O. BYCHKOVA – Today we’re going to talk about how public organizations in Moscow interact with construction companies and, of course, with the city authorities, because there are conflicts here too, clashes of interest, and examples both positive and not so positive. Good afternoon, Alexei. A. NAVALNY – Good afternoon. O. BYCHKOVA – Listeners have already started sending in various Moscow addresses where, in their view, something is going wrong; I’ll pass all of that on to our guest after the broadcast. But first of all, I wanted to ask you: what is this idea of creating an urban planning information center? A. NAVALNY – It’s an idea our committee has been actively lobbying for both with developers and with the Moscow city government. The reason we want to implement it is that there are major problems with public information. Even though by law the city is required to inform residents about all construction plans, and even though there is a regulatory framework, there are still very serious problems in this area. People literally spend years—and that is absolutely not an exaggeration, years—unable to find out what exactly is being built right next to their homes. O. BYCHKOVA – That probably isn’t an exaggeration. At least to me, as an ordinary city resident not involved in this kind of civic activity, it often seems that suddenly something is being demolished somewhere, something else is being built, and basically no one—above all, those doing the building—considers it their duty to inform the people living nearby about what is happening and what to expect. A. NAVALNY – Unfortunately, that’s true. That is exactly why we want to create an information center where people could get that information—at the very least, get the information. O. BYCHKOVA – At the very least, get the information, because in fact there is a next stage as well: then you need to find out what people think about it, whether they want it, or perhaps they have other ideas. We’ll discuss all of that in a minute, after a short news bulletin. O. BYCHKOVA – We continue our conversation with our guest, Alexei Navalny, executive secretary of the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites, and we are discussing the problem of relations between residents of the capital and construction companies. There have been many conflicts. Roughly speaking, according to your committee’s statistics, how many such clear-cut cases are there? A. NAVALNY – At the moment, there are about 500 initiative groups active in Moscow dealing with various construction-related problems. O. BYCHKOVA – So that means 500 addresses, roughly speaking? A. NAVALNY – Five hundred addresses. Our committee alone works with 98 local groups. O. BYCHKOVA – We’re already getting questions on the pager asking for the committee’s contact details, if possible a phone number—we’ll give that later. But I wanted to return to the topic of creating an urban planning information center. You said it should be some kind of structure for establishing interaction between construction companies and city residents. What would that look like? What exactly would it be? And how realistic is it? Are construction companies themselves interested in it at all? A. NAVALNY – It is absolutely realistic. The city’s official position is this: we do not want to coordinate future construction with residents, but we will inform residents about future construction. O. BYCHKOVA – Then what’s the point? A. NAVALNY – Even so, when we say, “At least inform people properly,” they can’t do that either. Because the standard method of informing people in Moscow is that somewhere in a district newspaper, at the bottom of page four, a tiny filler item appears saying that a shopping and office center will be built in such-and-such block—and that’s it. Naturally, residents know nothing. So when a children’s playground next to their building gets fenced off and bulldozers move in, they immediately hold a protest rally and try to tear down the fence. And a conflict arises that is, in principle, very, very difficult to defuse. According to our statistics, up to 30% of all these urban planning conflicts could be resolved simply by properly informing residents about a given construction project. O. BYCHKOVA – Up to 30%? That still leaves 70%. Those are cases, as I understand it, where, for example, residents simply do not want a playground demolished, so to speak, and replaced with anything else. A. NAVALNY – It is quite difficult to find a compromise in a situation where people are simply having their courtyard area taken away and something is being built there. Naturally, they lose a sports ground or a children’s playground. In such cases, compromise is hardly possible at all. So yes, a significant number of these conflicts are practically impossible to settle. O. BYCHKOVA – But don’t the people who live in a building have some sort of advantage, some priority right? A. NAVALNY – Unfortunately, they do not have such an advantage or priority right. They do have the right at least to receive information. If they received information at the initial stage, they could, through the courts or perhaps by mobilizing public opinion, make adjustments to these urban planning projects. But they have no information at all. That is why our position is that all urban development plans must be made public at the so-called pre-design stage—that is, before money has been invested in design documentation, expert reviews, and planning work. Once developers have already paid for all that, naturally they will not take a step back, because money has effectively already been invested in the future construction. But at the pre-design stage, in most cases, it is still possible to make changes that could perhaps become a compromise between developers and residents, or between the prefecture (district-level city administration) and residents. O. BYCHKOVA – Yes, on the other hand, developers probably don’t want unnecessary problems either, and at least some of them may be interested in reaching an amicable agreement. A. NAVALNY – Of course. Quite often these conflicts lead to situations like the famous Posner school case, for example, where the construction site was blocked for a year, the builders lost substantial sums, and the excavation pit just sat there for a year with no work being done. As I understand it, interest on loans keeps accruing, so in the end no one benefits from this situation—not the residents, not the investors, not the city. So it is much better to reach some sort of compromise at the pre-design stage, before money is invested. O. BYCHKOVA – Frankly, as a bit of an aside, what is surprising is the failure to understand something that seems obvious: why not simply go and discuss everything from the outset? Why do people have to fight through all this, create information centers, go to court, when it seems so self-evident? A. NAVALNY – Unfortunately, the way our developers operate is that they make arrangements with the prefecture and the mayor’s office—they “resolve issues” there, so to speak. And after they’ve spent their energy resolving issues there—and we understand how such issues are resolved—some completely unnecessary extra layer in the form of residents and public opinion is of no interest to them at all. O. BYCHKOVA – I see. Please tell us about this story involving Don-Stroy, with which the committee held negotiations. The situation that arose in Moscow’s North-Western District is being described by you as an acute social conflict. What happened there, and how are you trying to resolve it? A. NAVALNY – It really cannot be called anything other than an acute social conflict. We received a huge number of appeals from the North-Western Administrative District, and a large share of them were connected with the activities of Don-Stroy. What prompted our very tough statement addressed to Don-Stroy—we even said we were prepared to block Don-Stroy construction sites using the committee’s forces—was the large number of complaints we received that residents were being intimidated. And these were not just complaints: initiative groups brought us statements filed with the police and the prosecutor’s office, and evidence confirming that the conflict had indeed entered a hot phase. That is why we issued such a statement and warned Don-Stroy that if some kind of compromise was not reached, we would try to stop work at most of its sites. And in fact, after our intervention—and of course thanks to the active work of the residents—construction was halted at four sites in the North-Western District. The company, let’s say, encountered serious problems in its operations. That is why we met with them last week: I and the chairman of our committee, Mitrokhin, met with Ivanov, the general director of Don-Stroy LLC. At least we did reach certain agreements. First of all, Don-Stroy undertook to investigate all these cases of threats against residents. Of course, they said they had nothing to do with it, and in principle it seems unlikely to us that Don-Stroy itself was directly involved. Most likely, the private security firms servicing Don-Stroy’s construction sites may have shown excessive zeal. In any case, Don-Stroy undertook to check all such cases and once again work with all its private security contractors to ensure that conflicts with residents do not arise. In addition, they made certain commitments: by November 15, on the most conflict-ridden sites—in particular, 33 Biryuzova Street and 41 Raspletina Street—they promised to provide all documentation, all the papers that residents had complained to us they could not obtain from Don-Stroy. Don-Stroy undertook to provide all those documents. O. BYCHKOVA – At this stage in resolving the conflict, can you say that the construction company—in this case Don-Stroy—has behaved reasonably and appropriately, and is trying to discuss things in a competent way? A. NAVALNY – Absolutely. It is actually very encouraging that Don-Stroy took the first step. We ourselves were not especially eager to meet with them; they contacted us and said they were ready to meet us halfway. Of course, the conflict is still far from resolved, but we are very pleased that Don-Stroy, as a gesture of goodwill, met with us and at least gives some guarantees that it is ready to resolve these conflicts. In addition—and this is very important—we agreed with Don-Stroy that they would begin informing residents and working with them according to our model, the model we propose. That is, at the pre-design stage they will take certain steps to inform district residents and make changes to the project while such changes can still be made. This is very important. O. BYCHKOVA – Irina writes to us on the pager: there should be mechanisms for preserving old buildings, as in Europe—there it is history, while in Moscow it is treated as dilapidation. Moscow is turning into Hong Kong. Another low-rise building has been demolished somewhere, she gives the address. How can we stop our cities from being disfigured? The most recent example—or rather, not recent at all, actually, but the biggest and most vivid, let’s say, the most large-scale one—is the Moskva Hotel. A. NAVALNY – As for the Moskva Hotel, our position—which we presented at a special press conference—is that we are against rebuilding it. At our request, deputy Bunimovich submitted the relevant appeal to the Moscow City Duma (city parliament), and as you know, the deputies of the Moscow City Duma also adopted an appeal to the mayor of Moscow against rebuilding the Moskva Hotel. But things are not as simple here as they may seem. O. BYCHKOVA – Nothing there is simple at all, and it is completely unclear why the Moskva Hotel should not be rebuilt as promised when it was demolished, in the form it originally had. After all, what was promised was the same thing, only better. A. NAVALNY – Yes, the decision to demolish the Moskva Hotel was a very strange one at the time; everyone said it was dilapidated. O. BYCHKOVA – Yes, that was hard to understand. A. NAVALNY – We saw how difficult it was even to take it apart. We now have, in our view, a historic chance to radically improve the architectural appearance of the city center. This historic chance must not be lost. That is why we support broad public discussion of this issue. We are against the mayor of Moscow simply making a unilateral decision and saying: no, we will not build the Moskva Hotel. It should be remembered that right now the city has no legal grounds not to build it. An investment contract has been signed, and the company has already invested $50 million in dismantling the Moskva Hotel. O. BYCHKOVA – So now it has to be built? A. NAVALNY – From a formal and legal point of view, yes, it does. But we believe there must be a mechanism for public discussion—not just within some closed architectural circle, but involving all city residents and all interested parties. We are glad that many media outlets are actively discussing this now, including your radio station. We believe there must be a clear and transparent mechanism for compensating the investor for the costs it has already incurred and would lose if the project is not carried out. We believe that perhaps the more important question than whether or not to rebuild it is what should stand on that site, because that too is very, very complicated. Many architects, especially independent ones, believe there should be low-rise development in the style of the 18th century. O. BYCHKOVA – As it was there long ago. A. NAVALNY – Yes, Okhotny Ryad. Some think there should be a square there. People are fiercely arguing about that too. O. BYCHKOVA – Some people might tell you there should be a bowling club there, for example, made of glass, concrete, and plastic. A. NAVALNY – Yes, in fact, that opinion also has a right to exist. That is precisely why we believe both sides should be heard, even though right now the clearly dominant view is that the hotel should not be rebuilt. Still, all the arguments need to be heard, and a fundamentally transparent decision needs to be made about what exactly will be built there and how the investor will be compensated. O. BYCHKOVA – What needs to happen, what ought to happen, is of course perfectly clear. A. NAVALNY – We are taking steps toward that. O. BYCHKOVA – But the problem is that it isn’t happening. One thing gets demolished, then another; one thing gets built, then another, then a twenty-fifth thing—but there is no mechanism for gauging public opinion. A. NAVALNY – It has to be created, and that is exactly what we are trying—desperately trying—to do. But if there is no public opinion that is organized and that demands all this from the executive authorities, unfortunately it will never happen. Still, we are trying. Right now we are organizing a series of public hearings. In principle, we do have some understanding. When we speak one-on-one with individual representatives of the executive branch—Resin, Kuzmin, Moscow’s chief architect, everyone—they all nod and say: you are absolutely right, we fully share your point of view. But somehow, in the end, the result is what it is. O. BYCHKOVA – Indeed, why do we end up with what we end up with? One short practical question—well, not really short, but there isn’t much time to answer—from Anatoly Vasilyev in Moscow, who sent it to us through the website. Where should people complain about local authorities who carry out “beautification” projects just to skim off money? They covered our courtyard with peat, Anatoly writes, which then smoldered for several years on hot days, and recently they replaced perfectly good grass with rolled turf. Sound familiar? Where should he complain? A. NAVALNY – The situation is absolutely familiar; we get a lot of appeals about this too. This is all done by your beloved local DEZ (district housing maintenance office), that is, effectively your district administration. Try complaining to the prefecture and to City Hall. It will be difficult for you, let’s put it that way. O. BYCHKOVA – Our guest gave that advice without much enthusiasm—thank you. It’s clear that enthusiasm is one thing, but something still has to be done. Alexei Navalny, executive secretary of the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites, was with us live on air. Thank you. A. NAVALNY – Thank you.
Loading PDF...
1
/
0