The state needs to improve dialogue with the municipalities - opinion

Over the last few years, the Israeli public has endured its leaders’ attempts to navigate through various crises. In some cases, we successfully achieved the desired result while in other cases we failed. We seemed to forget that the journey is often just as important as the destination. Along the way, we frequently create new problems, mislead the public, all while hemorrhaging the support of those who refuse to cooperate.

These crises ranged from the COVID-19 pandemic, the “affordable housing crisis,” consistent inconclusive national elections, the ongoing confrontation with Gaza, the legal reform, and the Arnona (property tax) Fund controversy. In all of these cases, there was some collateral damage that resulted from the way in which these crises were managed. We must forge a path forward that allows our leaders to navigate crises without accumulating unwanted baggage along the way.

Imagine that the CEO of a factory wakes up one morning and decides to ignore the wishes of the labor union, the management, executives and his employees. In one moment, the CEO has decided to turn to an external consultant who would map out the plant’s goals, dictate to him the ways of streamlining the company, budget management and more.

Imagine that the CEO decides in a moment to adopt all the proposals and immediately lays off employees, management, executives, and more. One detail the CEO neglected in the process is that he needs the remaining employees in order to execute the task, the department managers to explain and direct and the CFO to implement the economic plan. Without the mobilization on their part, the CEO’s goal will remain clear but the journey impossible.

The results of privatization in public policy

To reach his goals, he may find himself with a winning idea but without a factory and the employees to execute it. The state of Israel has gone through a process of privatization in the design of public policy in Israel and the decision makers often work with third-party vendors, outsourcing to research institutions and consultants. This process is important and wise but these institutions are not the ones who received the mandate from the public to make decisions for it.

The result of privatization leads to the creation of goals for the state in many areas. However, if alongside the goals that have been determined there is no mobilizing dialogue between the decision-makers and those who are supposed to implement the tasks, and between them and the public, we can create unintended consequences along the way. Conflicts among officials, ministers and the heads of their ministries; and struggles of the national government against municipal governments, and vice versa, have become part of our lot as Israelis and it is getting to be more difficult to change this fate.

When the decision-makers do not know how to mobilize support from the public, cooperation will decrease. Without information, cynicism or rebellions will ensue. The employees of the Foreign Ministry who refused to cooperate with then-foreign minister Yair Lapid will testify to this.

THROUGHOUT THE legal reform debate, it was easy for one side to speak of revolution and for the other side to call it necessary reform. It was only when they entered the negotiating rooms that it became clear that their differences were not so grand. Problems arose when there was no dialogue with the “department managers.”

It’s hard not to ask how the legal reform would have been received if Minister Yariv Levin had former justice ministers or retired justices at his side. These mediators would not be for show. They represent the department managers and vice presidents of the plant who are supposed to bridge the two sides. For the decision-makers they would help alleviate the public’s concerns and for the public they could optimally mediate the goals and desires of the decision-makers.

They are also supposed to help make the path to the goal easy, clear and with as few bumps in the road as possible. If the dialogue and mediation process is skipped, you lose the public support and create opposition to the move. You also lose the mediators and begin a journey that is exhausting and will not reach the desired destination.

The problem that the state anticipated regarding the business property tax and the need to encourage residential construction is real and requires support. The fact is that the property tax fund proposal was discussed in previous governments that chose not to accept a decision.

It is important to distill the root of the problem: municipalities cannot independently decide on the property tax rate. This is subject to the approval of national policies of the Interior Ministry and Finance Ministry. In addition, individual municipalities cannot make decisions regarding the development of an industrial or commercial area where the property tax is profitable because the planning and marketing procedures for the land are in the hands of the government.

The state's plans have merit but lacked dialogue

The state’s desire to create a different distribution of the property tax fund has merit but it lacked an open dialogue with the heads of the local municipalities. Instead of mobilizing them and empowering them to create a solution, the state tried to impose a decision on them, thereby losing them.

Local municipal leaders believe the Arnona Fund will suppress needed development initiatives. Moreover, they view the housing solution as related to the creation of employment opportunities, accessible transportation and reliable infrastructure. They fear that thwarting initiatives to create jobs will not create housing solutions.

They also recognize that a situation has arisen where individuals who come each morning to work in a different jurisdiction from their residence will thus pay double property tax, once at his residence and once at his office. However, the remuneration he receives at his residence is higher and more expensive than the one he will receive at his office, while the property tax rates are reversed.

It is worthwhile to stop and listen to the whispers, to allow questions and to respond to the anticipated problems that will flood in. Without such a process, the municipal leaders will not be able to join the journey even when the goal of another division makes sense. Along with the good intentions, a tax revolt may develop that will make the destination irrelevant and the journey paved with disappointment and bitterness.

A crisis has materialized requiring taking decisive action. Should the state choose to promote the decentralization of powers for the local municipalities relating to the redevelopment of industrial and commercial areas, increasing residential housing, etc., it will discover that solutions will emerge from the local government. A comprehensive and transparent discussion about the goals and needs of the state together with the local government, giving space to the heads of the municipalities to create a solution, will end the conflict and will lead to the necessary changes without shaking up the state.

The writer is the mayor of Efrat.