"Who wants to do is looking for a way"

The demolition of the Khrushchevs is approved in the State Duma in the first reading

The deputies voted for the bill on “renovation” of houses, which, according to parliamentarians, was prepared at the Moscow City Hall. The Duma agreed that the project required improvements, but supported it almost unanimously: 397 votes “for”, only 4 “against”, one deputy refrained. A few opponents called on United Russia to think about those who do not live in Khrushchev themselves, but in the neighborhood, but also give extra money from the Moscow budget to the poor regions. Speaker of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin, in turn, urged not to start with criticism and start the process of renovation.

The discussion at the first reading in the State Duma was significantly inferior in intensity to previous discussions of the demolition bill. During March and April, he was talked about at the expanded meeting of the State Duma, the Council of the Federation and the Moscow City Duma - everywhere a few opponents of the project tried to convince the deputies of United Russia that the project in the current edition gives too many powers to the city authorities and too few opportunities to defend their rights to Muscovites.

At an additional plenary session scheduled for Thursday (usually they are held on Wednesdays and Fridays), Socialist -Revolutionary Galina Khovanskaya remained the main opponent of Renovation. “The idea is beautiful, wonderful. The implementation is disgusting ... This document is absolutely opaque. What is happening here is excessive freedom of legal regulation, and it can lead to serious violations of citizens' rights, ”Khovanskaya said in her speech.

The communist Nikolai Kolomeytsev warned the speakers of Nikolai Gonchar and Evgeny Moskvichev about the danger of the "effect of the Imereta Valley in Sochi." Socialist -Revolutionary Alexander Starovoitov recalled those Muscovites who will not fall under demolition, but will be forced to observe the construction under their windows: “How will people look at the fact that there were five -story buildings next to them - and fifteen -story buildings grew? In addition to those people we will move, we will get a huge amount of indignation from those whom the program will not affect, ”Starovoitov expects.

Vice Speaker Igor Lebedev (LDPR) recalled the dangers of high-rise buildings and an increase in the density of settlement in those areas where the five-story buildings are now. “If now at a peak Moscow is in 10-point traffic jams, then how will we live when it all ends?” Evgeny Moskvichev, in response, said that when building the liberated territories for each apartment there will be a parking space.

Nikolai Gonchar, the chief speaker and one of the co -authors of the bill, said that it is impossible to postpone renovation further, and only those who cannot participate in it can be further thanking - perhaps hinting at developers who are not close to city contracts: “The reasons why people are consciously misleading is an absolutely specific interest of structures that will not be allowed after the adoption of the law.”

Socialist -Revolutionary Valery Martung proposed to spend money on other needs, instead of emergency renovation of Moscow houses - we recall, according to the mayor's office, 300 billion rubles from the Moscow budget will be allocated for the program. “If the Moscow budget has extra trillions - let's redistribute them in favor of the regions,” Martung suggested. - We have many subjects who do not have money. Here is a colleague Smolin said that 145 billion is needed, and pensioners will receive a pension in full. The pension is not indexed, but we are now discussing the megaproject. ”

He was supported by Oleg Nilov (SR): “I turn to the single -mandate who were elected from the regions where people live with toilets on the street. What will they think about the Muscovites who are either the tile on the asphalt, then they change asphalt to the tiles? ”

Nikolai Gonchar said that "who wants to do is looking for a way." “It is important for us to draw several indicative public decisions. And to the whole city, not empty - which are not here - to show: it will be done like this, this is the first quarter ... We need to work together - and every act for the good. " Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin supported Nikolai Gonchar, noting: “The project is completely new, and we must do everything to protect the rights of citizens. If we start with denial and criticism - this is a very difficult project, you can’t do this. ” According to Volodin, "80% of the inhabitants of Khrushchev - this is sociology - are waiting for relocation."

On the eve of the first reading, the Presidential Council for Codification and Improving Civil Legislation gave a negative review of the bill. Experts indicated that the law was too freely treating private property. A person may not want to move for personal reasons that cannot be compensated by the apartment in another place, and if the decision on demolition is made, the termination of his rights to property becomes a “technical” issue, the review reads. “This proposal is based on disrespect for the right of private property, the protection of which is guaranteed by the Constitution,” the text “Vedomosti” quotes. In addition, the citizen’s capabilities are extremely limited to challenge the decision on demolition, the rights of a business that can fall under demolition, and the Moscow authorities are given very broad powers.

Positive reviews for the bill were given by the Federation Council, the Moscow City Duma and all five responsible State Duma committees: on state construction and legislation, housing policy and housing and communal services, regional policy, natural resources, as well as federal arrangements and issues of local self -government. True, many gave recommendations to significantly supplement the bill. In particular, the Committee on State Building and Legislation proposed to get the house out of operation not when they decide on demolition, but when alternative apartments were provided to residents. The Housing Committee, among other things, emphasized that compensation to the owners should be higher than the market value.