Why does the restoration of Uyar raise so many questions?
Weekly “Arguments and Facts” No. 24. With the use of edged weapons 15/06/2022
After the fires In 2010, the state allocated money for the construction of houses in almost 20 regions of the country. Housing for the fire victims was built quickly and under the lenses of video cameras.
Kirill Parfenov, Associate Professor of the University. Witte:
– Why are there so many difficulties now in the Kranoyarsk Territory? Because it is too far from Moscow and the top leadership of the country?
The leaders of the state really dealt with the fire victims of 2010 personally – the picture from webcams installed at construction sites was viewed in the Kremlin and the White House. Now the tragedy of Uyar and other federal settlements does not matter. This means that assistance from the state is not so effective.
In this case, different interest groups collided. The state really wants to help people who have lost their only home. And it's noble – in many parts of the world, those who did not insure their property would get nothing at all. Albeit crookedly, albeit according to a low social norm, which is good for city apartments, but clearly insufficient for the village, but houses will be built.
Residents remember 2010 very well and know that the houses built under the state order were not so good: many got mold, low-quality materials were used. Therefore, they would prefer to do without a contract and build on their own. But here the building complex comes into play and lobbies its interests: they need orders.
Builders are not too ready to massively build private houses: it is easier and more profitable for the construction complex to deal with multi-apartment buildings, although now they are ready to take on any projects. And now, as far as can be judged from the press, their main interest is that the restoration of the housing of the victims of the fire went through contracts. For local authorities, this is quite an acceptable option – it guarantees employment in the industry and tax deductions.
Social mechanisms that should balance this situation are not working well in our country, insurance is not developed. Because of this, everyone is waiting for help from the state. But here there are also special circumstances: according to the law, only the only housing can be restored at the expense of the budget if it was lost as a result of an emergency. But in many villages there are houses that have become dachas. That is, people moved to city apartments, and now people come to these houses from time to time. Do they need to build a new dacha at public expense? Not sure. The court can deal with such situations.
They say that compensation allows the owners of shacks to earn money, but it is not profitable for those whose good houses burned down. But who prevented the owners of large solid buildings from insuring their property? Compensation from the insurance would cover the losses.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors
Rate the material