Ivan Ivanov. On the need for show trials

In the story of the investigation into the Transvaal disaster, several details that escaped or were deliberately hidden attract attention. Deprivation of the licenses of an architect, designer, or builder means only one thing: three subjects of the process are potentially suspects. At the same time, two other subjects - the owner and author of the documentation (i.e., city officials) completely fall out of sight. The latter, apparently, are connected with the interests of Yu. Luzhkov. The liberal public has already “closed the topic”, declaring that Luzhkov and the united “mayor’s office-business” complex, whose financial interests are undoubted, have everything covered and the investigation will end in nothing.

Of course, the consequences of the collapsed trust of the Moscow middle class in Luzhkov as a pillar of the market, liberal innovation, etc. are catastrophic. But even more politically unsuccessful is the attempt at an information blockade by the Moscow government. Who are they, the characters who have fallen out of sight?

The owner - who is also the exploiter of any property, not only in the Moscow, but also in the Marxian sense - makes a profit. The scale of ownership of a building presupposes a fundamentally different type of economic and social relations compared to a smaller owner, the owner of an apartment, for example. If the apartment is private, the builder is responsible, but if the apartment is used as a warehouse and 3 tons are loaded, another level of responsibility arises: it is no longer the builder who is included in the chain, but the owner (operator). The fact that the building was serviced and the floors were washed by some office hired by the owner does not change the essence.

The permit is also a city official. Has the license of Resin, Aksenov, Shantsev or anyone else been revoked? Perhaps the authority to sign documentation has been temporarily suspended? Has the final authority of the defendant been found in this chain of perpetrators? No answer. Meanwhile, if the city produces acceptance commissions, then, in theory, it should be responsible. I bet Transvaal has everything perfect with documentation and acceptance. Since you wrote that everything is in order, that means you are co-defendants.

One more observation regarding the Resolver. He became so insolent that already on the third day he put forward an idea: construction documentation should be tightened up. Those. We will now put even more in our pockets for the risk. And so on - in geometric progression. After the terrorist attack in the metro, the deputy director of the FSB demands more powers for himself, without even specifying which ones. The speaker also demanded a tightening of the Criminal Code, as if there were not enough existing articles, and added that he had given an order (in parliament - where laws are introduced and discussed - sic!) to prepare the corresponding papers. However, the same speaker stated that “parliament is not a place for political discussions . ” In short, the Authorizer feels impunity and says openly: the objects themselves are indifferent to us, but we will check the documentation on them.

Summary: Moscow needs a show trial of the responsibility of city officials and property owners. The fact that the president is on the submarine at this time is, of course, not a joy, but at least the owner and the permitter are listed in the same department.