Every year the debate arises in Bet Shemesh as to which day of Purim should be celebrated. Bet Shemesh always celebrated on the 14th of Adar, like most cities, because it is an unwalled city. There have always been some people who felt that in Bet Shemesh Purim should be celebrated on the 15th as well, like a walled city, due to its proximity to the ancient remains of Bet Shemesh and Yarmouth that was walled. These opinions have somewhat increased over the years with the expansion of the new neighborhoods of Bet Shemesh with RBS Gimmel and Daled (C and D) actually sitting on and adjacent to the ancient walled city of Tel Yarmouth.

Pedophiles and missionaries. Whenever they are exposed but not taken down they just move to another community and try to restart their work in the new community.

This afternoon a group of people, kannoim - extremists - went to RBS C2 (gimmel 2) to hold a protest on the property of someone who was digging out in his yard for the purpose of adding ona room to his home.

The reason for the protest, as reported by Kikar, is that they claim there is a very high probability of burial caves being present beneath the property, making expansion impossible without desecrating the graves. They also claim the kablan built around that problematic section and marked it off in the zoning as not being usable due to high probability of graves.

They went on to his property to protest, police were called in and put a stop on the entire thing.

Yes or no, I have no idea. Are there graves or not? No idea. Should he be able to dig and build (and presumably stop if he finds graves), I have no idea, nor do I care. I just want to know how the heck these kannoim found out about it! Every time someone takes a shovel to some dirt something beeps in the main office of the kannoim? I would guess a neighbor upset with the expansion plans, probably unauthorized and without taking the neighboring apartments into any consideration, reported it, but generally they report things like this to the Iryah, not to the thugs.

The Haredi leadership  regularly complains about cities, or neighborhoods, that try to block out people from the Haredi community from buying apartments or homes in the area. Even a theoretical statement made by a mayor or city councilman about not building projects for haredim so as not to turn their town into another Bet Shemesh brings out the wrath of the Haredi leadership and screaming about discrimination.

Just two weeks ago it was in the news that the Aliza Bloch administration is working with the Ministry of Housing to come up with a solution for Haredim who won purchase rights for subsidized apartments in RBS E (Hei), which is supposed to be designed for a general public and not for a Haredi atmosphere and lifestyle, who prefer to switch their purchase rights to RBS D (Daled) instead. It was said that anyone who wishes to can keep their apartment in Hei, just be aware the neighborhood will not be redesigned, and it is designed for the general public. Those who want to switch might be able to. That simple statement, not throwing anyone out but offering a solution for those who want one so they dont have to live in an area not designed with their needs in mind, got many people angry. People were upset that Aliza Bloch is discriminating, Aliza Bloch wants to lock out Haredim, etc. 

It was just a simple offer of a solution. Nobody was telling anyone where they can or cant buy, but the appearance of Haredim being told to switch neighborhoods upset so many people.

The mayor of Kiryat Gat recently said he will not build projects of Haredi housing so as not to turn the city into another Bet Shemesh. This has been repeated in cities around the country. And every time it happens, the Haredi community and its leadership get upset, demand the statement be recanted, demand legislation to let the Haredi community move to these cities, etc.

Yet then we have this letter put out today by local rabbonim regarding the RBS C2 (Gimmel 2) neighborhood:




The letter, signed by a group of rabbonim, calls on homeowners and real estate agents to only rent out or sell their apartments to people who are God fearing, as it says in Shulchan Aruch.  Commercial properties as well should only be rented out or sold to businesses that will adhere to the needs  of the community and to follow the rules of halacha. They also plan to appoint a committee of people to take care of the needs and atmosphere of the neighborhood...

So, we demand you let us live in your neighborhoods and cities, but we will not let you live in our neighborhoods and cities. The train goes in both directions. I am fine if you want to live in a secluded neighborhood with nobody else, but then stop demanding others let you in to their areas. I am also fine if you want to live mixed with everyone else, but then stop locking others out of your neighborhoods.

As it says in Pirkei Avos, one who says What is mine is mine and what's yours is mine is considered wicked.

Since RBS "Gimmel" has been planned, I have always called it "RBS C" for short, in English, in conjunction with the standardized Ramot Bet Shemesh neighborhood names.

RBS Aleph is known ad RBS A. RBS Bet is known as RBS B. Personally I call RBS Gimmel as RBS C, yet many online call it RBS G. I keep seeing it referred to, in English, by many people, as RBS G.

And, to me, that makes no sense.

Presumably RBS Daled will be called RBS d, but what will RBS Hey be called - RBS H? and RBS Vav will be called RBS V?

This makes no sense. We will have the neighborhoods RBS A, B, G, D, H, V, and on and on..

Gimmel is not G, just because that is the letter Gimmel (in English) begins with. It makes so much more sense to call it RBS C, then RBS D, then RBS E.

But I guess this isn't the hill I need to die on. Call it what you want, but it seems silly and inconsistent to call it G.

this is weird. The residents of RBS C have complained to the city about the lack of sports facilities in the neighborhood, leaving thousands of kids with nothing to do and nowhere to let out their energy. After receiving no response, they extended their complaint, started a petition, and sent their letters to the mayor, the Interior Minister and other MKs. The only one to respond was MK Dov Khenin - a Jewish member of the Joint Arab List party.

Khenin responds with a letter to the mayor, Moshe Abutbol, expressing the importance of the matter and requesting that Abutbol get involved in the matter.

This past week in a local Bet Shemesh newspaper there was something that struck me as very odd. This paper has always been very odd, which is why I don't read it any longer, but this was brought to my attention so I took a look. And, the truth is, this particular item is odd not because of the newspaper but on its own, assuming the paper got the report right.

The paper reported on a meeting between representatives of the residents of RBS C (a.k.a. "Gimmel") and representatives of the various relevant government and local authorities offices to discuss a variety of complaints and problems with the development of the neighborhood.

Most of it is the standard issues that come up when living in what is basically a construction zone.

While people should get the services they pay city taxes for and should be able to live with basic services as provided by the city (in any city), these residents suffer from a combination of living in Bet Shemesh whose provision of services are not all that notable on the best of days, along with living in a neighborhood that is still under development, along with living in a neighborhood that might be very nice but was initially designed poorly (as many of their complaints are about too-narrow streets, lack of paths between streets.forcing them to walk long distances to get between streets, lack of ramps adjacent to neighborhood stairs for strollers, and the like), along with the pressure placed on the municipality, which they gave in to, to populate the neighborhood before it was ready so the residents would not need to continue renting elsewhere until it would actually be ready.

So, yes, the residents have a right to complain about the lack of services, and they deserve to have their problems resolved, but they also need to have realistic expectations, considering the history and context, and know with whom they are dealing.

All that being said, the particular point that struck me as odd was the following:


To be brief, Moshe Montag, the city councilman tasked with the office of engineering of the city and responsible for the construction and development of RBS C (along with the rest of Bet Shemesh), as well as being a resident of the neighborhood, spoke at this meeting.

Montag said that he is not responding to the complaints as a representative of the city, but is adding his voice to the complaints as a resident of the neighborhood. Montag went on to say that the situation is intolerable and all these problems should have been resolved a long time ago.

So Montag is complaining about the fact that he himself did not do the work necessary to resolve the problems long ago and he has left an intolerable situation for residents? Who is he complaining to about himself? After he expressed his complaints, did he then put on his other hat and write down his complaints and take notes as to what he needs to do to resolve his own complaints?

This makes no sense. It is like one big joke and perhaps some form of virtual reality..

Walla News is reporting on an advertising booklet in Bet Shemesh that is seemingly making waves.

I have not counted in a while, but we get upwards of around a dozen or so ad books in our mailbox every week. Most of them go straight into the trash. A select few of them get brought into the house. One of them is the ad book that is the subject of the report on Walla News. Metzia is new, it is unique, it is colorful, and it is normal (and I advertise in it).

The story goes that Metzia is different than most of the other locals magazines in the sense that it includes women in its advertising. Meaning, if an advertiser wants to include an image of a woman, a woman that is modestly dressed, Metzia does not discriminate and will include the image. Most (not all) of the other magazines do discriminate and do not allow images of women, no matter if they are modestly dressed in the image or not..

Metzia has come under threat. One rav from RBS C (a.k.a. Gimmel) sent a letter to Metzia saying it is not appropriate, nor is it acceptable, and they should at least not distribute in their neighborhood, if not stop altogether (or take out women completely). Another influential rav is referenced who also called and had his people call saying to take out women. Theyy stated explicitly they would tell advertisers to pull their ads if Metzia would not comply, and some have begun to do so.

The owner of Metzia agreed to not distribute to any household that would opt out and send the address and state explicitly they do not want to receive the magazine, but he did not agree to cancel distribution to an entire neighborhood on the say so of one person or a few people who claim to be speaking for everybody.

People can decide to do business wherever they want. I can advertise in one book and not in another for whatever reason I want - budget, style, target audience, I like one and not the other.. Strong-arming and bully tactics are wrong, but at the end of the day, it is the choice of the advertiser to say he will or will not advertise in any given booklet. If they do not want to look for the business of the readers of Metzia, they do not need to.

However, besides for a few advertisers pulling advertisements, a woman who was in RBS C distributing the booklet came under attack. She had to be extricated from the mob by her husband who was in the area, and has filed a police report.. I am not quite sure what happened, but it seems she was spotted distributing the booklet and was told to either remove every single one from every mailbox she had put them in already or she would not be allowed to leave.

The owners of Metzia are standing their ground. They say there is nothing in halacha against the appearance of women in books and magazines, and they will not capitulate on these made up rules by extremists. Basically, anyone who does not like Metzia can take his ad booklet and toss it straight into the garbage, just like many people do with every other ad book they do not like but continue to receive.

Personally I appreciate the return to normalcy, or semi-normalcy, and I hope it shows others that it can work and the extremists do not need to be listened to. They can be extreme for themselves, but people do not appreciate when the extremists set the tone for the neighborhood.

If you are on a Facebook user, and if any of this speaks to you, feel free to show your support for Metzia by liking the Metzia Facebook page..

two interesting updates to keep abreast of...

1. Regarding the school situation. Bais Yaakov Mishkenos Daas has been temporarily using part of the building of Beit Sefer Safot vTarbuyot. This was upheld as a temporary solution with the Iryah having the right to implement it.

It seems that temporary might be coming to an end, with a new temporary solution to be put into place.

According to NRG, the sides are close to coming to an agreement by which the Bais Yaakov girls will move out of the building and into new caravans that will be placed either in the school courtyard or in a courtyard nearby that is an abandoned basketball court due to safety issues that shut it down.

My questions/thoughts:

        1. if new caravans could have been put down for the Bais Yaakov girls, why did they originally prefer to go to a conflict situation instead?

        2. there is room in the school courtyard for all those caravans, and still have enough room for the kids to play during recess?

         3. if the basketball court is unsafe for playing basketball, why is it safe for the girls to send the entire day there in classes and on breaks? I hope this is not going to be a case of negligence with someone getting hurt...

          4. why can't the girls stay where they are, in the Safot school building? I know it is not ideal, but it is not an ideal situation. After the initial problems, I haven't heard of any major issues. So, if it seems to have been working until now, why not continue the current situation, of course alongside working on a permanent solution for Bais Yaakov Mishkenos.

           5. if they can come to a working agreement, great. Agreeing on a solution is far better than a unilateral implementation.


2. Second update is about RBS C lack of shuls.

After feeling ignored, some residents in RBS C decided to put down a caravan for the Yom Kippur services. Representatives of the Iryah immediately arrived and had it removed. There was a protest and people are getting very hot in RBS C.

Residents blame the city, claiming that while the City is willing to let the nursery schools function illegally, with the implication being that this is so because of the connections those people have, yet for the residents the City isnt willing to budge an inch or provide services as necessary.

I don't know the city's side in this story, but I imagine they are trying to adhere strictly to their policy of no caravans in RBS C so they dont end up in a situation like RBS A where all the plots are filled with caravans so no schools are able to build buildings. Supposedly, and I dont know details, the City was willing to allow them to rent and put down respectable tents, like some shuls (in RBS B and elsewhere) do, and there may have been been an offer to let a group use the apartments that are waiting to be used by the illegal nursery schools.

I suspect that if the Iryah would allow the caravan to remain, it would remain there permanently. Would they really spend some thousands of shekels to put down a caravan for just one day of services and then remove it?

If the residents want the City to act fairly and honestly, for example regarding the nursery schools using apartments illegally, they cant then go putting down caravans illegally. If everything has to be on the up and up, that can be demanded of the residents as well.

The City is negligent in not providing basic services, such as a shul and a mikva. Whatever the residents do or have done does not remove that obligation of the Iryah or free them of the need to provide services.

.

The residents of RBS C are complaining once again about the lack of infrastructure in the new neighborhood.

The first time (that I know of) was about the lack of a mikva in the neighborhood. No mikva has yet been built, and the city has not yet even begun construction on the one that will eventually be built. The mayors response is that the mikva is two and a half years away. New neighborhoods don't have all the necessary resources, and that's the way it is. People need to be patient.

After that we had the lack of school buildings, and gans being opened up in residential buildings. After fighting the issue, the gans were made to hold off until permits could be given and other solutions considered.

And now the complaints are about the lack of shuls. Due to there being no shul buildings, they have to find creative solutions (that really are not all that creative) such as meeting for services in parking lots and storage rooms.

Over 100 residents met with Deputy Mayor Shmuel Greenberg to complain about the situation.

As well, another issue raised was that the roads and traffic circles are dangerous to drivers (I do not know why). About this Greenberg said he will set a meeting with the transportation committee to find solutions for the problems. About the lack of shuls, Greenberg said new places have natural absorption issues that eventually get worked out.
source: Shemeshnet

While some places are more organized and efficient and build public infrastructure along with the new neighborhoods, knowing the eventual residents will need the infrastructure when they eventually move in, historically Bet Shemesh has not bene the most organized in that regard. In RBS A we had similar issues when the neighborhood began to be populated and in those early days.

The Iryah's response is correct, even though it does implicitly admit blame for lack of planning.

As poorly as the Iryah planned the new neighborhood and as irresponsible as they have been with providing the necessary services for the residents of the new neighborhood, the residents should be aware that what they see is what they are going to get. They can expect more of the same. They bought in a place where houses are a priority and services for those houses are not. They should accept that reality, of course while continuing to fight and demand the services they deserve.

And yes, even in the best and most efficient municipal governments (of which Bet Shemesh is not included), there are absorption issues in new neighborhoods, and they have to give some leeway and have some understanding because of it.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the situation in RBS C in  which local residents were complaining about the city, led by Haredi authorities, not providing a mikva for the neighborhood in a timely fashion. The only thing the Irya could say is 3 years. No provision for a temporary solution, no looking for a quicker solution.

Currently the residents need to use mikvaot in other neighborhoods. That is ok, albeit inconvenient, for weekdays, but Shabbos is a problem. It is a long walk from RBS C to the closest mikva in RBS A. Also, much of the road is dark, and dangerous.

A couple of residents contacted me after that post. We bounced ideas back and forth, along with some griping about the lack of a solution.

Since then I have come up with a quick,, temporary, solution, that shouldn't be expensive or difficult to implement. It would obviously have to be coordinated with a rav who can deal with the halachot of mikva construction, as well as a kablan, engineer, and an askan who can get it done, as well as, I imagine, representatives of the Iryah who will approve it, even just temporarily, and allocate a small piece of land for it.

This would just be a temporary solution, until a better mikva could be built. It would only be for use on Friday nights, holiday nights, and in cases of "emergency". I do think that this type of a mikva is better than putting oneself in danger, walking in a dangerous area in the dark, and better than pushing off "mikva night" due to lack of a solution.

Here is my idea, which I sent to the residents I had been in contact with, and it is based on the Shulchan Aruch, hilchot Mikvaot, which I am currently learning:

Again, the purpose of this is to just be a temporary solution.

Now we need askanim who can get this done. We need rabbonim, to supervise or authorize the halachic aspects of it. And, it seems to me, we need the Iryah to allow it and maybe even subsidize it.

so how do we get this done?

According to this article in Kikar, a group of residents of RBS C (a.k.a. "Gimmel") have gotten together and are opening a front to battle with the mayor of Bet Shemesh, Moshe Abutbol and City Hall.

Their problem?

They have been living in RBS C for several months already, and there is no mikva in the neighborhood. They are required to make use of the mikvaot in other neighborhoods. A representative of the group says construction on a mikva has not yet even begun, and City Hall says it will be 2.5 years before there will be a mikva. There are already more than 200 families in the neighborhood, he says, and in the coming months another 700 are scheduled to move in. This representative also refers to a halacha that says it is a danger to live in a neighborhood with no mikva. The biggest problem, perhaps, is on Friday nights when women would have to walk over 50 minutes to the nearest mikva, and then back (though perhaps they can travel by car/taxi before Shabbos and just walk home), and at night the road is dark and dangerous.

The representative of the residents said that they expected more from a City Hall that has a Haredi mayor, that spiritual issues would be resolved right away. The City Hall is haredi, with Haredi rule, and they are populating a neighborhood with Haredi residents, so a mikva should have been built before the residents were moved in. Perhaps it is understandable that in the first few months there is no mikva, but the neighborhood has been under construction for three years, and a mikva should have been built and better advance planning should have been employed.

Even if the city made a mistake, he says, that is fine, but fix it now. Why do we have to wait another 2.5 years for the mikva to be built?

--

To be fair, all these residents bought and moved in knowing that no mikva was being built. It does take time to get everything up and running in a new neighborhood, and they should have been aware of that. When they bought, did they ask when the shul would be built? when the mikva would be built? when the schools would be built? Obviously the Iryah is not providing the necessary services, but the residents have no reason to act so surprised about this. Everyone was so worried about getting them in quickly, before infrastructure would be ready, and everybody knew it. And what immediate solution does he expect? Can a mikva now be built overnight? Where would the rainwater even come from?

2.5 years before a mikva will be built? Really? The mayor has been in such a rush to populate the mountains around Bet Shemesh, but would it really have been so hard to build the mikva, a shul and a school at the same time as building the rest of the neighborhood? This is extremely negligent, though not unexpected.

And the Iryah not providing services, even religious services, it is supposed to, not planning properly, no vision, is nothing new.

So basically, nothing here is new or unexpected, not the lack of vision or provision of the Iryah, not the complaints of the residents, and not the support for someone who clearly was not going to provide these services.

As the saying goes, we get the politicians we deserve.

If any residents of RBS C read this blog, please write in, in the comments or to me directly, with more information about this issue, and if there is any way for other people from around the city to help..

A yeshiva, of all things, is causing a major fight within the haredi community of Bet Shemesh.

A couple of months ago it became known that Mayor of Bet Shemesh Moshe Abutbol allotted an unusually large plot of land to a yeshiva, Yeshivat Torat Zeev, from Yerushalayim. The 7 dunam plot of land is in RBS C.

Initially the allotment was protested by Eli Friedman, city councilman from the TOV party. He protested, and voted against the allotment, in the city council vote. His opposition is due to the size of the plot and that this yeshiva is not a local institution - 7 dunam is an unusually large size, and is inappropriate especially when there is already known to be a shortage of schools and plots for local institutions. Most institutions are allocated plots to the size of up to 1.5 dunam.

City Councilman Shmuel Greenberg (UTJ) was responsible for the allocation, and has attacked Friedman for his opposition. Greenberg's attack including a scathing op-ed in the Yated Neeman accusing him of opposing yeshivas and Torah study, while ignoring the actual issue. He has so far failed to explain why he agreed to give 7 dunam of land to a yeshiva from outside of Bet Shemesh while local institutions flounder and fight for every inch of land they can get.

According to Bechadrei, this has boomeranged on Greenberg. The opposition has increased as residents began to understand that their interests are being overlooked in favor of personal interests of their representatives. It seems a group of residents has sent a letter to Minister of the Interior Gideon Saar asking him to delay the allotment until the courts can hear and decide on the issue. They are preparing to file a lawsuit against the allotment, stating that they are not opposed to the yeshiva and have nothign against the yeshiva opening its doors in Bet Shemesh - the only thing they are opposed to is specifically this allotment of land, of this size, and that it smells of corruption.

According to the groups representative, Daniel Spiegel, besides for all the information already mentioned, the allotment happened after activists and the mayor himself met with the sponsor of the yeshiva, a philanthropist from France, the allotment was agreed to and approved. As Spiegel says, "Without casting suspicion on anyone, the issue should be investigated to discover the causes behind the disproportionate decision..."

I find it humorous that he casts suspicions while saying he is avoiding casting suspicion....

Bechadrei quotes another resident, left unnamed, who also stressed that they have nothing against the yeshiva itself, but are protesting against the distorted set of priorities of Iryat Bet Shemesh, giving a disproportionately large plot of land to establish a yeshiva that is not from Bet Shemesh itself while there is already a shortage of classrooms for local institutions.

Will the fight over a yeshiva bring about the downfall of the [largely] inept leadership of Bet Shemesh? It might be part of it, as more and more residents even within the Haredi community are realizing that their representatives dont have the interests of the local residents at the top of their lists of priorities..

A Guest Post by Rabbi Dov Lipman in response to RBS D Approved

We have succeeded in fighting the plans for RBS Gimmel 2 for well over a year and will continue to do so in court. The moment the opportunity to submit objections to the current plans for RBS Dalet we will do the same.

Everyone must understand that the current plans will destroy the quality of life for residents of RBS Aleph - whether datiim, chareidim, or chilonim. They plan to build these neighborhoods without an adequate plan for transportation, education, and more. If you dislike sitting on highway 38 now, just wait for how bad it will be when thousands of new homes are built before the access roads are improved. If you think our schools are packed and in inadequate structures now, just wait for how bad it will be when thousands of houses are added before the educational infrastructure is in place. If you think the RBS Mercaz is crowded now, wait intil thousands of new citizens flood to make use of it because of inadequate commercial space.

My friends, the political leadership has led you to believe that this is some kind of "anti-Haredi" campaign. In actuality, we are the ones who truly care for Haredim and are trying to preserve the quality of life for Haredim as well. Our recent appeal led to changes in the plans which will improve the quality of life for any Haredim who move into RBS Gimmel 2. The political leadership has one goal in mind - build, build, build as quickly as possible so that was can be the national heroes for solving the Haredi housing crisis and advance ourselves - without thoughts to the quality of life of the city's current residents including Haredim and without thought to the quality of life to whoever moves to the new neighborhood includimg Haredim (ask the residents of Heftziba if they are satisfied with their lack of green space).

We will continue to fight all these plans and do whatever we can to stop these destructive plans from coming into fruition and invite all citizens from chilonim through chareidim to join our efforts.

Please e-mail me at ddlipman@gmail.com if you would like to join our efforts.


------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

There is a petition being passed around for signing to protest the plans for construction in RBS C2. The petition is based on the flaws in the planning of the area and the infrastructure of the city being unable to bear so much new growth with inadequate plans for upgrading it.

Somebody decided sent a halachic question to Rav Yuval Cherlo to see if it is ok to oppose construction in Eretz Yisrael.

From the Moreshet website:

Around our neighborhood, there are a number of plans for the development of new neighborhoods that are meant to add about 200,000 new residents within 15 years. The new neighborhoods are planned with inadequate infrastructure of public and religious buildings, schools, mikvas, shopping areas and city access roads.
Right now the infrastructure in Bet Shemesh and the surrounding areas is deficient and lacking enough public buildings and appropriate roads. The main access road to the city - Highway 38 - was already declared in 2005 as a road in danger of collapse. In our neighborhood with thousands of religious families, there is only one working mikva for women.
We oppose the construction of these new neighborhoods because the new neighbors will add much more traffic on the mikvas, schools, shopping centers, and roads in the area and in our neighborhood, that already cannot bear the current traffic levels.
Are we allowed to oppose  and delay the building of a new neighborhood in Eretz Yisrael until the city infrastructure will be installed to bear the future residents of those neighborhoods?

Rav Cherlo's answer:

My answer is not for the specific situation and for the facts as described. I am familiar with the reality on a superficial level (I drive on highway 38 daily) and I estimate that what you are saying is correct, but I do not have the tools to know if it is or is it, what the plans are, what the infrastructure is, etc. Therefore, my answer will only involve a halachic perspective and not the specific details.
The mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael does not include or obligate building without plans or infrastructure, and with serious damage to the environment. Just the opposite - fulfilling this mitzva properly is specifically by planning properly, by building appropriate infrastructures, and tryign as much as possible that the construction should be "green" with minimal damage to the environment.
Therefore, it is definitely allowed for you to oppose, and perhaps even an obligation, if they are not done properly.
In the halacha itself, in the 2nd perek of Baba Basra, there are some ecological rules that teach us the halachic trend to take these issues into account, and to include them in our decision making. It is the responsibility of the local governing body, and of the construction committee, and they always must remember that the mitzva of yishuv eretz yisrael is in the way of "yishuv", with the predominance of halacha in this realm, and not by sticking people into places without infrastructure.
Obviously, this is not the only factor when looking from a halachic perspective. Another factor to consider is to not be like Soddom and Gemorroh and not prevent the good from other people. You need to not just oppose, but also to say that if the appropriate conditions will come about the community will open itself to others, and the expansion of the place will be a bracha for everyone.

(Hattip: CW)
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

The opposition committee of the Regional Board of Planning and Construction for the Jerusalem region has given it's stamp of approval to the establishment of the next level of RBS, that is known as RBS Gimmel/2 (RBS C2).

RBS C2 is planned to be a neighborhood of 1800 housing units, along with commerce and public buildings (shuls, schools, community center, etc.). RBS Gimmel/2 has met with opposition. About 7000 people from Bet Shemesh and Mateh Yehuda signed petitions against the construction of the neighborhood.

The main complaint was not that the neighborhood should not be built, though some people supported that position, but that it should wait until there would be proper planning of appropriate infrastructure. The oppositions committee had to hold two sessions to hear many of the complaints before coming to their decision.

While the final decision was to approve the plans, the committee did also accept some of the points of opposition and insist they be included in the plans. These points include holding a reserve of planning designated for sports and culture, upgrading the infrastructure for transportation and gauranteeing the development of the open areas (parks and archaeological parks, etc). (source: Ladaat)

The opposition put up a good fight, but construction has been approved. it is time to move. on. Get people to buy. If thousands of non-haredi people really want to buy in bet Shemesh and Ramat Bet Shemesh, get groups of them together and encourage them to start buying. It worked the other way, with RBS being designed for DL and Chiloni, but the DL and Haredi bought it out and adjusted, and the neighborhood adjusted as well despite the differences in planning to what turned out being needed.

If so many people would buy large sections of the new neighborhoods as they say they want to, adjustments would be made. Everything would work out. It is time to step up to the plate.

Picture Of The Day

hafgana outside of RBS C housing fair

The first sets of building permits for RBS C were granted today. Here is a video of Mayor of Bet Shemesh Moshe Abutbol talking about the permits, building and other projects in Bet Shemesh.