood, which raises additional concerns.
The government's request is to revert the situation to its state prior to 2009
The Ministry of Construction and Housing has long viewed the issue of tenants continuing to reside in public housing as problematic. Ergo, they saw a need to amend legislation passed in 2009 through the Arrangements Law, which effectively rendered that legislation null and void. Through a seemingly minor amendment stating that the right to continue as a tenant is contingent on the right to public housing, the Ministry of Finance succeeded in evicting tens of thousands of impoverished families, barring them from the eligibility process, whereby they were no longer able to receive the status of continued resident. Instead of continuing as tenants therefore, they were resultantly left homeless.
Moreover, the overnight amendment to the Arrangements Law, done undemocratically and without debate, deemed even those who had lived in their childhood homes for decades into intruders suddenly facing legal actions taken against them. The Finance and Construction and Housing ministries evicted thousands of families from their homes and displaced them due to an amendment never subjected to debate. Knesset members who voted in favor of the Arrangements Law were unaware that they were approving tens of thousands of evictions of the elderly, of single mothers, and of the disabled onto the streets.
In the current debate at the Knesset's Internal Affairs Committee, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Justice justified the law they presented, stating 'insufficient means.' They argued that the very specific, narrow law was necessary to avoid harming other individuals who are on the waiting list for approval. The head of the Ministry of Justice's representative argued in the discussion that there aren't enough apartments, and expanding the law would infringe on the rights of those waiting for public housing.
A representative from the Ministry of Housing at the discussion reinforced these statements, justifying the narrow law based on the need to assist affected individuals immediately. She disregarded claims of discrimination voiced by other MKs who were in attendance, including concerns that MK Ya'akov Asher, the committee's chairman, discussed. He expressed uncertainty regarding the notion that he could not explain why some war victims are eligible for special treatment while others are not.
It is like the Ministry of Health informing chronic patients that medications are exclusively available for war victims
Danny Gigi, the director of the Public Housing Forum, remarked, "In justification of any infringement and violation of tenants' rights, the argument of there being a housing shortage comes up in almost every discussion held by the Ministry of Housing regarding public housing." Gigi added that the arguments from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Justice insult the intelligence. It is like telling chronically ill patients that only victims of hostilities may receive medication, he explained. Gigi emphasized that the shortage of public housing is primarily due to a deliberate policy of eliminating this notion, reflected in the fact that for decades now, policy makers have not purchased apartments or built any new ones.
Indeed, there is a significant problem in supply, with the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Finance dragging their feet for years. In the past two decades, they purchased very few apartments and completely abandoned plans for constructing new public housing complexes. The Ministry of Finance, blaming economic and planning resources for the failure, opposed Living with Dignity, a public housing rehabilitation program that MK Yoav Gallant introduced, which aimed to supply 7,200 public housing units annually.
The Ministry of Finance, even through public housing construction projects done via the Affordable Housing program, and despite a clear decision by the Israel Lands Authority to allocate 7% of new construction for public housing, has disappointed here too. Last week, it was revealed in the Committee for Immigration, Absorption, and Diaspora Affairs that the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Housing, who promised a budget three years ago to purchase 1,700 apartments, only acquired 100 units with that budget.
By the end of the year, the funds are likely to return to the Ministry of Finance. It's crucial to note that according to international data, there is a shortage of tens of thousands of public housing units in Israel. In this country, less than 2% of apartments are designated as public housing units, whereas in Europe, the average is 12%. Gigi concluded: "Blaming the Tenant Protection Law or the Public Housing Law for the shortage is not smart, logical, or ethical. Instead of punishing tenants and those in need of housing by making eligibility criteria stricter, and by denying their rights, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Finance should present a genuine plan for public housing restoration."