Residents and City Council member Tamar Zusman have filed an objection to a plan that would allow public buildings to be built on part of a neighborhood park. They say the proposed land swap could mean losing green space without gaining any new open space.

Last week, around 280 residents, together with Beit Shemesh City Council member Tamar Zusman, filed an objection to Plan 102-1507284 in Ramat Beit Shemesh D.

The plan proposes a land swap, meaning that the planned uses of two plots of land would be changed. The residents argue that although the exchange may look fair on paper, it could lead to the loss of part of the neighborhood park.

The objection also raises a wider question: How can the city provide the public buildings it needs without taking away more parks and open spaces?

What Does the Plan Include?

Under the plan, about 1,700 square meters of the park on Plot 834 would be used for construction, allowing around 6,800 square meters of public buildings to be built there.

In exchange, Plot 519 is presented as the alternative land. However, the residents say this plot is already used by the public as a playground, next to a school and sports courts.

They argue that the plan does not actually provide new open space. Instead, part of the existing park would be used for construction, while land that residents already use would be presented as compensation.

According to the objectors, the exchange may look balanced on paper, but the reality on the ground is different.

Residents: What Does the Public Actually Gain?

Attorney Shachar Petel, who represents the residents together with Attorney Yoav Ingber, says the main problem is not the land-swap method itself, but how it is being used in this case.

The land presented as compensation is already used by the public, while part of the park would be taken away for construction.

The residents say the plan must be judged not only by comparing the size of the two plots, but also by looking at how it will affect the public in practice.

The objection also points to other plans in Beit Shemesh that use a similar land-swap method. The residents say they are not against land swaps in general, but want to make sure that parks and public spaces do not gradually become land for new construction.

Tamar Zusman: “We Cannot Keep Approving Construction and Then Take Land Away from Parks”

City Council member Tamar Zusman, who joined the objection, says the city needs public buildings but must also protect its open spaces.

“The need for public buildings is real, but we cannot keep approving more and more construction and only afterward make up for what is missing by taking land from parks and open spaces. The public facilities that are needed should be included in new projects and required as a condition for approving them.

“If the land presented as compensation is already being used by the public, then we have not gained a new park. We need to look not only at the number of square meters on paper, but at what the public actually gains and what it loses.”

Concerns About the City's Future Planning

The residents say the issue is especially important following a recent decision by the District Planning and Building Committee on another plan in Ramat Beit Shemesh D. According to the objectors, that decision placed greater importance on keeping open spaces connected and prevented construction in several areas.

They say this shows why each plan must be examined carefully, including its long-term impact on the city's parks and open spaces.

They also question whether the current plan falls within the authority of the Local Planning and Building Committee.

The residents say the city must consider not only whether a single plan appears balanced, but also whether similar decisions could gradually reduce the amount of open space available to the public.

Zusman said: “As city council members and members of the committee, we must protect the public interest. Green space that is taken away today is very difficult to restore tomorrow. Our job is not just to look at the plan in front of us today, but to ask how the decisions we make will affect Beit Shemesh in five, ten and twenty years.”

Municipality's Response

The Beit Shemesh Municipality said:

“The matter has been scheduled for discussion by the Planning and Building Subcommittee, where the claims will be examined in detail. The committee is expected to discuss the matter and take all relevant considerations into account.”

The upcoming discussion will address the residents' objections. At the heart of the debate is a key question for the city's future: How can Beit Shemesh provide the public buildings it needs while protecting parks and open spaces and maintaining residents quality of life?