Moscow mayoral candidates' debate. Round 1

I suggest we begin. According to the draw that was held,

according to the draw that was held,

the first to speak is Ivan Melnikov. Ivan

Ivanovich, please, you have 2 minutes. I ask you

to keep to the rules.

I am running in this election to become

Mayor of Moscow and pursue policies in

the interests of Muscovites, and I feel broad

support. My party, the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation), trusts me, and

our supporters have backed my candidacy.

It has also been supported by left-wing and national-

patriotic organizations. I am trusted by

initiative groups of Muscovites with whom

I have held dozens of meetings. Many

research teams and prominent scientists support me,

starting with Zhores Ivanovich Alferov.

To govern the city, I have enough

both life experience and professional experience. I

have lived in Moscow for more than 40 years. During that time

I have gone all the way from a student dormitory

at Moscow State University to seeing my granddaughter born here. My friends

and colleagues are here. My

children are here. I have managed

large

teams, complex

organizations, and major infrastructure, and

I know what responsibility for

people's lives means.

And I am not ashamed of a single decision

I have made. The main reason I am running

in this election is that I am not satisfied with the current state of affairs. I do not

want Moscow to remain

a city of kickbacks, bribes, and deception, a city

of uncontrolled migration, homeless

construction projects, and reckless decisions

to merge educational and

medical institutions, a city where the humiliating положение

of the intelligentsia, the elderly, and

young people persists, a city where the authorities lie to your face,

where fraudsters inflate housing and utility tariffs, where

the masters of life have become incompetents and bandits

in luxury limousines. Change is needed.

A different strategy is needed. I have one.

Thank you, Ivan Ivanovich. Now we must

give the floor to Sergei Mitrokhin. Sergei

Sergeyevich, we apologize for the slight

technical hitch at the very beginning.

After all, this is live television, and all sorts of

glitches can happen. Please, you have 2 minutes.

Attention to the screen. Dear Muscovites, I

want to become mayor because I love Moscow.

As a native Muscovite, it pains me

to see what is being done today by

a team of outsider officials led by

Sobyanin. They do not respect Moscow or the views

of Muscovites; they do not care about them. They are violating

our city.

These talentless people are disfiguring our parks, and for this

huge amounts of budget money are being spent.

Instead of fighting illegal

migration, they profit from it, and in general

instead of solving the city's real

problems, money is spent on

cosmetic sprucing-up, window dressing, and some kind of

provincial aesthetic. It feels as though

they want to turn Moscow into

Sobyanin's village. They are taking away

Moscow from us.

In order to wrench Moscow out of the hands

of outsiders and wrench Moscow's government out of the hands

of outsiders and put it at the service of you,

the Muscovites, if I become mayor I will resolve all

issues in agreement with you. You will receive

a voice on all matters. Together with

you, we will defeat corruption, and we will

have money to solve social

problems and to help pensioners,

people with disabilities, and children. There will be money for

the development of our

city. You should believe me that I will solve

these problems. Five reasons: first, I love

Moscow; second, I have a clear

and concrete program of action; third, I

have a report on 10 years of work showing that I

have truly defended the rights and

interests of Muscovites and know their problems;

I respect them; and fifth, I have a team,

a professional team, and I have

the political will to solve these

problems. Support me, and I will return Moscow

to the Muscovites. Sergei Mitrokhin. Now the floor

goes to Mikhail Vladimirovich

Degtyarev. Please, you have 2 minutes. Attention

to the screen. Dear Muscovites, my name is

Mikhail Degtyarev. I have been nominated by the oldest

political party, the LDPR. We are 25 years old; we are

the youngest faction in the State

Duma, and we have the youngest top

governing body in the party, the Supreme Council,

of which I am also a member. I was supported by Vladimir

Zhirinovsky and the Moscow city

branch of the LDPR. I am 32 years old. I am an engineer,

an inventor, a Master of Sports in fencing,

and an experienced politician. The first time I was elected to

public office in a single-member district was

in 2004. Already 10 years

of parliamentary work have brought many

benefits to our fellow citizens, and our

program

is called Order, Comfort, Prosperity. That is

what Moscow lacks today. We will not

criticize anyone. We want to say that

Moscow needs a new impulse for development, and

the LDPR, represented by our leader,

has nominated me, a young man. We are sending

a signal to you, Muscovites: the authorities need

change, the authorities need new faces, and our

broad team will consist of people

with a wide range of political views. We

believe that Moscow must be cleared of

illegal migrants, that it is necessary

to eradicate all ethnically based crime.

We believe that kindergartens are overcrowded

and the waiting list is unworthy of Moscow. We will build

3,000 small-capacity kindergartens. This is

cheap and fast. We will provide schools with

hot meals for our schoolchildren, and for

half of them we will make it free.

we will fight for people with low incomes

traffic jams already today introduc streets for

Muscovites who are going to

their dachas (country homes) in an outbound format, we will clean up Moscow

the Moscow River; every metro car will have

free Wi-Fi and

climate control. Thank you, Mikhail Degtyarev.

That was the position of the LDPR candidate.

Alexei Navalny. Alexei Anatolyevich,

you have 2 minutes. Dear Muscovites,

My name is Alexei Navalny, and I... My

team, my like-minded supporters, and I are running in the

Moscow mayoral election. We are running a fairly

large campaign. I am confident

that many of you have already met one

of the thousands of volunteers who

are helping us. But the main part of my

campaign is meeting with voters. I

hold them every day, several times a

day, and I can already say now that I have

personally spoken with literally thousands of

Muscovites. And that is exactly why I say

here that I am absolutely certain that I am running with

the program Muscovites need. I

want to be that mayor, and I will become that mayor

whom Muscovites want to see. We know

what to do about corruption in Moscow. Our

Anti-Corruption Foundation, a nonprofit

organization, has already succeeded in canceling

corrupt contracts worth 59 billion rubles (about $1.8 billion at the time).

We have drafted bills, entire

sets of regulations. We know exactly what to do

about corruption in Moscow. I am running with

a program that states that already this

year we will change the budget in such a

way that we will increase social payments

to pensioners and all

those in need. We know that the Moscow

budget has the money for this. I know what

to do about the absolute lawlessness of

migration in Moscow. We will push for

the introduction of a visa regime with the countries of

Central Asia and Transcaucasia. We will ban

state institutions from hiring

migrants simply in order to

use them like slaves, because they

have to kick back part of their wages. I

urge you to support me—not just

to come to the polling stations, but also

to bring your acquaintances, friends,

relatives, and take an active stance.

I rely on active citizens. In my

team there are hundreds of people helping

fight corruption. When I become mayor, I

will rely on thousands of professionals

who will build a wonderful city

worthy of all of us. Come to the election,

vote for a future for yourselves and your

families. Thank you. Alexei Anatolyevich, now

we give the floor to Nikolai Levi... Nikola

Vladimirovich, you have 2

minutes. Dear voters, dear

Muscovites, it feels somehow awkward to

praise oneself, but I made the decision to run with an

alternative program for the development of

Moscow. At its core is the principle of social

justice. First, I propose

a systemic solution to the housing problem. In

current conditions, an ordinary Moscow

family is unable to buy housing. For the

middle class, a stock of non-commercial rental housing will be created,

for non-commercial rent, and for

low-income citizens, the volume of

social housing construction will be increased.

Second, today no one cares about the opinions of Muscovites.

Over the past 20 years, there has not been in Moscow

a single substantive referendum.

Muscovites have been deprived of the right to self-government.

In Moscow, what is needed as urgently as air is

an expansion of the powers of local

self-government and a higher status for the

municipal deputy. We have prepared

a draft law on self-government in Moscow.

It is the right of Muscovites themselves to decide what

our city should be. Third, all these years

historic Moscow has been barbarically

destroyed.

In place of architectural monuments there have arisen

faceless buildings and pompous offices. Our

city deserves a better fate. I will introduce

a complete moratorium on construction in

central Moscow. The city within

the Boulevard Ring should become an open-air museum

preserve. And

fourth, today’s Moscow is a city

of glaring social inequality. Here

are the highest prices in our country for

transport,

... and education. Moscow’s enormous budget

makes it possible to implement large-scale

social programs, and under my

leadership such programs will be

adopted. The city budget will work for

Muscovites. The rest is in my program,

A City

of Justice. Thank you, Nikolai Vladimirovich.

I think we are now moving on

to the questions-and-answers segment. First up we have number

Ivan Melnikov. Ivan Ivanovich,

please. While you are coming up here, I will explain

that

I would ask that questions be asked very briefly—

30 seconds, if you do not mind—and

not quite that short, of course, but still to follow

the rules: 2 minutes for each answer

to each question. Actually, taking advantage

of the moderator’s prerogative, with your permission I

will ask you the first

question. Surely all our viewers

and your voters are interested in the question of

your team. Nearly each of you

said in your remarks that you would

bring with you capable, competent

people who would do what

they are supposed to do. And surely there are

several key positions you have already

thought about—for example, finance,

security. If you would, please answer.

Please answer this question. You have 2

minutes. I support the formation of a

coalition government in Moscow.

I believe that

the socio-economic and political

situation is extremely difficult, and no single political

party can govern the city alone.

Tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. at the Interfax news agency, I

invite all journalists. I will be

holding

a press conference where I will present the full

composition of the new

Moscow Government, in the event that I

become mayor of the city. The structure will change somewhat.

I will have slightly more deputy mayors

than in the current government lineup.

There are 11 now, but their

responsibilities will be different overall. Looking at it as a whole,

the number of people in the city’s administrative system

will be significantly reduced, and

the funds allocated for it

will also be lower. I believe

that these functions should not be separated,

for example,

urban planning and road

construction. This is a single, integrated

set of issues that should fall under one

deputy mayor, and these matters should

be resolved together. There are a great many

situations in Moscow where poorly thought-out

urban planning and road

construction put

our residents in a difficult position. I encountered

such a situation in the Marfino district, when

highways were routed into an already built residential neighborhood

that pass literally

2 to 3 meters from apartment buildings and their entrances

(about 6.5 to 10 feet). It is simply impossible for people to live there, and

I deeply regret that the current Moscow

city leadership

did not even see fit to come and

hear residents’ complaints. And I deeply regret

that the voices of Moscow residents are very

poorly heard. And if possible, briefly:

do you already have any names? I do

have all the names. I am ready to name very

many names. Please, just one, if

possible.

For political affairs, the deputy mayor will be Oleg

Nikolaevich Smolin. For matters of

economic policy, Oksana Genrikhovna

Dmitrieva. Thank you, thank you. Sergei

Sergeyevich, what is your question for the candidate from

the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation), Ivan Ivanovich? He has just

met with voters in Izmailovo

and encountered the following situation:

The department

for capital repairs ordered the reduction of a public square, that is,

the destruction of Izmailovsky Square.

The department

of housing and utilities is also against it, but

the work is going ahead, the square is being destroyed. Does it not

seem to you that under Sobyanin, Moscow

has generally lost governability, and what do you

propose to do about it?

You have 2 minutes. Overall, I believe

that Moscow’s system of governance requires

very serious changes. I support

the idea

that elections to the Moscow City

Duma be held ahead of schedule. But I believe these elections

must be prepared very carefully. They must be

truly

model, honest, open elections,

elections Moscow can be proud of and

that will become an example for our entire

country. These elections must be prepared, and

that is because

the number of deputies must

be increased. It should be increased both

in general and in connection with the incorporation of

New Moscow. I believe that the three-tier

structure of Moscow’s administration—mayor’s office,

prefectures, and district administrations—is very costly,

prone to corruption, and completely ineffective. I

believe that Moscow needs to move to

a two-tier governance structure: the mayor’s office

and municipal deputies. At the same time,

municipal deputies

must have

broad powers. These powers

must be set out in Moscow law, and

they must receive the corresponding

financial resources. In other words, this should

be a governing body that is as close as possible

to Muscovites, resolves all issues

together with Moscow residents and in the interests

of Moscow residents. I believe that the Moscow

City Duma should have greater

oversight

powers. The Moscow Government should

require approval from the Moscow

City Duma. As I said,

tomorrow I will present the new composition of the

government. I assume that this

team will work, that is,

after the new composition of the

Moscow City Duma is elected, each of the

ministers will report to the Moscow

City Duma and receive approval as to whether he or she

will continue to head their area of responsibility

or not. Thank you very much. Mikhail

Vladimirovich, you have a chance within

30 seconds to ask your question. Ivan Ivano-

Let’s be frank: the communists destroyed

two countries—the great Russian Empire

and later

the Soviet Union in the 1990s. By the way,

the only party that defended

the GKChP (State Committee on the State of Emergency, the 1991 Soviet coup committee) was the LDPR, then led by

Vladimir Zhirinovsky. As is well known, all general secretaries

were carried out of the Kremlin feet first.

And today, we in the LDPR are nominating

me, a young politician, while you, with all

due respect to your age, already have

quite a few young communists. Why did you not

nominate a young candidate whom

Moscow wants? Thank you, thank you. You have 2 minutes.

on

In response: Dear Mikhail Vladimirovich, I

think that managing such a complex

city as Moscow should be done by a person who

has serious life and

professional experience. I believe that I have

both extensive life experience and extensive

professional experience; I have managed

large, serious teams with

complex infrastructure.

I am truly ready to govern

the city of Moscow. We have many young

people, a large cohort of young people, who

have been elected both to the party’s Central Committee

and to the Presidium of the Central Committee, but when

we were deciding this

issue, the party leadership concluded that

I had the best chance in this election. They

believe that I am the candidate who

can unite a broad spectrum of citizens

who are dissatisfied with the policies being pursued

in Moscow, ranging from the far left

to a significant segment of liberal and

democratic forces. Therefore, it was decided

to nominate me for the position of

Mayor of Moscow. I will say once again: I

believe that I am ready for this. And I

am, uh, confident that after five years in office

Muscovites will say: this is the mayor we

dreamed of, and the one who worked in our

interests. As for the destruction of

the Soviet Union and so on, Mikhail

Vladimirovich, I think that if it were not for

the Communist Party of the Russian

Federation, if it were not for the Soviet Union, if

it were not for those great victories that were

won both during the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet term for World War II, 1941–1945)

and in space, if it were not for those

universities and scientific institutions

that were built in Soviet times,

I think perhaps you would not only not be

standing at this podium, but might not exist at all.

Thank you for that answer, especially since

in my opinion the question was standard; the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) always

asks such a

question. Alexei Anatolyevich, you have 30

seconds to ask your question.

Please. Ivan Ivanovich, you are an experienced

politician; you have gone through a large number of

election campaigns. As a voter,

I have many times watched these

election campaigns and

seen

that in United Russia I have never seen these debates,

because United Russia

used to refuse. And now the candidate from United

Russia, Sergei Sobyanin, has once again not come to the debates.

Why do you think this happens?

Why does it happen every time? You

know, I am very sorry that the candidate from

United Russia, Sergei

Sobyanin, is not taking part in these debates.

In general, I think that in world practice

there is such a

rule: if the incumbent-backed candidate refuses

to participate in debates, refuses

to answer the questions that other candidates

want to ask him, and in fact

refuses to publicly account for his

work, then he has no chance of being

elected. I very much hope that

someday this practice will exist in our

country as well; it would be a perfectly normal

political situation.

I think that for the incumbent

Mayor of Moscow to report back to

Muscovites is indeed very difficult, because the

problems we are talking about today, the ones

I am sure we will also discuss during

the next broadcasts, are in many

ways the result of the policies

being pursued by Moscow City Hall. I

believe that the main problems that exist

in Moscow stem from this, including the problem of

uncontrolled migration and the problem of

shifting responsibility for everything

onto Muscovites, from paid

parking

to

home ownership issues and major building repairs

that Muscovites themselves are expected to pay for.

I believe that this whole

matter needs to be regulated.

The CPRF faction submitted to the State

Duma a bill on mandatory participation of all

candidates in debates. This

applies to candidates for governor, for mayor,

and for president of the country. But

unfortunately, the United Russia party rejected

this bill, and for now such a

rule remains in force, which I am extremely unhappy with. Uh,

thank you, I would just, for the sake of

fairness, make a small correction: Sergei Sobyanin

is not from United Russia; he is self-nominated. Well,

but he is a member of its Supreme Council. Nevertheless,

next, please, Nikolai Levichev.

Please ask your question; 30 seconds. Dear

Ivan Ivanovich, the Moscow government

is trying to solve the traffic congestion problem by

building major transport arteries.

However, traffic jams are not decreasing, and

the quality of life of people living in nearby

buildings is sharply declining. On the same

North-Western Chord (a major Moscow highway project), the road will run

right under apartment windows, and the market

value of the housing drops sharply. The Moscow authorities do not intend to compensate for the damage.

I believe

that in all such cases

there should be compensation for the losses incurred by residents. And what

do you

think? As for compensation for losses,

it absolutely should

be provided in appropriate amounts. But I

believe that, in principle, Moscow’s

traffic jam problem, the problem of transport collapse,

is being addressed incorrectly. Questions of

urban planning and questions, questions of

transport interchanges and congestion, they

are interconnected

that Moscow is developing incorrectly as a

polycentric city

all traffic flows toward the center

of Moscow, and at the end of the day from central Moscow back out. Even in

the Soviet era, this was discussed as an absolutely

correct idea. Back then, perhaps, it was

less urgent, but now for Moscow it is

extremely urgent: for Moscow

to develop as a

polycentric city, it is necessary to develop transport

arteries; there must be large

clusters of people who work there, core

enterprises, state corporations,

and residential areas. This is the right way for

Moscow to develop, and it would significantly ease the burden on

the city. As for the historic part,

it should be more of a, well,

tourist center of Moscow, from which

it is necessary to remove as much as possible

shopping and entertainment centers, office

buildings. Moreover, this can be done quite

economically: tax and

rental rates for, say, museums

can be set at one level, while for office buildings

and, uh,

shopping and entertainment centers they

should be different. And overall, I believe that within

the limits of the Third Ring Road, it is necessary

to move out various depots,

uh, and other, so to speak, customs

terminals. Thank you, thank you, I let you

finish your thought. In general,

transport problems, in my opinion, are such a

fertile topic that one could devote

an entire separate program to them. I think you would not

mind, even if we agree on that

then let’s agree on it. Good, I’ll hold you to

your word. Today—today we’ll talk about this

specifically, Ivan Ivanovich. We thank you

for answering all the

questions that were asked. Please take

your place at the podium. The floor now goes

to Sergei Sergeyevich Mitrokhin

please. I have already voiced my question,

which I think is of interest to very many

Muscovites, regarding your team: whom will you

bring with you, who will be responsible for

the fundamental areas of the city’s

life? More specifically, if possible. As I

already said in my speech,

I rely on a professional

team. These are well-known Muscovites

from a wide range of

fields. They will be my leading

advisers; some of them will also hold

posts in the executive branch. Starting with

the economy: Grigory

Yavlinsky, a world-renowned economist,

Doctor of Economics. Next,

Alexei Yablokov, also a world-famous

environmentalist, perhaps the best-known environmentalist in

Russia, the leader of our faction

Green Russia within Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party).

Then there is Andrei Babushkin, a well-known

human rights advocate who specializes

in issues of oversight of

law enforcement agencies and their

conduct, which is exceptionally important in

Moscow. There is also Yevgeny Bunimovich, who

is Moscow’s leading specialist

in education. He once headed the

Moscow City Duma Committee on Education, and

in addition, he is also a specialist in

children’s rights and currently serves

as Moscow’s Children’s Rights Commissioner

in Moscow. At Yabloko, we also have

an anti-corruption center. These are young people;

they

study how public procurement is carried out in

Moscow. It is handled outrageously there; by

my estimate—by our estimates—about

one-third of Moscow’s budget is stolen through

the public procurement system. Alexei will confirm

this figure. So, heading

the anti-corruption center is a young man,

Vitaly Reznikov, and he

will head the anti-corruption bloc. He

will have many tasks, because this includes

work on anti-corruption cleanup of

the legislation of the Moscow government,

Moscow legislation in general, as well as

checking officials’ declarations on

income, property, and expenditures. This will be

a powerful anti-corruption bloc, because

the mayor of Moscow is capable of defeating

corruption in Moscow completely, if he

wants to do it. Thank you. The floor

goes to Ivan Melnikov

please. Your question, within 30

seconds. Your time starts now. Sergei Sergeyevich,

when visiting many districts of Moscow,

one encounters the following situation: in one

place, instead of a kindergarten,

they plan to build a hotel; in another place,

instead of a sports ground,

a shopping and entertainment center. And this

happens all the time. But the main thing is that the opinion

of city residents, the opinion of the residents of that

district, is not heard, while the results of public

hearings are manipulated. What do you think the problem is?

What is the problem here, Ivan Ivanovich? As you

know, I have very extensive experience fighting

infill development in Moscow. Let me once again

draw your attention to my report, *10

Years in the Service of the Muscovite*. Ten years ago I

stopped the first infill

development project. Unfortunately,

the situation has not changed much, although I

did manage to get Luzhkov (former Moscow mayor) to adopt

Resolution No. 714 abolishing infill

development, but it continues today

and, in fact, the situation has worsened. Now, answering

your

question: at one time I secured the creation of

an interagency commission that

approved infill development projects. It included

the city’s chief architect, Kuzmin

who, together with Muscovites whom I brought to

him, discussed what could be built

here: a kindergarten, or a so-called “people’s garage” (a budget public parking garage)

that they wanted to force on everyone, and

in many cases we managed to defend

either the kindergarten, or to leave alone

the square, or some other social

facility in places where people clearly

had agreed that it would not be there

Now the situation has changed. In

Moscow, we now have this kind of

troika, of sorts, called the Urban Planning

and Land Commission—an absolutely closed

body. It consults with no one; it

operates outside the rule of law, because

the legal framework in Moscow in the area of

urban development is completely absent.

We are living under a stillborn master plan; it

no longer reflects Moscow’s boundaries, which

have expanded. So, the absence of law in

construction-related matters, and the lack of

contact with Muscovites, the lack of

coordination with Muscovites—this situation

must be changed radically.

Everything must be brought back into a legal framework.

A new master plan is needed, one that should

reflect the latest concept

for Moscow’s development, both in terms of urban planning

and transport, and then that

master plan must be strictly

followed. A new system of public hearings is needed;

the results of public hearings

must be binding on the authorities. If

Muscovites do not want something built there, then

nothing should be built there. These issues must be resolved

in agreement and coordination with Muscovites.

Thank you, Sergei Sergeyevich. And if, if possible,

briefly: how much should a people’s

garage cost? Could you give a figure, in your

opinion? You know,

200,000. I think that if it is a people’s

garage, then at most an ordinary person, if

we take the average—because “people’s” also means

low-income—I think it should cost no more than

50,000 rubles, and the rest should be subsidized

by the city.

One moment, Sergei Sergeyevich, your party

has produced a great many remarkable figures

in Russian politics—well-known

deputies like Mizulina, now in United Russia, and Yarovaya,

and now candidate Navalny also came out of Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party),

that three-letter name, and basically

on the horizon we see only Lukin, who

goes to the migrant camp and keeps advocating for

their, excuse me, decent living conditions,

sometimes skirting the issue of

discrimination against ethnic Russians by the state.

Maybe it is time for you to withdraw and stop

this, you know.

The content of your questions, Ivan

Ivanovich, tells me that

you are not, in fact, very interested in Moscow’s problems.

I will answer your question, though you clearly

do not know much about them,

because otherwise you would have asked something

more relevant to Muscovites, who today are

dealing with the city’s main

problems. Yes, we had people with whom

we had to part ways. We had people

who left us on their own, because we

did not bow to the Kremlin, and you could not

build a political career through us. That is how we

differ from the LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia)—that is my first point.

Now, as for Vladimir

Petrovich Lukin, I believe that he

has performed the duties of

Human Rights Ombudsman with dignity. He

did not, by the way, leave the party; he merely suspended

his membership, as required by law. As for

the migrant camp you

mentioned, I was there and saw with my own eyes

what it was like. I personally believe that

the rights of migrants there—Sergei

Sergeyevich, let me finish—what rude

young people, and they want to be mayor, no less. So,

the point is not whether human rights are or are not being violated there.

The point is that

the whole exercise is absolutely pointless

and purely for show—something Sobyanin staged for himself

before the election. Why? Because no one

is going to eradicate the root of the problem:

to punish the employers who

hire them. For PR purposes, they have now been

rounded up,

locked up on the same grounds where they

were already being held before, and now they will be deported at

the taxpayer’s expense. Huge sums of money will be spent,

but there will not be fewer migrants in Moscow

under any circumstances. Because that

employer who is not punished for this

criminal activity

will hire new ones.

Therefore, I believe this is populism, and

proposals to endlessly

round up migrants are pointless—it is like

carrying water

in a sieve. The root of the problem must be eliminated: we must jail

the employers who hire undocumented workers.

Alexei Anatolyevich, your question. Sergei

Sergeyevich, I have known you for many years, for many years

you

have followed the issues in

housing and utilities very closely, tracking tariffs and so

on. I deal with this too. From my point of view,

tariffs in Moscow are completely inflated. When

I hear Sobyanin say that

the tariffs are justified, it seems to me that this is

a lie, and simply insulting

to Muscovites. What interests me is

your view on how

the tariff in Moscow is set. Is it fair? How much

is being stolen there, or not? Is it honest

or dishonest? In my program,

which is called *Let’s Start Change with*

*Moscow*, a large section is devoted to the problems of

housing and utilities. The main problem in housing and utilities, both in

Moscow and across our entire country, is total

lack of transparency. No one knows how these

How are tariffs set? Why do they rise so much faster

than inflation? If you look at a long-term

period, tariffs have outpaced inflation by 10 to 15 times.

And the reason is very simple: there is

collusion between officials, the suppliers

of these utility resources, and

management companies. Officials do not

check their data. Why do they raise

tariffs? Because they can raise them freely, and the ones who pay

the price are ordinary Muscovites, ordinary

citizens of Russia. It is simply a feeding trough

deliberately set up by our

corrupt elite for these very

utility services and the officials

who work with them. What needs

to be done? It is written in my program.

First of all, conduct an independent audit

of all tariffs, and then publish everything on

the internet, all the results, and require all

utility companies to report online

not in the fake way they do now,

but for real. The mayor has

the power to do this, and I will definitely

make it happen. We also need to carry out

a full review of the tariff-setting

process itself, because there has been no such review

in Moscow for 20 years. They simply

keep mechanically piling on coefficients, and that is all.

And of course, all the heads of these

organizations must be held

accountable—these offices, homeowners' associations, and management companies

that are later found

to have engaged in theft. They must be handed over to

law enforcement, taken to court, and they must

be jailed. New people must take

their place, and the Regional Energy

Commission must обязательно publish

tariff assessments on its official website

on the internet, in full

detail. If there is transparency and

strict oversight, tariffs could even

be reduced, including in Moscow. Thank you.

Thank you for your answer. By the way, your slogan is very

similar to Alexei Navalny's. Are you from the same

party? Nikolai Vladimirovich, you have 30

seconds. That is not a slogan, it is the title

of the program. Excuse me. Moscow is not just

choking in traffic jams—the city air

is simply dangerous to breathe, and the water is sometimes

harmful to drink. Nearly half of the city's enterprises

do not treat their

emissions, and modern waste-processing plants are not being built.

At the same time, the mayor's office,

under the pretext of beautification,

is filling parks with entertainment

complexes and slicing off pieces of

Moscow's green belt for shopping

centers and elite housing. What will you do

as mayor? You know, there is already experience here as well.

In this report, I

have a section on how I managed

to stop the practice of so-called

"adjustments." Under Luzhkov (former Moscow mayor), they used to cut off

pieces of green territory, supposedly

with compensation happening somewhere, no one knew

where, 100 kilometers away, and in this way

they built over parks and used them for

commercial purposes. I managed to stop

that. But now, from another direction,

Moscow's parks are being encroached upon under the guise

of beautification; what is happening is their

disfigurement. Losiny Ostrov

National Park—they are stripping away the topsoil

in the Novogorsk area and laying rolled

technical turf. This is simply environmental

murder—there is no other word for it.

That is why parks must be protected from these

talentless "beautifiers" who are currently

in charge. Illegal activity in parks must be stopped.

Go to

Losiny Ostrov and you will see what is

going on there: illegal parking lots,

illegal

production facilities, some kind of crumb material being made.

Sobyanin said that he had closed the dumps

in Losiny Ostrov. He did not. There are

five construction waste dumps there.

All users who

violate the park protection rules must be driven out.

They are devouring our green lungs. As

for polluters, there must be clear

monitoring of who is polluting, and specific measures for each

polluter: the stick and

the carrot. The carrot means incentives—

subsidies if they install treatment

facilities, some kind of tax

breaks. The stick means tough fines

for pollution, followed by a lawsuit to

shut down that operation. By the way, I managed

to achieve this even without being mayor:

the closure of the cement elevator in

Pechatniki, together with local residents, of course.

We raised the issue and kept pressing it.

The Moscow government, already under Sobyanin, by the way,

did close the cement elevator. But other

dirty industries also need to be

shut down and moved out of Moscow. Moscow

must develop an environmentally clean

economy. Thank you. Sergei Sergeyevich, you

have answered all the questions. I ask you to

take your seat.

Excuse me, I dropped my report. That's

all right. Yes, I am ready, please.

Please, I have been waiting just for you. Mikhail

... is now answering questions. The first

question: I have the same question about

your team—whom will you bring with you, what kind of

specialists, what kind of experts

who will be responsible for the vitally important

areas of Moscow's development? For Mikhail ...

the main thing will not be political

views, but efficiency, competence,

and the desire to work. And today, in the next few days,

perhaps even tomorrow, we are launching a website

called Team Moscow, where every

Muscovite, both new arrivals and

native residents, can leave their résumé. There

will be more than 5,000 vacancies there.

from district municipal officials and housing maintenance office directors all the way up to the deputy mayor of Moscow

and all of these people—the most active, the most

I repeat, the most capable—we are ready

to bring them into Moscow’s government, and today

any Muscovite will tell you that

the reinforced-concrete slab of Moscow’s власти

regardless of who is in charge—Sobyanin

or Luzhkov before him—at the very lowest level

remains an impregnable fortress for

people who know how to govern, and I am saying clearly: we

will give you, dear Muscovites, such an opportunity

including young people, including those who

came from other regions and bought

housing here, who want to live here

and raise their children here—such an opportunity

to enter Moscow’s government, we will provide. And

I want to say to the respected Ivan

Ivanovich: if Sergei Pavlovich

Korolev, the designer of the legendary

rocket

R-7, had died

in the dungeons of the NKVD (the Soviet secret police), we would have had neither

breakthroughs in space nor Yuri Alexeyevich

Gagarin, who was the first to go into

outer space; we would have had nothing

at all. Therefore, the Russian people and

the designer Korolev and Yuri Alexeyevich

Gagarin worked not thanks to the Party, but

in spite of it. And I too was born thanks to my

parents, and I built my career thanks to

the LDPR, the oldest political party

and as for the team, we will certainly keep some people

and take some others, perhaps from other

parties. Please—our party has plenty of

professionals.

Thank you. Ivan Ivanovich, I think

there is a question for you; you have 30 seconds.

Let us continue the conversation about science. In Soviet

times, colossal sums were allocated

to support science. You probably do not

know this, but I will not put you

in an awkward position—I will say it myself: in

Moscow, less than

less than

1% of the Moscow budget is allocated to support science and all that goes with it. Do you think that is

normal? And what needs to change so that in

Moscow, science and real

production can be supported? Thank you. To support

science, you have answered your own question:

first, money must be spent on it. And

not just on science in general—I am, in fact, deputy chair

of the committee on science and high-tech

technologies in the State Duma, and

I am an inventor myself and also hold a patent. We need

to train personnel. Has even one candidate spoken

about the four city universities that are

under the mayor’s control and accountable to him? Three of them are

teacher-training institutions, one is humanities-focused. Moscow

needs engineers—specialists like me

in management and so on. We will repurpose part of Moscow’s universities

in Moscow.

Together with the Academy of Sciences, we are doing this work.

We are planning to create a department of urban studies

—it does not exist now. So of course we will spend money on science,

but first and foremost, for

science, personnel are needed, and you know that perfectly well.

If we are talking about scientific

institutes, then

today, some of the institutions under the control of and accountable to

the Moscow government

are being shut down. Why? Because

the current authorities are not

interested in this. Moscow has become a commercial

city; commercial capital rules the roost and does not

pay taxes here. In my program, “Order,

Comfort, Prosperity,” it is stated that we

will bring the entire economy out of the shadows and out of

trade dependence. Moscow will become a scientific city, including

including

a high-tech one. And today we see

that same Zelenograd, the center of the electronics

industry. Why is it that in our country, at the

federal level, decisions are made to

build new production facilities in special

economic zones across the country when

the personnel are concentrated in

Zelenograd? The Proton rockets made by the Khrunichev Center

suffer because of staff turnover,

because of low salaries, because

Moscow engineers are leaving the

Khrunichev Center for commerce, for retail chains, and

then we worry when our rockets fall.

The engineer must be at the center of things in

Moscow. Back then, you voted against science

recently in

the State Duma. We will have

more than enough time for discussion.

Sergei Sergeyevich, please, you have

30 seconds. Mikhail, well, I have already shown my

report. Wonderful—you do not look like yourself there.

It says here how I

fought against infill development and the cutting down of

green spaces and parks. Well, I

sometimes, at our rallies that we

organized, saw the Communist Party faction there,

for example. But I never saw the LDPR there.

So I have a question. You have your own

report, but at least have you brought one from Saratov

about your activities in Saratov?

Where from?

With

the LDPR? One minute for the answer.

Please. Let us begin with the fact that, for example, in

Mitino, yes, we held events together. But that was

before the election, yes. There were events there, and

you—and you together with the respected

Ivan Ivanovich—were shown by the state TV channel

Rossiya 1, while Degtyarev, the real

opposition candidate to the authorities, was

for some reason not shown. So let us start with

that: you are shown because you

dance to the tune of

the well-known... Sergei Sergeyevich, stop

this circus. Dear

viewers, you can calmly go to the LDPR website, ru, where

my report as a State Duma deputy is posted,

and to my personal website, deino, and on

all social networks—I communicate personally, and

on Twitter and on Facebook and on

Odnoklassniki and VKontakte with our

voters. We live in the 21st century. These

little papers, these, these little papers that

you keep producing—and, excuse me, entire

forests are being destroyed because of your print runs—we don’t need them. We

have everything in electronic form, modern

information

technologies. As for the city

where I grew up—you know nothing about Russia. You’re con

fusing the beautiful Volga city, my

hometown, the city of Samara,

with the beautiful city of Saratov, which, by the way,

is where the curator of Kremlin policy, Mr.

Volodin, is from. So I want to tell you: I am

proud, and I believe that in this election, as a

candidate, I appeal to all Muscovites,

both native-born and those who came here—active

young people who link their future with Moscow.

I am the only one telling you: dear

Muscovites—and Omsk residents, Tomsk residents, people from St. Petersburg, and

people from Samara, Rostov, and Kazan. In other words, everyone

who came here, built, and defended the great

city of Moscow. Candidate Degtyarev does not divide

people into native Muscovites and those who simply live in Moscow, are registered here,

raise children here, and get things done—those are the people

I am addressing, all of them.

I represent them. Time for Alexei Navalny to ask a question.

A question—30 seconds, please. Mikhail, the leader

of your party used to be quite fond of

criticizing the previous mayor, Luzhkov, and

we even watched at a plenary session

as he said that everyone around Luzhkov was a crook,

a thief—shoot them, jail them, and so on.

All those same people have remained in those

positions.

Why is it that Zhirinovsky no longer wants to

shoot them and jail them? What, after all, is your

position on those people whom you previously

called crooks, and who have remained in the

Moscow city government? What should be done

with them? We believe that a person has the

right to work regardless of which team

they are on today—Luzhkov’s or Sobyanin’s.

If they are working and there are no grounds

for opening a criminal case or

if the person is not involved in anything illegal, then no.

But we believe corruption must be fought, and we

are fighting it. We constantly send

our inquiries to the prosecutor’s office and receive

responses, including positive ones, confirming

that one official or another has stolen.

In my program—as the only candidate, by the way,

who has said this—it is stated that when Degtyarev comes to

power, reports on income and expenditures will be required

not only from officials but also from

the director of a state-funded

institution. What do we have today?

Twenty-seven percent of the budget goes to capital investment.

Another 20 percent—a full one-fifth—is spent by

state-funded institutions,

from schools to museums, housing offices, and so on.

And only 11 percent goes to social policy.

So this is what we say: guys, those who

are spending this money—after the election, Degtyarev

will appoint an independent audit. And not only of the

budget. The budget is wonderful on paper, with

excellent program items, and everyone speaks so

beautifully. But I’m saying the money

is being spent inefficiently in state

budget-funded institutions, and every

manager will have to report—from

the school principal to the museum director and the housing office head—on

their income and expenditures, just like

officials and deputies. And those who are

caught—of course, we will fire them. The moment

there is a conflict of interest, out they go. That is in the

program of the LDPR candidate.

No one will be restricted in their rights for political reasons.

Whatever party they belong to, whether they worked with

Luzhkov—if they are a competent official

or worked with Sobyanin—they will

work for the benefit of Muscovites under the strict

control of Mayor Degtyarev. Thank you very much for

your answer. Levichev will now ask a question. You have

30 seconds, please. Dear Mikhail

Vladimirovich, the mayor has submitted to the Moscow City Duma

a bill

that will inevitably lead to the demolition of

thousands of architectural monuments, and there is

a danger that Moscow’s historic center

will very soon change

beyond recognition. What measures to preserve

Moscow’s cultural and historical environment would you

propose if you had the good fortune

to become mayor of this great

city? Thank you. Thank you. First,

that resolution—or rather, that draft law—

will of course be withdrawn.

The state land commission, which

makes all land-related decisions, is absolutely

non-transparent and probably

corrupt. In the program

*Order, Comfort, Prosperity*, it is clearly stated

that all issues related to protecting

Moscow’s historical environment will be

coordinated and approved

exclusively by one single body:

Moskomnasledie (the Moscow city heritage preservation agency). Today it has been

pushed aside,

and land specialists are deciding whether a

building should be a protected monument or not. For example, Kadashi, Block 401—

what is being planned there, the so-called

regeneration, is monstrous. But

excuse me, it is completely outrageous.

Therefore, all investment contracts

that affect the historical

heritage of Moscow will be

reviewed by me—I guarantee it. There will be no

failure to calculate what consequences this

will bring. Therefore, under Moskomnasledie

and under the mayor’s office, there will be a public council

consisting of leading restorers,

leading architects, leading scholars,

historians, and so on. Only after their

verdict will I be able to decide what

to do. As for what to do inside

the Boulevard Ring, the historic

the pedestrian area and the monument, or not

to do this at all—the main principle is

we need to stop demolishing historic

buildings; restoration

and preservation should be handled by

restoration specialists, not builders, and certainly not

architects who have no understanding whatsoever of

historical heritage, and so on

That is why Kadashi is the saddest

example—one everyone has heard about. Mikhail

was answering a question from his opponents

please, go ahe

because now coming to this podium is Alexei

Navalny. Alexei Anatolyevich, thank you very much. If

you allow me, I have the same question for you

about your team—the key positions that

will be responsible for the city’s fundamental, as it were,

functions. I began my remarks today

by explaining

how my election campaign is being run

I hold three meetings, three

rallies with voters every weekday

and five every weekend. These are different

meetings—sometimes around 20 people, sometimes

as many as there were yesterday in Mitino. At every meeting

the question of the team comes up. And every time

people tell me: don’t just give us names,

tell us the principles on which this

government will be formed. You know,

for example, that now when

civil servants are appointed, even now

in theory they go through personnel

commissions, undergo special

interviews, write essays, and so on

But can we—you as Muscovites, I as a

Muscovite—go somewhere and see

and find out why this person was appointed

prefect, and why someone else was not appointed

prefect? I will be the kind of mayor who

will finally create a fully open and

transparent system of personnel appointments

I have people to rely on. My program

was written by people—scholars of world renown. I’ll

mention only Sergei Guriev. So these

people, both on staffing issues and on

the formation of commissions, are of course

among the very best

specialists. In personnel decisions I will rely

on those municipal-level deputies

who work with me. These are people

who for years have been dealing with the practical

solution of Muscovites’ problems and know perfectly well

how Moscow’s systems work

It would probably be inappropriate to name

specific names during a debate. But I can say

with complete certainty that the full list

of all the people I would like

to see at the head of the political

leadership of Moscow City Hall will be

published by me in the second round of these

elections. I am confident that I will receive enough votes

to make it to the second round. I

will present the team that will lead

me to victory—that is, it will be freely

available online, and anyone will be able to read

the names. All personnel decisions will be

clear to Muscovites. The specific list

of appointments will be published in the second round. And

for now

the next question will be asked by Ivan Ivanovich

Melnikov. Please, you have 30 seconds for it

Alexei Anatolyevich, at practically

every meeting in Moscow, one of the topics

that comes up most sharply

is the issue of corruption and bribery in Moscow. This

concerns housing and utilities; people believe that up to 70—yes,

experts also believe up to 70% in kickbacks. This

concerns road construction, it

concerns

concerns the construction of buildings, offices, and so on

How do you propose fighting corruption

in Moscow?

Thank you, thank you very much, Ivan Ivanovich, for

that question, because this is exactly the field

this is what I have been working on for many long

years, and what our Anti-Corruption Foundation

has been working on—a foundation which, although essentially a non-

profit organization, nevertheless, I

believe, has achieved significant success in

this area. I have already said that we

have stopped corrupt contracts worth 59 billion rubles (about US$1.8 billion at the time) alone

from going forward. We are successfully conducting investigations

You know that we even showed several of your colleagues from

the State Duma, from United

Russia, the door, essentially

by publishing information about their foreign real estate

The main thing needed here to fight

corruption is transparency, starting with

utility rates. Why are they

stuffing sponsorship support into them and including it

in our rates? From my point of view, that is

corruption. We have all the documents

we simply need to hold these people

accountable. The same applies to

construction. The same applies to

road contracts. Look at how

things are done in Moscow now—who gets awarded

the biggest road contracts? Huge

construction projects are handed to the Rotenbergs

whose only qualification is that

they are friends of Vladimir Putin. In Soviet

times they were judo sparring partners/coaches,

and now they are somehow our road builders. I

want to become mayor, and I will be a mayor who

finally puts things in order. Not a single

tender will be conducted according to

murky, closed rules. Road

construction will be handled by road

builders, not by some obscure

Rotenbergs and other friends and

former classmates, university friends, neighbors from the

Ozero dacha cooperative (a well-known group tied to Putin). The construction

of the metro will be carried out by metro builders, not

as is the case now, when the largest lots for

metro construction are taken by Gennady

Timchenko, yet another friend of Vladimir Putin. We

have even drafted

entire bills on this subject—our Anti-Corruption Foundation

I worked on anti-corruption amendments to the federal

contract system, which the Ministry of Economic

Development was supposed to draft. We wrote all of it ourselves,

and we have everything laid out right down to the instructions.

We know exactly what needs

to be done: transparency, oversight, and strict

holding people

accountable.

Now, on the issue of illegal

migration: first, do you agree

Alexei, with what I was saying — that

this fight has to begin specifically with

employers, because simply

rounding up and catching undocumented migrants is pointless

if afterward a new undocumented worker is hired

for the job? And second, does the measure of abolishing visas

have any

real effect? Who is going to check those visas at

the border? We no longer have border guards — they were

abolished by Putin. Thank you very much, this is an important

question for me, because probably of all

the candidates, I hold the toughest

position on migration issues. To

begin with, I completely agree with you

that what is happening now is

just meaningless showmanship. They have

set up some kind of concentration camp

where 200 Vietnamese people are being held, and those

Vietnamese detainees are shown on television. I

invite

Sergei to come with me to Maryino, where

you can simply go out in the evening to Maryino Park

and round up thousands of these undocumented

migrants. If we want to build a

camp, then that camp would have

to hold a million people, and another million

people would be needed to guard them. Moscow

ranks first in the world in terms of

the number of undocumented migrants. I am

absolutely convinced that a visa regime, which

I insist on — a visa regime with

the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus — is

necessary. If Germany and France have

a visa regime for you and me,

then it probably makes sense for us to introduce one as well.

I do not understand why, in order

to travel to any European country,

I need to obtain a visa, while any

citizen of Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan can,

even without an international passport, simply buy

a one-way ticket and come here. Well,

there are people there to check, there are people there

to check. And here, we can check in

Moscow the people who come here without

visas. If they crossed through a porous

border, then at least they will be caught

in the big cities and deported. And then

the employer will be paying bribes for them

— and that is all.

It is a matter of enforcement: they must not take bribes.

If a person does not have a visa, if they did not

obtain one, they are deported. I will become a mayor

who deports them. Besides,

the problem really is that

migrants come here not because

there are jobs here, but because

the mayor's office, contractors, and district administrations

bring them here. Migrants live in conditions

like slaves, 20 people crammed into a basement,

receiving an official salary of 35,000 rubles (about 35,000 RUB),

and then kicking back part of that salary to the head

of the district administration, the manager of the building management company,

the head of the DEZ (a Soviet/Russian municipal housing maintenance office), and so on. I want to become

the mayor who destroys this

endless corrupt system.

Thank you, Alexei Anatolyevich. I think

Mikhail Vladimirovich already has

a question. You present yourself as a fighter against

corruption, but one must understand: one must be

absolutely above reproach. You know perfectly well

that the Prosecutor General's Office has already said that through

Yandex.Money, allegedly, there have also been

foreign contributions to your election campaign. On

these questions, you will probably be answering

to investigators. My team and I

produced very similar campaign

tents costing 7,200 rubles (7,200 RUB), while you

say 12,000. On RosPil, you go after some people

and leave others alone.

Explain where the truth is, and who is

pulling your strings. Excellent question, Mikhail. Yes, I

would like to begin by saying, you know,

there is this strange thing happening here:

as soon as I uncover

a 308-square-meter apartment that was illegally

privatized by Sergei Sobyanin in the name of his

underage daughter, your

party immediately rushes out and says that I am receiving

foreign funding. Just a second.

Let me finish. I can tell you that

I am proud that I am the only

candidate who receives money for

his election campaign through

donations. Tens of thousands of people

send me 100, 200, 500 rubles (RUB) in order

to finance the campaign.

The Yandex.Money system has already stated today

that the prosecutor's office is lying about foreign

legal entities, and that the Prosecutor General's Office

did not even request any

documents from Yandex. All of this

is being done simply to distract

attention from the investigations that we

are conducting, including those involving Sergei

Sobyanin. But we will not stop them. As for

the matter of

your claims, I read with interest these

calculations of yours about various types of

campaign materials. Please,

let us respect the Muscovites who

are listening to this broadcast right now. I can

tell you that the campaign cube

that Muscovites see on the street as

part of our campaign, and which they

like, costs us 6,500. So you

somehow, apparently in keeping with the tradition

of the LDPR party, managed to buy them for more than

they cost at our campaign headquarters — 12,000.

That is precisely why people keep sending us

money, and I am sure they will continue

to send us money, because

through all my work over these years

I have shown that I can live by the same

rules that I demand of others. Our

Anti-Corruption Foundation is absolutely

transparent: you can see what

salary each person receives, who gets how much.

All financial flows are visible, and I

will become the kind of mayor who ensures that the city

works that way too: every kopeck (one-hundredth of a ruble), every

person, will be visible.

Thank you very much. Because—thank you

very much. A question now from Nikolai

Levichev, please. You have 30 seconds.

Thank you. Dear Alexei Anatolyevich, in

Moscow there are nearly 3 million pensioners. City

supplements to pensions are being eaten up by inflation, rising

utility tariffs and food prices. The authorities cannot

provide Moscow’s elderly residents

even with free medicines. Moscow

rejects our proposal for

additional payments to such a category of

pensioners as “children of the war” (people who were children during World War II). Elderly people often

feel cast out of life. How

do you think the older

generation can be included in active life? I fully agree with

you.

When one or another proposal is made to

increase social assistance—especially

since we are talking about relatively small sums—this is

simply outrageous and insulting toward

Muscovites. Moscow’s budget,

as you know, is 1.6 trillion rubles (about 1.6 trillion RUB). It is

enormous, an enormous amount of money

that is simply being squandered.

That is exactly why our program includes

a provision stating that when I am elected, we

will freeze the 2013 budget, this year’s budget,

until we increase

social payments to pensioners, large families,

and those in need. There cannot be, in

our richest city, a situation like this,

where pensioners, sick people, or people with disabilities

have to buy their own medicines. This is

a disgrace. In terms of budget size, we are second only

to Shanghai and New York. Moscow is one of

the richest cities in the world. We can absolutely

provide a decent standard

of living for these people. I will give just

one small example: in our

public procurement system—Sergei Sergeyevich here

said 30 percent. Even if

that is what is being stolen, if we reduce that amount,

that comes to 150 billion rubles a year (150 billion RUB) that Moscow

officials are embezzling through

public procurement. My team and I, our

Anti-Corruption Foundation, know exactly

how to save this money, and we

know that this money can be directed toward

payments to pensioners. And I repeat: this is

simply insulting when we hear from

a Moscow official or from Sobyanin

that they cannot

pay extra support to the elderly.

The money—when there is ten times more money

it simply slips away like sand through

their fingers, when the money is obviously

just melting away.

Our very simple, very clear, and very

effective anti-corruption measures

will allow us, in the very next few years,

to save tens of billions of rubles

which we will direct toward increasing

social payments to Muscovites and everyone who

is in need. Alexei Anatolyevich, thank you.

Your opponents—please take your place

by the podium. Nikolai

Vladimirovich, I have the traditional first

question, which concerns your team.

Who will be responsible for the most important

areas of work in the capital’s

leadership? I completely agree that

today it is most important to speak perhaps not about

personnel, but about the principles that

will underpin changes to the entire system

of governing Moscow. As for

the principles, they are based on

the principles of social democracy. As is well known,

in European countries that spent several

decades following this path, there emerged

a genuinely social state

and the mayors of cities governed by

social democrats have been far more

successful than Moscow. If we speak about

specific people, I would invite to the

position of adviser on economic

issues the director of the Institute of Economics

of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ruslan

Semyonovich Grinberg, a social democrat by

conviction, with whom we work very closely.

And with the expert community, I would

interact with the help of Ruslan

Semyonovich. Of course, I also cannot fail to mention

such a person, well known

to Muscovites, who works in the

A Just Russia faction in the State

Duma and is our country’s leading specialist

on housing policy,

Galina Petrovna Khovanskaya. Galina

Petrovna has agreed to be my candidate

for the Federation Council from Moscow Mayor Nikolai Levichev.

I can also name another

candidate for the Federation Council from Mayor

Nikolai Levichev: Alexander Georgievich

Tarnavsky, currently a deputy of the State

Duma, who has experience working in the Moscow

City Duma. At one time he was

the only single-member district deputy

elected to the Moscow City Duma

despite the so-called Luzhkov list (referring to former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov).

He also has experience serving as first

vice-governor of a major Russian

region.

So there are, of course, also people who

could be retained within Moscow’s system of

governance, but to name them today would be

would mean exposing them while he is still mayor.

of Moscow has not been replaced, Nikolai Vladimirovich.

Thank you for such a clear answer, Ivan

Ivanovich, please, you have 30 seconds to

ask your opponent a question.

Thank you, Nikolai Vladimirovich. Recently,

in Moscow, unfortunately, what is mainly being built

is commercial luxury housing,

shopping and entertainment centers, and office

buildings, while very little is being built now

in the way of social housing. Unfortunately, even

less than was being built several years

ago, while the waiting list for

social housing is enormous. This includes

residents of five-story apartment blocks, and people who have been waiting for years, while

now they are being pushed out under various

pretexts from that waiting list. How

do you propose to solve this

[applause]

problem? On this issue, let me emphasize in

my program, which can be obtained on

the streets of Moscow from volunteers and activists

of the A Just Russia party, I can say

that together with Galina Petrovna Khovanskaya

we have been fighting for several years to ensure

that an entire section be added to the Housing Code

that would deal with such an

institution as a non-profit housing fund,

a housing fund for non-commercial use.

What does that mean? The state

would provide either private developers

or a state construction

corporation—which I would also propose creating

when I become mayor of Moscow—with

certain tax breaks,

certain preferences, so that

the housing that is built

would be rented out, but not at market

rates, rather at rates where

the tenant would effectively pay only

operating costs and

future major repairs. According to our calculations,

the rent for a two-room apartment in such a

non-commercial housing

fund in Moscow would amount to

around

13,000–15,000 rubles per month. That is quite

affordable for the so-called middle

class, for whom the mortgage system as it exists today

is unaffordable. If today you

take out a loan from a state bank

for 5 million rubles over 10 years, then in the end you

will overpay by more than 4 million rubles. As for

social housing, first of all, this fund

for non-commercial use would make it possible

to reduce the waiting list, and secondly,

indeed, the 103,000 families who

are on the waiting list for social housing—that is

outrageous. More than 6 million square meters

of housing need to be built in Moscow just

for that waiting list to be cleared.

But all of this can be done if the mayor

of Moscow is a social democrat. Thank you.

Sergei Sergeyevich, please, your question.

30 seconds. Nikolai Vladimirovich, as soon as

paid parking was introduced

inside the Boulevard Ring, I immediately

conducted a public inspection on this

issue and discovered that neither State Duma deputies

—including you, for example—

nor city hall employees, nor employees of other

government agencies pay anything for

parking. So what do you think—

is that fair?

Well, I do not know why you decided that I do not

pay for parking. My car near

the State Duma—well, that means near the State Duma

it is state-owned, which means

it is government parking, and there are indeed many

questions about it. Indeed, parking remains

near government

institutions, near offices, which in my

view is unauthorized and completely

unfair. As for the

paid parking that has been introduced in

the Central Administrative District, well, I

believe it is unfair. I believe

that first of all, it is necessary to pass—you are

absolutely right—in the State Duma

a law on parking, because this

concept is not defined in law. Secondly,

parking was introduced as a method of fighting

traffic jams. But excuse me, at night in Moscow

there are no traffic jams. Why should people also

have to pay 50 rubles an hour for a car

to stand where it bothers no one? I

have publicly put forward my proposals on how

this system can be changed, which at

present is someone’s

business—we have not even yet managed to find out whose.

Ultimately, I believe that

it would be entirely reasonable if on weekdays

from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. in central Moscow

parking cost 20 rubles an hour, while in

the nighttime and on weekends it would be

free. And the nightmare endured by

residents of the Central Administrative

District, who have the right to receive

only one permit for one

car—just imagine if you have

a family situation where two or three

generations live together. And what if a family has several

cars? And what if you do not have very good

relations with your wife? All of this, of course,

is absurd. Therefore, still, should deputies

pay for parking or not?

Please answer clearly after all.

On what terms? I, for example, do pay for parking

near the State Duma. I near

the State Duma, in fact. Oh, what an important topic

for every Muscovite. I, for example,

long ago forgot what it is like to go into the center by

car, because it is much

more convenient to take the metro. And now you are the one

being given the floor

to ask your question. You have 30 seconds.

Please. You said a wonderful phrase:

“the mayor should be a social democrat,” so

It turned out that I experienced the mayor firsthand.

the Social Democrat, Samara mayor Viktor Tar...

criminal cases, holes in the budget, ruined

infrastructure, and so on. So here is the question:

who exactly will you take onto your team from among

former mayors like these wonderful examples?

Social Democrats.

Well, we won’t be taking any former ones, that’s for sure.

Mikhail Vladimirovich, taking

this opportunity, I listened to the question you

asked my colleagues, the candidates for the

high office of Mayor of Moscow, and since I,

as deputy chairman of the

State Duma (lower house of Russia’s parliament), oversee the committee

on science and high technology, where

you were, in my view, given in advance, considering your

young age, the position of

deputy chairman of the committee, I

have been closely following your

work for two years. And I have a

counter-question for you: aren’t you ashamed, in

such an

audience, when discussing issues so important for

millions of Muscovites, problems

to act like such a petty political

hitman, one of those who bite at their own?

Aren’t you ashamed yourself? I’m asking you this because

I want to remind you how, amid

political disagreements with the leader of your

wonderful

party, everyone watched your rather gloomy...

betrayal, Nikolai Vladimirovich. The party...

political...

Why are you insulting me? What betrayal are you talking about?

You were asked a question: Tarkhov brought Samara to

a monstrous state—your A Just Russia man. Who

will you take? That’s all I asked.

Let me answer that

question.

You wanted to ask your

opponent something.

In the Committee on Science and High Technology, I

am working on amendments to the law on the Academy of Sciences.

From your answer, I didn’t understand: do you believe that

official cars should not... that the State Duma

should not pay for official

cars for deputies? No, no, I

on the contrary, believe there should be

no special parking privileges. The law should

be the same for everyone.

Thank you, gentlemen. We are taking up

Alexei Anatolyevich’s time. Alexei Anatolyevich,

please—things have gone off schedule. May we

ask a question? One second, Nikolai Vladimirovich.

You probably know that together with

my colleagues I drafted and introduced a bill banning

officials from buying cars

costing more than 1.5 million rubles (about 1.5 million RUB)

because what happens here is that

they all drive cars worth 7, 8, 9 million rubles.

Your faction, by the way, in the State Duma

supported it, for which thank you. The Communists

supported it, the LDPR supported it, but United Russia

doesn’t want to pass it. I collected 100,000

signatures in support of this bill, but United Russia still won’t pass it.

United Russia simply does not want to.

Advise us—how can we finally

get a law passed that gets all these

United Russia people out of their Mercedes cars? You, Nikolai Vladimirovich...

If I may, just for the record—10 seconds, I’ll

steal a few seconds from you. A few months ago,

Alexei Anatolyevich, I introduced such a

bill into the State Duma. It already

exists, this bill. We have

a slight difference in the maximum cost

of such a car, but the bill is not about

the cost... We’ll have to take time away...

time...

Here, one second—on this topic, one more question. You

know, I believe that there is no need at all

to buy cars for officials

below the rank of department heads.

Let them drive their own cars; you can add to

their salary the cost of a monthly transit pass.

Attention, we have deliberately paused now

for the cars on the streets

of Moscow. Let them use their own cars or

take the metro. Thank you, I have to interrupt you.

Your two minutes, please.

Dear colleagues and dear

viewers, we can introduce many

different useful bills, but I will

use these two minutes now to explain to you

that this will only be possible when

the State Duma truly represents

the interests of all

social strata and groups of the population.

Today, it has turned out that

49% of the vote received in the elections, officially recorded

in the elections to the State

Duma, was turned by the United Russia faction

into

75% of the parliamentary mandates. And de facto, well,

Ivan Ivanovich Melnikov, I hope, will not let

me lie—it has turned into 100% control

over the entire internal life

of the State Duma. Therefore, until

the reasonable-minded factions have

a majority, not one of the bills

that you, or you, or you, Ivan Ivanovich,

or we introduce and propose will

be passed. Therefore, right now we need

to practice in the Moscow mayoral election,

which they have tried to present as the most

honest, clean, and transparent. I

call on all citizens of Moscow to personally

watch how many people come to the polling station,

because in the elections to the Moscow

City Duma in 2009, a million

voters who came to the polling stations with their own

eyes saw that the turnout was not what

was officially recorded. I

can say this because in 2009

I said these words from the rostrum of the

State Duma. I filed with the

Moscow City Court a lawsuit demanding that these elections

to the Moscow City Duma be declared illegal, because

Yury Mikhailovich Luzhkov, who headed

United Russia's party list violated the law many times.

Election law. Let us

not allow this election

law to be violated in the Moscow mayoral election.

Thank you, thank you. Nikolai

Vladimirovich, we ask you to take your place

at your

podium. In fact, we have just touched on

a very important topic

in today's discussion here about

transport. This is a very pressing

issue indeed. How can we

make, make our city, well, and how

quickly, of course, free of traffic jams so that

it would be possible to drive, for example, to the

city center and back home. Tomorrow I

propose that each of the candidates—we

still have a little time—be given 30 seconds

to clarify their po—well, no,

we will not fully open up this topic. Let us devote the next

debate to this topic; that would be much

more logical. All right, I can in 30 seconds

say this.

Well then, we are simply offering you

within, within 30 seconds—I understand that

time, time is very short—for your closing

statement. Ivan Ivanovich, please.

Closing statement. All right. Dear

Muscovites, we have touched on various urban

problems. But I believe the main urban

problem is that the city of Moscow has become

a city for the rich and in the interests of

the rich. It is like one big

shopping and entertainment center. I stand

for Moscow being a city of science,

education, culture, and

high-tech industry. That is the kind of

Moscow Muscovites want to see.

Plea—such a

Mosc—

In closing, once again: five reasons

why you should vote for me. First: I

love Moscow. Second: I have a clear

program of action, an alternative to what

Sobyanin is doing today. Third: I have

a record showing how I have worked in the

interests of Muscovites and know their problems

from the inside.

Fourth: I have a professional

team I rely on. And fifth,

most importantly, I have

have

the very will that Sobyanin lacks today.

Thank you. The floor goes to Mikhail Degtyarev; you also have

30 seconds. We still have 11 rounds ahead, and

in each of them I will tell you about transport

problems, and about how we will expel all

migrants, and about how schools will have

hot meals, and how we will provide for everyone,

and how we will raise salaries for all public-sector workers

by the new year to 125 rubles, and what kind of

supplements we will pay to pensioners, mothers, and

others—I will tell you all about it. Be attentive.

Do not fall for provocations, and vote for

Degtyarev and for the LDPR. Thank you. The floor goes to Alexei

Navalny, please. Dear Muscovites,

I would like to address you now not even

as a candidate for mayor of Moscow, but as

an ordinary Muscovite, exactly like

you, living with these same problems,

living in an ordinary apartment in an ordinary

panel building, whose children go to an

ordinary kindergarten and an ordinary school. It is simply time for us

to take our city back. Our authorities

exist somewhere separately, and

are not oriented toward Muscovites at all, toward

us. They do not want to solve our problems and do not

hear us. I ask you to come to the polls.

I ask you to support me, and together we

will build a great city for ourselves. Thank you.

The floor goes to Nikolai Levichev. Thirty seconds. Friends,

Muscovites have a heightened sense of

self-respect, a sense of freedom.

I am sure Moscow will not vote in

lockstep. You have a choice. If you

are dissatisfied with the current authorities, if

Moscow's culture matters to you, if you are for

real change, vote for

a fair mayor. I believe in your intelligence and

talents. Moscow will become a center of culture,

high technology, and social comfort.

Vote for fair government in

the city. Ah, thank you, dear candidates.

Thank you for treating each other

with respect. Thank you for giving one another

the chance to speak, and our next meeting

will take place the day after tomorrow at the same

time, at 21:00, on the Moskva 24 channel. And actually,

it is a very good, very good topic—

transport. I think we will consider

devoting, devoting to it our

separate debate program on Moskva 24.

Until Wednesday, thank you for your attention. All the

best. Maybe we could at least take two topics, and—

[music]

well