S. BUNTMAN – Alexei Navalny, executive secretary of the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites. Good afternoon! A. NAVALNY – Good afternoon! S. BUNTMAN – Happy holidays to you. The program Urban Planning Chronicles will return in its usual form and format starting next Saturday, right? As I understand it, Alexei, that’s what we agreed. A. NAVALNY – We’re already preparing new episodes. S. BUNTMAN – Yes. But for now, let’s talk… Let’s get straight to the point: there are so many problems right now with construction, urban planning, infill development, the city center and areas outside the center, and all of it is troubling, to say the least. But the thing is, Sergey Mitrokhin also told me when we met—we were talking in the corridor—that Muscovites may now be stripped of certain rights. What exactly is this about? What could happen, Alexei? A. NAVALNY – There’s this wonderful thing called local self-government. According to most sociological surveys, unfortunately, Muscovites don’t know much about it, and after January 16 there’s a very good chance they’ll never learn about it at all. That’s because a law on the special features of local self-government in the city of Moscow is now being prepared for its second reading, and it completely eliminates all the powers local self-government currently has. One small but very telling detail about this law: it passed its first reading on December 7. In other words, the Moscow City Duma elections had just taken place, and there was this gap in time when the new deputies had not yet begun sitting, while the old deputies were still in session, even though in reality they were already half not-deputies anymore. S. BUNTMAN – There was something like that on the 14th there. A. NAVALNY – Yes, yes. And it is precisely in this gap that the most awful, unpopular laws get passed—laws that no one else wants to pass, because it would leave a stain on your entire future political career. And in the first reading, this very law that destroys local self-government in Moscow passed without a hitch. What does that mean in terms of construction? Right now, our municipal deputies, however imperfectly, still approve construction projects, district development plans, and urban planning documents. In practice, we constantly encounter cases where municipal deputies protest against a particular project, and it gets built anyway, but even so they can at least put up some kind of fight: they can request documentation, they at least review these issues. But if this law is passed on the 16th in the second and third readings—and United Russia, which controls 80% of the seats, is determined to pass it—then unfortunately our local deputies will have absolutely nothing to do with construction or urban planning on their own territory. And that means all of us as well, because we can work through them. S. BUNTMAN – And how will that work? So they approve a plan, start building, and that’s it? What can anyone do then? A. NAVALNY – In practice, look: you have a lovely sports ground in your courtyard. Some investor looks at it and thinks it would make a great site for a luxury apartment building. That luxury building is not included in the district development plan, so it can’t be built. So they do this very clever thing in Moscow called “clarifying the district development plan.” Some people at the General Plan Research Institute revise the plan in such a way that this luxury building suddenly appears in your courtyard. Now, at the moment, that still requires at least the approval of local self-government deputies, who do occasionally dig in their heels and start fighting. In my experience, it is usually through them that this information reaches residents, people start protesting, some kind of movement emerges, and as a result the building may not be built after all, and the sports ground remains. But now none of that will happen. It will all happen without the deputies even knowing. All the relevant… S. BUNTMAN – So even in terms of information, we won’t even know that… A. NAVALNY – Of course we’ll find out—when… We’ll find out when the construction site is fenced off… S. BUNTMAN – We’ll see that the site has been fenced off and they’ve started digging. A. NAVALNY – Yes, exactly. S. BUNTMAN – Yes, and then we start trying to find out what it is. A. NAVALNY – Exactly. S. BUNTMAN – And we’ll only be able to find out… Where will we be able to find out? A. NAVALNY – We’ll be able to find out from the sign posted there saying who the client is, who the contractor is—and by then, essentially, nothing can be changed. By then the construction permit has already been issued, and kicking up a fuss is pointless. In fact, this is utter madness, because Russia has signed the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which states very clearly—and we supposedly recognize this—that local self-government is a way for the population to exercise power under its own responsibility and largely at its own expense. That is entirely reasonable. Questions of local significance—who should decide what color to paint a fence, or how to enclose that same sports ground? Naturally, if we’re talking about building a new citywide stadium, a huge shopping center, and so on, those issues should be coordinated at the city level, through the prefecture, and so forth. S. BUNTMAN – But still, the residents living around that stadium… A. NAVALNY – Still, their opinion should at least be heard. Previously, at least the municipal assembly—those deputies—would at least review the issue. S. BUNTMAN – But this is that famous system of “stand there, come here,” because right now there’s also a reform of self-government underway, and everyone is being urged to unite, take control of their buildings, order… choose a company that will be whatever you need—a plumber… A. NAVALNY – Well, that’s a separate topic. You can choose all you like from one company. One company is offered—choose as much as you want. S. BUNTMAN – Choose from that one. A. NAVALNY – It really is astonishing. The city is running a whole campaign to create homeowners’ associations. That really is a kind of local self-government: these people—HOAs, housing cooperatives—they unite, they are supposed to allocate land to themselves, and they are supposed to resolve their own local issues. The question of their own yard, their own entranceway, their own living environment—they should decide these things themselves. And yet, on the other hand, we see this creeping trend: on the one hand, please, decide things for yourselves—but your legally guaranteed rights are simply being washed away. S. BUNTMAN – Then how am I supposed to decide anything? A. NAVALNY – You can’t decide anything. S. BUNTMAN – We form a homeowners’ association, we unite in this and that, collect documents—and what do we do next? Just go to court? A. NAVALNY – Yes, that’s the construction complex’s favorite trick, their favorite excuse. They always say: if you don’t like something, folks, go to court. But they understand perfectly well that even an HOA, an organized structure, going to court is, first of all, expensive, and second, not everyone has lawyers; in general it’s difficult and drags on for years. So litigation suits them very well. That’s why they are taking away exactly those rights we can use right now. The municipal assembly… S. BUNTMAN – Preventively, at that. A. NAVALNY – It would simply declare: we do not approve this plan, we are outraged, the residents do not approve it, we state on behalf of the residents that we oppose this construction and will obstruct it by every means possible, file complaints everywhere, and so on. Oh, is that so? Then we’ll just take that right away from you. In fact, you won’t even be able to put such a question on your agenda. S. BUNTMAN – Want the answer, Alexei? They’ll say the corruption-prone environment of local deputies is being eliminated, and everything will be decided transparently, within civilized rules. You wanted the dictatorship of law? Well, here it is: things will be resolved as in the entire civilized world—through the courts. A. NAVALNY – Then tell me this, please: if you say corrupt local deputies are being eliminated, who is easier to bribe—one person who signs an order, or 15 local deputies? Of course there are plenty of cases where all 15 local deputies took something and approved absolutely outrageous construction projects that violate every law. But that is still much harder. Decisions should be made not by one person, but collectively. You can request the minutes from a municipal assembly; they have meetings, some formal procedure. S. BUNTMAN – They’re closer to us, they’re visible. A. NAVALNY – They’re closer to the people. You see… S. BUNTMAN – Though we know them less. That’s the most astonishing thing—we know them less. A. NAVALNY – And that’s very bad. It’s a Moscow problem: we know them poorly. But on the other hand, they really are closer to the people, because if a Moscow City Duma deputy has, say, 500,000 voters—half a million people—then on average a municipal assembly deputy has about 1,500 voters. So in practice he really can communicate with every person. He can bring information about a construction project to every person, can do explanatory work. Now, unfortunately, they are being stripped even of these meager powers. After the 16th, if this law is passed—and that would be bad—our local deputies, of whom there are more than 1,500 in Moscow, will effectively be left with just one power: organizing local holiday celebrations. So… S. BUNTMAN – Wonderful. A. NAVALNY – …they’ll celebrate the loss of their own powers. Of course, we are working on this. By the 16th, these municipal assembly deputies are signing collective appeals. Mitrokhin and the Yabloko–United Democrats faction have prepared amendments. I hope the Communists will support them. And of course, on the 16th there will be a real battle. Still, it will be difficult—quite difficult. S. BUNTMAN – We’ll be following it. I think the time has come—holidays are over, enough already. A. NAVALNY – That timing was chosen deliberately. On December 7, everyone had already stopped caring. Now, after New Year’s, they hope the issue will simply be buried. You know, Vladimir Iosifovich Resin has a favorite saying: “Money loves silence.” And in this case they’re trying to pass just such a law—it needs silence. We are trying to break that silence with protests, open letters, and so on. I think there will be a series of pickets outside the Moscow City Duma. We’ll try to influence this somehow. S. BUNTMAN – Uh-huh. And Gurgen—I love it when terms get ever more refined—says: “The more correct term is corruption-intensive; remember your Latin.” Thank you, Gurgen, you’re right. It doesn’t make things any cheerier, but you are right. “They’re forcing people to resort to other measures.” Signed: partisan Vasilisa Kozhina (a folk heroine of Russia’s 1812 war). Hold on, Vasilisa, no need to come out with pitchforks just yet. A. NAVALNY – Speaking of other measures. S. BUNTMAN – Yes. A. NAVALNY – Last year I repeatedly talked on my program about the scandalous Taganka-3 conflict, where residents said exactly this: we’re tired of fighting by legal means, so we moved on to other measures. They sent out press releases saying they would burn construction equipment. The prefect of the Central District, Baidakov, literally hid from them, because at every city event they would pelt him with mayonnaise and so on. Right before the elections, they were called to a meeting and told: that’s it, you’ve worn us out, we fully acknowledge that this construction project was completely illegal—the land allocation was illegal, the land lease agreement was illegal, the permit was illegal, everything was absolutely illegal, you won. They promised to reconvene them after the elections and give them documents in hand; unfortunately they didn’t. But still, people really are being forced into other measures, and sometimes those measures are effective. S. BUNTMAN – But between the law—let’s put it this way—between municipal governance and these “other measures” à la Vasilisa Kozhina and Taganka-3, is there some middle ground for action? And are there examples where it works? A. NAVALNY – Yes, there are. In fact, there are quite a few mechanisms. Besides the courts, there are prosecutors’ offices and so on, there’s also the police, and there’s a fairly effective method we use in the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites: we simply obtain all the permit documentation—which, incidentally, is not always easy—conduct a legal review, and simply show the city: guys, don’t even try this, don’t even come out with it. S. BUNTMAN – But independent legal review is expensive, isn’t it… A. NAVALNY – It’s not even so much that it’s expensive—you need to understand the field. Unfortunately, there are very few specialists who understand urban planning and housing law. So yes, something can be done, but unfortunately ordinary citizens can’t do it on their own—they’re not professionals, they have their own lives, and they can’t sort this out. That’s exactly why municipal deputies are needed, because they approach it on a somewhat different level. S. BUNTMAN – But besides that, for example, several buildings can unite and pool their efforts—which they do, incidentally. Sometimes they act in parallel. There’s a case nearby where several buildings are opposing something in parallel; there’s a story right here nearby that I’ve had to get involved in. A. NAVALNY – Gagarinsky Lane. S. BUNTMAN – Gagarinsky Lane. A. NAVALNY – Yes, yes, yes. S. BUNTMAN – Building 25, where under… very interesting things are going on; in any case, answers need to be obtained to all the questions. Behind the restoration—I would say a brilliant restoration, technically brilliant restoration—of the one-story Decembrist house of Svistunov, something else is happening behind it. A. NAVALNY – In practice, it’s completely obvious. S. BUNTMAN – Yes. A. NAVALNY – In Khamovniki this happens all the time. They’re simply going to build a huge administrative building there, and that restoration was just a screen, because… S. BUNTMAN – A beautiful screen, but still only a screen. A. NAVALNY – Gagarinsky Lane is an excellent example. People united, they really are ready to do something. But now, as I understand it, they’ve hit a wall: there’s no documentation. Even though the Urban Planning Code clearly states in black and white that there can be no secret, confidential, or internal-use information here—they must receive all the documentation in hand, they must be given copies. S. BUNTMAN – Some of it exists, but not all. A. NAVALNY – But they can’t even get the part that does exist. We’re helping now; we’ve already written what must be a million requests to every possible agency. We’ll get everything there is. I hope that on Gagarinsky Lane we’ll manage to pin the powers that be down and stop all this. S. BUNTMAN – Here’s a great question from Nikolai: “Why doesn’t Luzhkov know about these outrages? If you’re picketing outside the Duma, he’s the one responsible for the city. Why is he distancing himself?” A. NAVALNY – Oh, he knows perfectly well. Luzhkov knows, Resin knows—they all know. That’s exactly why they’re solving their own problems, removing their own headache. In fact, municipal assembly deputies and these municipal assemblies were a huge headache for the construction complex. And they are specifically lobbying these amendments to make life easier for themselves, to simplify decision-making procedures in cases where residents are somehow involved—because that was always painful for them. And they’re trying to throw residents out of the process as much as possible. So they know perfectly well. For them it’s easier to weather a small scandal now, and then make life easier for themselves for years to come. S. BUNTMAN – Yuri asks: “Please tell us how to fight the illegal removal of satellite dishes from buildings by district maintenance offices?” A. NAVALNY – Very simply: create an HOA. You see, when your building is municipal, the district maintenance office controls everything. Create an HOA, the building will belong to you, formalize ownership, and then you either deal with that maintenance office or choose your own management company. In short, you don’t let anyone come near your building—which you own—within a cannon shot, and that’s that. S. BUNTMAN – There’s the reverse situation too. When an HOA exists, and they have problems with people who want to install equipment on the roof without proper authorization or documentation. There’s an office on the lower floor of the building. There’s a concrete example. And the firms renting those offices want to install satellite and fairly powerful equipment. The only thing the HOA asks for is documentation and a signed agreement with the HOA. And that runs into major obstacles. A. NAVALNY – But in any case, yes, such cases do exist with HOAs, we know about them. Satellite equipment is one thing. We’ve had cases where they install a huge mobile communications antenna on a building, one that really does irradiate everyone, one that really shouldn’t be installed there under sanitary standards. But in any case, HOAs find it easier to fight this, because they are the owners—including of the roof. When it’s a municipal building, no one listens to them at all. S. BUNTMAN – It’s very important to understand that it’s easier… I apologize. Thank you, Andrei, we won’t all talk at once. So, Alexei, it’s very important to remember that it’s easier to fight if you unite, rather than, say, sending someone to fight the district maintenance office for one reason while making the maintenance office fight someone else, when it’s easier for it just to hand over some kind of bribe. A. NAVALNY – Of course. S. BUNTMAN – Some kind of bribe, rather than… A. NAVALNY – Rather than making it fight itself. S. BUNTMAN – Well, yes. Making it fight—that was the best stage act of the early Soviet era: the “fight of the Nanai boys,” performed by one person. Right. Marina writes: “I personally have repeatedly appealed to our self-government bodies—the prefecture and district administration—and each time I became convinced of their personal financial interest or lack of interest in the matter.” A. NAVALNY – Naturally, of course, that happens very often. They elect the people who are supposed to be elected. We have 125 districts, and accordingly 125 municipal assemblies, but by my estimate no more than 20 actively fight and defend residents’ rights; the rest are completely tame and obedient, and the list of who is to be elected is drawn up personally by the head of the district administration. But at least there is a small part that does fight. If we pass this law, we’ll destroy even that small… S. BUNTMAN – Possibility. A. NAVALNY – Yes, even the possibility. S. BUNTMAN – It’s like regional elections, you know—it’s exactly the same. “Oh, there’ll be either gangsters or total corruption anyway.” A. NAVALNY – Exactly. S. BUNTMAN – So governors get elected. And then what? A. NAVALNY – Let’s just crush everything at the root. S. BUNTMAN – Just as Irina writes: “So-and-so’s son-in-law is the head of such-and-such major construction company.” I won’t say the names. “It’s useless to fight this.” Why? A. NAVALNY – The main thing is that opportunities to fight must remain; then at least something can be done. But if those opportunities are taken away, then yes—burn the bulldozer. I am not calling on anyone to burn a bulldozer. S. BUNTMAN – No, just don’t give up right away. Check whether it’s possible or impossible. When you run into a fairly thick wall, you’ll see how thick it is and what it’s made of. A. NAVALNY – Water doesn’t flow under a лежачий камень (Russian proverb: “nothing happens if you do nothing”). We keep statistics. And we see very clearly that even in seemingly hopeless cases, initiative groups that really work—doing something, poking into every corner, appealing everywhere, making scandals, holding rallies, and so on—often do succeed. S. BUNTMAN – “If there’s an HOA in the building, will they require residents to pay for repairs themselves?” A. NAVALNY – The HOA issue is a major problem, because on the one hand they absolutely should be created, but on the other hand VAT immediately appears on utility services, so everything becomes more expensive. And major repairs for that HOA—you’ll be paying for them yourselves. The new Housing Code is really a noose around the neck of all homeowners, all of us. That’s a big problem. But if your building is in a particularly desirable location—say Gagarinsky Lane, all those buildings in Khamovniki, the “Golden Mile,” where the land is the most expensive and the plots are highly attractive for investment—if you fear someone may grab your courtyard, then it’s still better to create an HOA. S. BUNTMAN – Of course, that way you can hold the line… A. NAVALNY – Because you’ll allocate the land to yourselves, the land will belong to you, and no one will take it away. S. BUNTMAN – Don’t dismiss this as mere formalities or nonsense. That’s the point. Right. “Residents of one building in the very center have now been permanently relocated to the middle of nowhere, to the farthest reaches of Butovo. The reason was a fire…” Unfortunately the message cuts off there. But these relocations now… A. NAVALNY – Incidentally, if the theme of our program is “What rights will we lose this year,” we strongly suspect that after the destruction of local self-government, amendments to the law on relocation will follow. Previously the mayor was elected, so everyone was nervous about this, there was public attention, and the law was fairly favorable to residents. We think that now this will change and citizens’ rights in relocation cases will be sharply restricted. I already know of many cases where central-city residents are being relocated to Butovo. Just before New Year I attended an HOA meeting of residents of Strastnoy Boulevard; they live literally about 300 meters from Pushkinskaya metro station. I saw it myself: they are being offered viewing appointments for apartments on Koktebelskaya Street. That’s South Butovo. These are not jokes. Real central-city residents are being relocated to South Butovo. This is no fairy tale. And I think this will somehow… Right now it’s done by falsifying decisions declaring buildings unsafe, but a legislative basis will be created for it. S. BUNTMAN – Alexei Navalny is with us on the program City. We’ll continue in five minutes. S. BUNTMAN – Alexei Navalny, executive secretary of the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites, on the program City. Your host is Sergey Buntman. Our pager number is 725-66-33. “We live in Belyayevo in a cooperative building. In 2005 we paid 30 rubles more for cold water and sewage than neighboring city-owned buildings, even though all the apartments there are also privately owned. Please explain the reason for this difference.” A. NAVALNY – VAT. As I said, both housing cooperatives and HOAs pay value-added tax on utility services. S. BUNTMAN – There you have it. Yes. Natalya Pavlovna, we’ve answered you. Next: “Is it true that the Moscow authorities passed a resolution to carry out major repairs on buildings 30 to 40 years old at Moscow’s expense?” asks Andrei Pankratov. A. NAVALNY – At present, major repairs for all buildings in Moscow are, as a general rule, paid for by the city. The problem is that the new Housing Code stipulates that major repairs are to be paid for by residents. So far that is not happening in Moscow; all major repairs are still paid for by the city. What will happen in the future is hard to say, but I think the burden of major repairs will gradually be shifted onto residents’ shoulders. Of course, this can’t be done all at once—not tomorrow, not on a mass scale—because repairing a roof costs, say, 1.5 million rubles. Naturally, when… S. BUNTMAN – No one will collect that from residents. A. NAVALNY – Residents of some building will be told: folks, raise 1.5 million rubles. First, they won’t raise it; second, they’ll block the road; third, they’ll go beat up the head of the district administration. So it can’t be done overnight. But that is the trend: it will be shifted gradually. S. BUNTMAN – But that trend raises another question, Alexei. That’s why many people think: we won’t create HOAs and similar structures, because then it will be easier to force us to pay for everything ourselves. A. NAVALNY – Either way, you’ll be forced to pay for everything yourselves. I hope amendments to the Housing Code will still be adopted to equalize the rights of HOAs and city-owned buildings, and that this will happen gradually. At least then there won’t be these VAT problems. But specialists in housing and utilities have many different opinions. There’s a lot of debate here about whether to create HOAs or not. I think it’s still better to create them. Because in Moscow right now you may pay a little bit more, perhaps only slightly, but when you live in a city-owned building, you have no rights at all. None whatsoever. S. BUNTMAN – Uh-huh. Elena Borisovna asks us to do a separate program on the pros and cons of homeowners’ associations. A. NAVALNY – You see, that is interesting. By March 1 we’re supposed to choose management companies, and nobody even understands what any of this means: what management companies, what HOA, what major repairs? It’s astonishing. I often asked Moscow government officials: why aren’t you doing explanatory work? People need this explained, because on March 1 they’ll be told: well, folks, have you chosen a management company? S. BUNTMAN – And why are they obliged to explain anything now, anyway? A. NAVALNY – Exactly. They say: why should we explain it to you? If you’re idiots, it’s your own fault. That’s their approach. S. BUNTMAN – Ignorance of the law is no excuse… And that’s how it all starts. A. NAVALNY – Returning to the law that will most likely be passed on the 16th, unfortunately: these municipal deputies have long been fighting to be given powers specifically in housing and utilities. Who else should deal with leaking roofs, district maintenance offices, and garbage collection if not local deputies? But no, they’re not given those powers. S. BUNTMAN – A Department of Leaking Roofs. A. NAVALNY – Yes, a Department of Leaking Roofs. S. BUNTMAN – Within the executive branch of a huge region with the population of an entire country. A. NAVALNY – Unfortunately, that’s how it is now. S. BUNTMAN – Right. Someone here is being ironic: “Don’t suggest we test the strength and thickness of the wall with our own heads.” No. What I’m suggesting, dear friends, is this: first go up to it and look at it, and if there are many of you, then it’s done with a “battering ram,” so to speak, as in the Middle Ages—a metal thing on a log. That can only be done collectively. Next: “Infill construction ruins the city’s overall appearance. Please tell us, is there a long-term architectural development plan for Moscow?” asks Katya. A. NAVALNY – Of course there is. There’s an urban development plan through 2020, and there are district development plans. In theory, you can go to your district administration and easily obtain at least your district’s development plan without any problems. We tried several times in different districts and never got one, but such a plan does exist, and with a little effort it can be obtained. The problem is that it is constantly being revised. S. BUNTMAN – That’s the trouble. A. NAVALNY – Exactly. If someone wants to build something not предусмотренное by the plan, it’s a matter of money. You just revise the plan. And then you can build anything you want. S. BUNTMAN – Vasilisa asks: “Why weren’t commercial tenants on the ground floors required to install water meters, and instead they pay according to some strange coefficient?” A. NAVALNY – It varies from place to place. In most cases they do have water meters, while the rest of us now pay according to a coefficient. There’s some standard consumption coefficient, and again, experiments and calculations have been done. We pay about 30–40% more for hot and cold water than we actually consume. Because we don’t have meters, we pay for all leaks, seepage, burst pipes, and so on. S. BUNTMAN – Has the idea died of not paying for hot water when it isn’t supplied? A. NAVALNY – No, the idea hasn’t died; you can refuse to pay. They’ll just summon you to court and hassle you. But how can you not pay? You have to prove it, and then you’ll have to prove in court that the hot water service wasn’t provided. That’s very difficult. S. BUNTMAN – What is there to prove when there are signed notices posted? A. NAVALNY – But those are signed… You mean the summer period, right? The 20 days. S. BUNTMAN – Yes. A. NAVALNY – There were several attempts to sue. They explain that it’s all built into the tariff, calculated over the year, so those 20 days without hot water are… S. BUNTMAN – Spread over the rest. A. NAVALNY – Spread over the rest, yes. S. BUNTMAN – Ah! Interesting. Here’s a specific question from Olga: “After how many years is a major repair supposed to be carried out?” A. NAVALNY – If I’m not mistaken, the old standard was 20 years, and now it’s been increased to 25. Naturally, in practice most buildings have long since passed the point when major repairs should have been done, and they still haven’t been done. That’s exactly why the Urban Planning Code—and the Housing Code—were adopted: the state took calculators and counted how much money would be needed to carry out the major repairs it is legally obliged to do. They did the math, were horrified, and decided that now residents should do those repairs themselves. S. BUNTMAN – Uh-huh. Yes. As our president Vladimir Vladimirovich says—he said it yesterday when speaking about oil—why should the state only bear expenses? A. NAVALNY – Yes, yes, in Yakutia. S. BUNTMAN – Why only expenses? All revenues should belong to it. What exactly counts as revenue, no one knows. “How can one fight,” asks Zinaida Mikhailovna, “under unstable legislation and with authorities who have a vested interest? Under such conditions, a new law is created to counter any argument.” A. NAVALNY – A new law is still something that takes time—several months to pass. Even now, it is possible to fight quite effectively by uniting and creating territorial communities—a kind of surrogate local self-government, but still, that law remains in Moscow, and we hope at least that won’t be taken away. Create HOAs, create various public committees. For example, our Committee for the Protection of Muscovites is simply a public association, not even registered with the Ministry of Justice. And yet, knock on wood, we have been fairly successful in fighting certain manifestations of arbitrariness. S. BUNTMAN – People here are asking us to talk about other forms of building management. What forms are there besides a homeowners’ association? A. NAVALNY – Essentially, you can create a homeowners’ association, or you can leave your building as it is, and it will remain municipal—well, city-owned. There are no municipal buildings in Moscow, unfortunately; they are city-owned buildings. In that case, the district maintenance office will choose a management company for you—or in practice, the district maintenance office itself will remain your management company, and that’s it. S. BUNTMAN – Yes, but in any case, it’s something that has to be addressed. If we take a pessimistic view, then residents of buildings from the 1950s and 1960s can expect the same thing as residents of many provincial towns: virtually endless repairs and expensive repair and technical equipment. A. NAVALNY – We still hope that won’t happen. Moscow is a fairly wealthy city now. Moscow’s budget is larger than the budget of all Poland. So in Moscow, we have to admit, there are not that many cases where roofs are literally leaking all over the city and so on. This is all being funded now; enormous amounts of money are stolen, but it is still funded and gradually repaired. And we hope that even though the mayor will now be appointed rather than elected, he still won’t just spit on the whole thing, and will continue to care, at least to some extent, that the population loves him for it. S. BUNTMAN – Yes, but maybe he won’t need to be loved anymore. This whole story with elections has been the central story of the last year and a half. A. NAVALNY – Absolutely. Previously the mayor had to direct 60% of all revenues to social spending, including major repairs, because he wanted the population to love him. Now, at least, he doesn’t need that nearly as much. And it is absolutely certain that social spending in the Moscow city budget will be reduced. S. BUNTMAN – What about equipment? Larisa asks: “How long should an elevator last, and who is obliged to replace it when its service life expires?” A. NAVALNY – The operating company. That’s why homeowners’ associations need to be created—then all the contracts and all those documents will be in your hands, and you’ll be able to see for yourselves… S. BUNTMAN – In other words, Larisa, they’ll be with us, not with some abstract… A. NAVALNY – You’ll see: this is your company that services the elevator, this is how much you paid it. It’s actually astonishing. For example, the standards say that elevator shafts and ventilation shafts are supposed to be inspected periodically and some routine repairs carried out. In practice, this is never done. Yet you pay for it, and someone pockets the money. Once you create an HOA, it becomes much harder for someone to simply take your money and not provide the service. S. BUNTMAN – “Will the deadline for apartment privatization in Moscow be extended?” asks Tatyana. And in general, there are many questions and reflections here about whether privatization is worth it. A. NAVALNY – My view is that privatization is worth it if you want the apartment to be yours and no one to be able to encroach on it in the future. The current deadline is 2007. I’m not sure it will be extended. S. BUNTMAN – But 2007 is still a fair amount of time, if we’re talking about privatization… A. NAVALNY – In other words, you need to start worrying about it now and deal with it now. S. BUNTMAN – If we mean privatization in the form it has existed. Right. Another question here: “Under Article 16 of the privatization law, in buildings requiring major repairs, privatization is allowed, but repairs are carried out by the landlord.” I’m not sure what exactly this means. A. NAVALNY – No, at present repairs are carried out by the landlord, meaning if… S. BUNTMAN – For now, yes. A. NAVALNY – …if your apartment is city-owned and the building is city-owned, then repairs are carried out by the landlord—that is, the owner, the balance holder of the building. S. BUNTMAN – Another one: “Alexei, please tell us who passed the State Duma resolution raising utility prices from January 1, including electricity? We’ve already received the bills and will have to pay them in the next few days, although pensions have not been increased.” A. NAVALNY – The increase from January 1 was made by the Moscow city government, which raised housing and utility prices. And this was made possible by the law, the Housing Code, and the housing and utilities reform concept adopted back in 2003, I think, by the State Duma—that is, they allowed the regions to raise payment for housing and utility services up to 100% of cost. So now each region—supposedly coordinating somewhere with the federal tariff service and so on—but in practice each regional government, including the Moscow government, acts independently. They raised prices by 30% from January 1, and I think—well, I don’t think, I know for certain—they will raise them again. S. BUNTMAN – “Please comment on the liquidation of housing cooperatives built in the 1960s and 1970s.” That’s from Elena, who is herself the chair of a housing cooperative, incidentally. A. NAVALNY – Well, how can they be liquidated? A housing cooperative is liquidated if, for example, the building is demolished and residents are resettled—if it’s a five-story block. But a housing cooperative is not so easy to liquidate. We have dealt with some cases where a cooperative collectively objects to the resettlement process: people don’t want to be moved to one district, they want another, and they refuse to dissolve their cooperative, fighting to the end. But in practice there aren’t many such cases. Housing cooperatives defend their rights in resettlement quite effectively, and I’ve observed this repeatedly. If the prefecture talks to city-owned buildings through clenched teeth, so to speak, then with housing cooperatives it’s different, because they own the building and often some land as well, so it’s not so easy to… let’s say, cheat them. So they have greater rights. But I wouldn’t say these 1960s–70s housing cooperatives are being liquidated as such. S. BUNTMAN – Tatyana asks: “If the building becomes an HOA, will I be able to buy the technical floor above me, or only rent it? What are the risks?” A. NAVALNY – That would be up to the HOA itself. If they want to sell it to you, and if that is possible under the law and the relevant conditions, then probably they can. S. BUNTMAN – I see. This is a repeatedly asked question, and we’ll definitely say it before the end of the program. Yuri asks: “How can one find the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites? How can one call or come by?” A. NAVALNY – 780-30-14. S. BUNTMAN – That’s the phone number; you can find out everything there. Right. What… What happened during the time we didn’t meet, at the end of the year, besides the preparation of these legislative acts and the first reading of the law? Despite all the elections you took part in, were you following what is happening now? What were the main developments in Moscow and for Muscovites? A. NAVALNY – In urban planning terms? S. BUNTMAN – Yes, yes. And what dangers are there? A. NAVALNY – Well, I’ve already mentioned the dangers. S. BUNTMAN – The dangers, yes. A. NAVALNY – I think what began last year will continue this year. First and foremost, scandals involving all these shared-equity investors. Despite Resin and Luzhkov saying that all the problems have been solved, we know they haven’t, and we even know of projects not included in any official lists where there are also defrauded investors. We predict there will be many such cases. The scandals over resettlement will continue, the legislation will be tightened. Residents of the center will face more problems, and I think that within the center they will only resettle those who are not officially in need of improved housing conditions—such people are a minority, but at least that is the trend. We will be watching our new grandiose urban planning projects such as the Fourth Ring Road. I think the city will have major problems with the City project, Moscow City, primarily because the transportation problem remains unresolved. Construction of Krasnopresnensky Prospekt will continue—this astonishing project, each kilometer of which costs $240 million. And the contractor was chosen not through a tender, but simply by fiat. In short, all the amazing wonders of Moscow’s construction complex will continue. We’ll be talking about them on our program Urban Planning Chronicles. S. BUNTMAN – Yes, and we’ll also be gathering to discuss self-government. We will definitely do a program on HOAs and other forms of management in the near future. Once everyone is back from the holidays, we’ll get to it. Galina Ivanovna writes to us: “The mayor’s office and prefectures still do not have a list of management companies. Buildings can be managed not only by HOAs but also by housing cooperatives and construction cooperatives. It is profitable for district maintenance offices to provide services to buildings and unprofitable for them to bring in other workers. Right now district administrations are privatizing the maintenance offices in order to remain monopolists in service provision.” A. NAVALNY – Naturally, there is no list of management companies; everywhere there are only district maintenance offices. In theory, entrepreneurs could organize a management company, enter this market, lower prices, and provide better services. You’d spit on the maintenance office and sign a contract with these wonderful honest entrepreneurs. But they won’t enter the market, because it’s not in the maintenance office’s interest to destroy its monopoly. That’s perfectly obvious. S. BUNTMAN – “How can you create an HOA when only half the apartments in the building have been privatized?” asks Alexander. A. NAVALNY – The rest need to be privatized. In fact, every prefecture does have this, and there are centers that help create HOAs, answer questions, and provide legal services. Call your prefecture and ask. They really will help you with some documentation and initial advice. S. BUNTMAN – Elena writes: “Five years ago, when our building was constructed, we organized an HOA. We rented out the first floor and we—the residents—had income from it. Now the tenants have bought the first floor, and it has become difficult and expensive for us to pay. The district maintenance office won’t take us without the first floor.” A. NAVALNY – No, but if they bought it, then presumably they bought it from you. You must have sold it yourselves, if you first rented it out and now they bought it. S. BUNTMAN – Yes, actually. A. NAVALNY – Who else could they have bought it from? Only from you. So that’s a question for the chair of your HOA. S. BUNTMAN – Yes. This is a paradoxical story. “Who is responsible for major repairs to the main building of Moscow State University, especially the dormitories? If it’s the city authorities, when will it be done? Students are living in terrible conditions.” In buildings like that, who is responsible for maintaining the dormitories? A. NAVALNY – Each department or agency. Moscow has a huge number of buildings—for example, buildings belonging to the Ministry of Defense, buildings of the Ministry of Railways, and buildings that, frankly, no one even knows who owns. And the dormitory issue is enormous, because under the new Housing Code, dormitory residents have virtually no rights at all. Incidentally, dormitories will also be a major issue this year. In the last days of last year there were scandals involving prison service dormitories, where armed men practically stormed them. As for Moscow State University dormitories, and the university building in general, of course the balance holder is responsible for all of that. Presumably the university itself. S. BUNTMAN – The university itself? A. NAVALNY – The university itself. Well, I’m assuming. Naturally, Moscow State University receives money from the state, from the federal budget. S. BUNTMAN – So that’s the federal budget, not Moscow’s. A. NAVALNY – Yes, yes, federal, not Moscow. Universities are all funded from the federal budget. S. BUNTMAN – Whatever Moscow contributed—that’s a different matter entirely. The library construction and so on. A. NAVALNY – Yes, yes, yes. S. BUNTMAN – That part is Moscow’s. “If people are not planning to privatize at all, then how can they organize building management?” asks Alexander. The other half of the residents. A. NAVALNY – In fact, you do not necessarily need to create an HOA in order to manage your building. That is not required. First you simply need to hold a residents’ meeting. At that meeting you can choose a management company. The legislation provides for all of this; it just takes a couple of active people to organize it. The problem is that even if you do gather, you won’t have much to choose from. They’ll tell you: here is the district maintenance office. It provides your services, and it will continue to provide your services. If you can find some other company, then let it provide the services. But with a high degree of probability, unfortunately, you won’t find such a company. Monopoly. S. BUNTMAN – So far it only works in small things. It’s possible to find alternative ways to do various useful things for the building. A. NAVALNY – In small things, yes. S. BUNTMAN – In small things it works. Installing door systems, video cameras. A. NAVALNY – Video surveillance. S. BUNTMAN – Those kinds of things can be done. A. NAVALNY – But when it comes to electricity, hot and cold water, and so on, unfortunately you won’t find alternatives right now. Until this monopoly is broken, until there is competition in Moscow’s housing and utilities market—which, incidentally, is a very profitable market, especially for multi-apartment high-rise buildings—we will see neither lower prices nor better service quality. S. BUNTMAN – Alexander says, in a realistic but pessimistic way: “It is impossible to gather 100% of the residents of a 2,000-apartment building.” A. NAVALNY – Why 100%? You don’t need 100%; you just need a quorum. It is entirely possible. We’ve seen it hundreds of times. After all, there are huge housing cooperatives; at one time people gathered and somehow even built the building. You just have to get down to it—it’s not difficult. S. BUNTMAN – There could also be a multi-stage system for gathering people. Entrance by entrance. A. NAVALNY – A representative for each entrance. S. BUNTMAN – Exactly. A. NAVALNY – Besides, both the prefecture and the district administration—it depends very much on the particular administration and prefecture, of course—but they do provide some minimal assistance here. S. BUNTMAN – For example, we have a trusted person on each floor who, if we can’t come to a meeting or find out about a decision, handles everything and collects money—a person trusted by the entire floor. That makes it easier. A. NAVALNY – Of course. S. BUNTMAN – We always know that person will attend all the meetings. A. NAVALNY – That’s a normal system created by local residents, built on personal ties. That can’t be changed, and it doesn’t need to be changed. S. BUNTMAN – But it was invented in five minutes, you see—it’s logical. Just as a cap for elderly and single residents in various fee collections was also invented in three minutes. And that was it. A. NAVALNY – You just have to cast aside this eternal apathy and get involved. S. BUNTMAN – Most initial problems are extremely easy to solve. To get to the serious problems takes a long time—provided they don’t hit you first. Right. “Our entrance couldn’t even manage to install intercoms. We collected money for three months.” You collected badly, Alexander—you didn’t figure out how to do it. A. NAVALNY – Yes. S. BUNTMAN – You just said it into the air, you know, like… A. NAVALNY – Put up a notice by the elevators: “Bring money.” Naturally, that won’t work. S. BUNTMAN – Where to, what for, why, how much? Let’s collect it properly. We had the same thing once—we couldn’t even raise money for a door. A. NAVALNY – Besides, you have to understand that once you start dealing with it, you discover that the city will even pay half the cost of the intercom, or almost all of it. Or pay for a concierge. Once you start looking into it, you find that the city will even subsidize that concierge. You simply need to deal with your rights and your possibilities in your own building, your own entrance. S. BUNTMAN – Every big problem can be broken down into a pile of small ones. And separately, they’re fairly easy to solve. Well then, Alexei, thank you. This is the beginning of the year. A. NAVALNY – Thank you. S. BUNTMAN – You know, I very much want us to enter this year in a businesslike way—to enter it concretely and practically. With all these Moscow problems, including on this program. Not apathetically: well, there’s a problem, let it exist, things will only get worse and worse. A. NAVALNY – Let’s enter it in a practical way and do something concrete before the 16th. Dear citizens, if this issue concerns you, please send a telegram to the Moscow City Duma or to the mayor of Moscow demanding that these amendments not be adopted. If any local self-government deputies are listening, Deputy Mitrokhin in the Moscow City Duma is currently collecting amendments and will work to block this law—join in, we badly need activists who can help us. S. BUNTMAN – Well then, Alexei Navalny. Please give the phone number for the Committee for the Protection of Muscovites once again. A. NAVALNY – The Committee for the Protection of Muscovites? S. BUNTMAN – This is not advertising, it’s entirely appropriate. A. NAVALNY – The Committee for the Protection of Muscovites: 780-30-14. S. BUNTMAN – Good. We’ll meet re-gu-lar-ly. And Alexander, if you like, we can also discuss how… Yes, half the residents told everyone to get lost and will keep doing so. The other half collects something, and then that first half complains: why don’t we take part in deciding anything? And then they start contributing money. There are many excellent ways to discuss one problem or another. All right. Thank you. This was the program City, the first one of 2006.
Loading PDF...
1
/
0