October 30, 2026
Hello, everyone.
This week, here are a few topics and brief updates you should know about.
1 🗓️ . Updated agenda for the upcoming City Council plenary session
Here is the updated agenda for the upcoming Council meeting. The meeting will be held, exceptionally, this coming Monday, November 2, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., in the conference room.
As always, the meeting is open to the public. I invite you once again to set aside an hour or two to attend the meeting.
2 👥 . Leadership Changes: End of the Council Secretary’s Term and Appointment of a CEO
The long-serving Council Secretary, Dani Bitan, is stepping down; in his place, a new General Manager named David Arieli has taken office.
No explanation has been provided as to why the Council Secretary, who has served for many yrats, is suddenly stepping down and why a General Manager has been appointed in his place. This is an opportunity to thank Dani for his many years of service on behalf of the residents. 🙏
The appointment of David Arieli will be brought before the next full council meeting for approval.
3 🎉 . Good news: The council will file a separate objection to the plan to expand the illegal guesthouse
📌 Reminder: For the past two years, residents of HaGefen, HaShaked, and Yafeh Nof streets have been suffering from a severe nuisance caused by a guesthouse operating in an area zoned for residential use (several adjacent houses purchased or rented by the same operator). The site hosts activities for dozens of guests on weekends, including catering services, lodging, and even a synagogue—in complete violation of the approved zoning plans for the area.
⚖️Previous proceedings: An administrative order was issued against the property in December 2025; however, the competent authorities have not taken any action to enforce the order, and the property continues to operate.
Recently, the complex’s owners submitted a plan to the District Committee to increase the number of lodging units, add a floor, and obtain additional building rights. The Regional Committee recommended that the District Committee reject the requested hotel uses and authorized the relevant professionals to file an objection should the plan be submitted.
🏛️Council Debate: At the previous council meeting about a month ago, in the presence of the affected residents, a debate was held on a motion I submitted. In the motion, I requested that the council also file an objection to the plan—as it has done successfully in similar cases in the past—since the local authority’s objection carries significant weight. My motion aiming the eliminating the hazard, was rejected by all council members (both opposition and coalition members), who were convinced by the mayor argument that there was no need for the council to file an objection and that the committee’s objection was sufficient. Following the meeting, the residents were forced to hire a lawyer out of their own pockets to represent them before the council.
✉️ The Good News: I am pleased to report that our efforts have borne fruit. Below is the message the attorney sent this week to her clients, the residents:
As required by law, the decision to file an objection on behalf of the council will be brought before us for approval at the upcoming plenary session. I will, of course, vote in favor of the decision.
.4 ⚖️ Update: The petition I filed against the council and the council chair is still pending
📌 Reminder: Last July (in Newsletter 92) I reported that I had filed a petition—my second—against the council and the mayor, following the council chair’s decision to hold a closed-door discussion on two issues during the plenary session on May 12, 2026. The council’s legal advisor did not provide a substantive response to inquiries on the matter, leaving me with no choice but to file the petition.
📖 Legal Basis: The petition is based on extensive case law and clearly demonstrates that the two issues in question are distinctly public matters and there is no justification for keeping them confidential. Furthermore, the law establishes a defined list of exceptions that permit closed-door deliberations, and neither of these two issues falls under them.
🔍 Court Proceedings and Public Resources: The mayor is making tremendous efforts to block transparency and prevent this information from reaching the public. To this end, an outside law firm was hired at public expense, and it continues to represent the council and may also be charging more legal fees.
The mayor even appeared in person at the court hearing in September, devoting about two and a half hours to the matter and giving testimony. I was unable to attend the hearing due to a family vacation abroad that had been planned six months in advance, and my request for a postponement was denied; however, my attorneys remained in constant contact with me throughout the hearing.
⏳Current status: During the hearing, the judge attempted to broker a settlement, an effort that is still ongoing. The case is still pending, legal correspondence is being exchanged, and the mayor is investing considerable time and money in an effort to prevent the publication of essential public information. This is a high-handed maneuver intended to curtail a council member’s freedom of expression and undermine the transparency owed to residents.