Dissonant sounds from the music square

The question of who has the right to decide what kind of artistic sites Jerusalem needs is being confronted at music square.

By PEGGY CIDOR
A Jerusalem street [Illustrative] (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)
A Jerusalem street [Illustrative]
(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)
How does society integrate philanthropy with regular procedure? What are the limits that can and should be imposed on private initiatives, even when they are designed to improve the public sphere, at least in the eyes of the donor? And what about the growing suspicion towards any activity spearheaded by religious persons? All of these questions and some others brought the city council opposition leader and the municipality to court – and not for the first time.
Laurent Levy, a French millionaire and generous philanthropist, is at the center of this particular story, which combines bureaucracy vs business pragmatism, regulation limits, religion vs secularism and money – big money.
Levy loves Jerusalem, and sincerely wants to use his money for the benefit of the city’s underprivileged residents. One of his first projects was the donation of spectacles, enabling many thousands of senior citizens and residents living under the poverty line to enjoy fashionable and quality glasses completely free of charge, for the past 10 years. For this purpose, Levy bought the large building on the corner of Haneviim and Havatzelet streets, which he renovated beautifully.
The renovation included an illegal addition on the building, which Levy explained was the inevitable result of the municipality’s bureaucracy – and which the municipality retroactively approved at a later date.
Now, it seems that the same model is once again being perpetrated, and once again – at least according to city councilman and opposition head Pepe Alalu (Meretz) – the municipality is inclined to whitewash more illegal construction activity by Levy. Only this time, Alalu says the French millionaire is not only dealing in his own particular way with the bureaucracy, but is also dictating his views on artistic aspects while ignoring that of the city’s appointed professionals.
Levy, who buys real estate in the capital at a vertiginous rhythm, has acquired property in Nahalat Shiva, close to city center. He wanted to build a square devoted to musical events inside the picturesque old neighborhood. The plan – like so many other plans, it must be said – was stuck at the construction permits administration for a year and a half. A few months ago, Levy lost his patience and sent bulldozers to demolish the remains of old construction on the site to prepare the ground for his project.
Neighborhood residents contacted the municipality and Alalu, and managed to stop the bulldozers – but the demolitions caused a lot of damage. Alalu and attorney Yossi Havilio (once the city’s legal adviser and today Mayor Nir Barkat’s toughest critic) went to court and requested a total halt to the project until its status was clarified. Since the project was already approved by the local planning and constructing committee, the only legal avenue was to bring the case to the appeals committee.
However, it turned out that the appeals committee is not functioning due to the retirement of its head. So it was back to court, which authorized the municipality to do the required work to bring the demolished square back to its original state. But Alalu suspects that through this authorization, the mayor will ensure that the restoration in fact facilitates the seizure of the location by Levy – who is a “persona grata” at Safra Square due to his generous philanthropic activity.
And, of course, there is the question of who has the right to decide what kind of artistic sites the city needs.
Is it the privilege of the professionals employed by the municipality, or is it acceptable that a philanthropist is given the right to decide how a “musical square” should look, and what kind of musical events will be held there? Alalu says that proper management of the city’s public spaces should be controlled only by the professionals and residents’ representatives, but Levy believes he is doing good for the city. Meanwhile, bureaucracy is drowning them altogether.
In any case, one must bear in mind that Levy, being a very religious person, has publicly admitted more than once that he wishes to use his money to bring back the Jewish religious aspect to Jerusalem – a declaration that evidently hasn’t allayed Alalu’s apprehensions.