Thread: Moscow Mayor goes on to evict families from their homes

Moscow Mayor goes on to evict the retired from their private homes.
We've never had anything and hardly will, I think. Property seems too foreign a term for our country.

A retired old woman was taken to hospital due to a heart attack caused by the storm of fully equipped marins from a special riot squad. The marins came together with ushers to carry out the court decision inspired by the Moscow government about appropiation of those areas for the needs of the city.

http://lenta.ru/news/2006/06/19/butovo1/

And they're complaining of a lack of investment.

It's less important. The most important is that tomorrow you may find yourself in the similar situation, but everyone still keeps sielence.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Moscow Mayor goes on to evict the retired from their private homes.

Although houses are private, they are standing on non-private land -- that's the problem.

Originally Posted by mishau_

We've never had anything and hardly will, I think. Property seems too foreign a term for our country.

My condolescences to *your* country...

Originally Posted by mishau_

A retired old woman was taken to hospital due to a heart attack caused by the storm of fully equipped marins from a special riot squad. The marins came together with ushers to carry out the court decision inspired by the Moscow government about appropiation of those areas for the needs of the city.

If I remember correctly, this old women with her family refused to obey to court's decision for some time? And what the authories must do in this situation, what do you think? The law is the law.

(BTW, what are these mysterious "marins"? If you're are talking about OMON -- these are the special police forces -- maybe SWAT or somethink alike?)

And they're complaining of a lack of investment.

*Who* are complaining? Moscow? I guess, it doesnt't.

It's less important. The most important is that tomorrow you may find yourself in the similar situation, but everyone still keeps sielence.

Definitely, I can't find myself in similiar situation, because I'm not owning house nearby Moscow (built on municipal or belonging to oblast land). BTW, even if I had one, I'll do everything to get rid of it and move to the city.

The law is the law.

No, court does not exists in Russia, you know. It's out of the law, just re-read that newsline attentively; besides officials themselves avoid abidance of it, look at plenty of cottages in and around Moscow. If I was born and grew up in the house and was allowed to buy it and have it as ptivate property, I'm not supposed to be deprivated it. I think munitipal ground exists for people to live on it, not for the officials to seize it and resell it again and again. My parents told me that in the Soviet times such things were done much fairer, not like unfair exchange a whole house for a tiny one-room apparment for people of different sexes.

*Who* are complaining? Moscow? I guess, it doesnt't.

The country. It defenitely does. Moscow is now only a big purulent pimple on the body of whole Russia. People don't believe state officials.

Definitely, I can't find myself in similiar situation, because I'm not owning house nearby Moscow (built on municipal or belonging to oblast land). BTW, even if I had one, I'll do everything to get rid of it and move to the city.

Slave mentality, not to have anything in order not to lose it. It doesn't mean that everyone must follow your idea like it's going on these days. You may be turned out of your apparment for a tiny compensation like many people I know. So, if you didn't like that newsline, here is another one:

http://www.vzglyad.ru/society/2006/6/1/35894.html


- kindergarten is to be demolished
- new kindergarten is in another munitipal area, 10 miles away
- new kindergarten it is packed
- new kindergarten is in bad conditions
- 150 kids are to wait in a 600 children queue.


the partents are still trying to save the cozy nook at the capital's outskirts in which their kids felt so nice.

http://dimarik.tushino.com/index.php?li ... 138&page=1

Originally Posted by mishau_

The law is the law.

No, court does not exists in Russia, you know.

As far as I know, it does. Believe me.

Originally Posted by mishau_

It's out of the law, just re-read that newsline attentively; besides officials themselves avoid abidance of it, look at plenty of cottages in and around Moscow.

-- And the cottages, constructed with violation of the existing laws (for example, in nature reservation areas) are now frequently due to be demolished.
(If you're watching news, this fact must not surprise you. )

Originally Posted by mishau_

If I was born and grew up in the house and was allowed to buy it and have it as ptivate property, I'm not supposed to be deprivated it. I think munitipal ground exists for people to live on it, not for the officials to seize it and resell it again and again.

Consult ЖК РФ ("Жилищный кодекс Российской Федерации") for information concerning private property laws. If some articles of this code are violated in the case we are discussing, please point me to them. Otherwise, your complains are no more than pointless ranting.

My parents told me that in the Soviet times such things were done much fairer, not like unfair exchange a whole house for a tiny one-room apparment for people of different sexes.

Ha-ha! From which times you became the advocate of "good Soviet times"?

Sorry, I must remind you, what in Soviet times there was not such concept as "private property for housing". At least, for city flats/apartments -- you *could not* buy them, sell them, lease them, etc. etc. (at least, legally).

Originally Posted by mishau_

*Who* are complaining? Moscow? I guess, it doesnt't.

The country. It defenitely does. Moscow is now only a big purulent pimple on the body of whole Russia. People don't believe state officials.

How pathetic. I guess, for residents of village Gadyukino the nearby 5,000 town is a "big purulent pimple" on their body. I wonder, where did you get this kind of village mentality?

Originally Posted by mishau_

[quote:1eajr4b2]Definitely, I can't find myself in similiar situation, because I'm not owning house nearby Moscow (built on municipal or belonging to oblast land). BTW, even if I had one, I'll do everything to get rid of it and move to the city.

Slave mentality, not to have anything in order not to lose it.

You seem to be a bit of quick-minded on your suppositions.

Let me inform you: I *have* some property (precisely, 1-room apartment in Maryino), which costs roughly 10 times more than a house in village near South Butovo.

Originally Posted by mishau_

It doesn't mean that everyone must follow your idea like it's going on these days. You may be turned out of your apparment for a tiny compensation like many people I know.

Примерчики "многих известных тебе людей" -- в студию.

Originally Posted by mishau_

So, if you didn't like that newsline, here is another one:

http://www.vzglyad.ru/society/2006/6/1/35894.html

- kindergarten is to be demolished
- new kindergarten is in another munitipal area, 10 miles away
- new kindergarten it is packed
- new kindergarten is in bad conditions
- 150 kids are to wait in a 600 children queue.


the partents are still trying to save the cozy nook at the capital's outskirts in which their kids felt so nice.

[/quote:1eajr4b2]

So? What does the kindergartens (which are the municipal property, I guess) do with the point of discussion? Yes, I know perfectly, what Moscow have a serious shortage of kindergartens -- but this looks like a different subject to me.

If I remember correctly, this old women with her family refused to obey to court's decision for some time? And what the authories must do in this situation, what do you think? The law is the law.

if a law goes against the people then f.u.c.k the law and f.u.c.k the so called authorities. Any law is based on social contract, you can't pass laws that hurt people and just enforce them, this approach is totally evil. The more I live in this country the more I realize that Ronnie Raegan, R.I.P. had plentlt of good reasons to call our country the evil empire. These recent evictions is one more testimony to that.

*Who* are complaining? Moscow? I guess, it doesnt't.

the "authorities" are, the gvtn, but how can anyone in their right mind invest in a country where at any time if Putin or Luzhkov like what you have, they can send in SWAT teams , snatch your property from you and lock you up in a God foresaken jail in siberia.

Definitely, I can't find myself in similiar situation, because I'm not owning house nearby Moscow (built on municipal or belonging to oblast land). BTW, even if I had one, I'll do everything to get rid of it and move to the city.

you definately can, we are all vulnerable. As you so brilliantly put it "the law is the law" Supposed youy live in a city apartment that you bought for 50 or 100 thousand bucks, then Luzhkov, driving past your location, sees how nice it is and decides to have your apartment building torn down and have new office buildings constructed there. So what will you do then? Luzhkoff will just pass a law that you will be in breech of as soon as it's passed, then court marshals will show up and kick you out of your nice apartment and give you a one room Khrusthoba flat . I wonder what you'll be saying then

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... world.html

Hundreds of Muscovites have been ordered out of their homes so that they can be redeveloped by firms controlled by the city's mayor and his wife and handed to the KGB's successors.

Ha-ha! From which times you became the advocate of "good Soviet times"?

That's not clever to think so. I just wanted to show the direction our country is moving - to the Soviet times and far behind.

As far as I know, it does. Believe me.

Let me say I won't

And the cottages, constructed with violation of the existing laws

existing? have they really existed before? If follow this idea, tomorrow a law may appear that will make your living in your appartament unlawul and according to the law you'll be ecivted. If the state sanctioned some privatization it can't have any retroactive force or else the state becomes no longer rerliable.

I wonder what you'll be saying then

"The law is the the law" that's what will be said, I think

Такое не только в Москве.
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.ph ... _eviction/

Не удивительно, если на западе теперь живут Абрамович, Березовский, Закаев и т.п., но мне понравился заголовок:

WELCOME TO THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF KONNECTICUT!

Originally Posted by mishau_

Не удивительно, если на западе теперь живут Абрамович, Березовский, Закаев и т.п., но мне понравился заголовок:

WELCOME TO THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF KONNECTICUT!

Рождённые в СССР меня поймут:
"Колхозники Техасщины, Оклахомщины и Примисиссипья перевыполнили план по сбору зерновых."

Consult ЖК РФ ("Жилищный кодекс Российской Федерации") for information concerning private property laws. If some articles of this code are violated in the case we are discussing, please point me to them. Otherwise, your complains are no more than pointless ranting.

Paragraphs 2 and 35 of the Russian Constitution that are broken in some way
And actually I'm not complaining; I'm providing some information.




- Что случилось? - спросил кавалер Помидор.
- Я уважаю закон, - с неудовольствием ответил пес. - Законные владельцы предъявили мне бесспорные документы, и мне пришлось уступить им домик.
Джанни Родари. "Приключения Чиполлино"

Рождённые в СССР меня поймут:


"Колхозники Техасщины, Оклахомщины и Примисиссипья перевыполнили план по сбору зерновых."

Не, вот как:

Все спокойно на канадско-мексиканской границе.

Let's take a look at the RF housing code.

http://pravonetwork.com.ru/content/Index22.htm

Выселение с предоставлением другого благоустроенного помещения является основным видом выселения.

Граждане выселяются из жилых домов государственного и муниципального жилищного фонда с предоставлением другого благоустроенного жилого помещения, если:

• дом, в котором находится жилое помещение, подлежит сносу;

• дом (жилое помещение) грозит обвалом;

• дом (жилое помещение) подлежит переоборудованию в нежилой.

Если дом, в котором находится жилое помещение, подлежит сносу в связи с отводом земельного участка для государственных или общественных нужд либо дом (жилое помещение) подлежит переоборудованию в нежилой, выселяемым из него гражданам другое благоустроенное жилое помещение предоставляется организацией, которой отводится земельный участок либо предназначается подлежащий переоборудованию дом (жилое помещение).

В иных случаях сноса дома гражданам, выселяемым из этого дома, другое благоустроенное жилое помещение предоставляется организацией, которой принадлежит дом, либо органом местного самоуправления.

Если дом (жилое помещение) грозит обвалом, гражданам, выселяемым из этого дома (жилого помещения), другое благоустроенное жилое помещение предоставляется по решению органа местного самоуправления за счет муниципального жилищного фонда либо за счет соответствующего предприятия, учреждения или организации.

Получаемое гражданином новое жилье должно быть благоустроенным,то есть отвечать установленным санитарным и техническим требованиям, быть по размеру не менее установленной нормы на одного человека и находиться в черте того же населенного пункта.

Если наниматель занимал отдельную квартиру или более одной комнаты, ему соответственно должна быть предоставлена отдельная квартира или помещение, состоящее из того же числа комнат.

Не допускается заселение одной комнаты лицами разного пола старше девяти лет, кроме супругов (ст. 41 ЖК РСФСР).

Помещение, предоставляемое выселяемому, должно быть указано в решении суда о выселении нанимателя, а при выселении в административном порядке - в постановлении прокурора.

So? Where are the violations?

Originally Posted by mishau_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/17/wmos17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/17/ixworld.html
Hundreds of Muscovites have been ordered out of their homes so that they can be redeveloped by firms controlled by the city's mayor and his wife and handed to the KGB's successors.

"KGB's successors"? Oh, no. Another stinking piece of propaganda BS, I guess. Don't even bother to read.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Ha-ha! From which times you became the advocate of "good Soviet times"?

That's not clever to think so. I just wanted to show the direction our country is moving - to the Soviet times and far behind.

So, if you think the Soviet times were better, maybe the country is moving in the right direction? Or not? Please make yor position clear and consistent.
Frequently, I'm a advocate of Soviet times myself -- but *not* when we are discussing property laws (which were nearly absent at these times, and this wasn't good).

Originally Posted by mishau_

As far as I know, it does. Believe me.

Let me say I won't

"Не пра... Я не ве..."
(C) Фома неверующий в пасти у крокодила.

Originally Posted by mishau_

And the cottages, constructed with violation of the existing laws

existing? have they really existed before? If follow this idea, tomorrow a law may appear that will make your living in your appartament unlawul and according to the law you'll be ecivted. If the state sanctioned some privatization it can't have any retroactive force or else the state becomes no longer rerliable.

As far as I know, the law existed perfectly when these cottages were built, they just were violated. Now they are enforced. Better later than never, right?

Originally Posted by igorfa100

you definately can, we are all vulnerable. As you so brilliantly put it "the law is the law" Supposed youy live in a city apartment that you bought for 50 or 100 thousand bucks, then Luzhkov, driving past your location, sees how nice it is and decides to have your apartment building torn down and have new office buildings constructed there. So what will you do then? Luzhkoff will just pass a law that you will be in breech of as soon as it's passed, then court marshals will show up and kick you out of your nice apartment and give you a one room Khrusthoba flat . I wonder what you'll be saying then

Laughable and pathetic. The "Khrusthoba"'s aren't build in Moscow for at least 30 years, I think. Instead, they are being demolished, and the residents are getting instead the apartments, which cost precisely 50-100 thousand bucks. Alas, the real situation is 100% opposite to the one you're describing.

Единственный эффективный способ разрешения ситуации в Южном Бутове - приостановка судебного решения о выселении жильцов, заявила депутат ГД РФ Галина Хованская. По ее словам, "данное судебное решение противоречит статье 49 Земельного кодекса РФ, согласно которой изъятие недвижимости у граждан возможно только в исключительных случаях, для государственных нужд".

The only effective way to figure out the issue in Southern Butovo is an interruption of the court decision about the eviction of people as the deputy of the State Duma of Russian Federation Galina Khovanskaya said. By her words, "this court decision contradicts Paragraph 49 of the Russian Federation Land Code; according that paragraph, ejectment is alloed in only exceptional cases, for state needs". The Moscow authorities insist they can't be blamed, since it was not them, but court members who took that decision.

http://www.finmarket.ru/z/nws/hotnews.asp?id=500023

Originally Posted by Scorpio

"KGB's successors"? Oh, no. Another stinking piece of propaganda BS, I guess. Don't even bother to read.

What? They said that because no-one in the UK knows what the FSB is, but people know what the KGB is. And the FSB is the successor to the KGB.

Funny how anything criticising Russia is propaganda. But yes there is no need to worry about housing in Russia. As the population plumets by 700,000 a year there will be plenty of empty places around

I dunno - this type of thing happens in America all the time. Maybe not with all the theatrics, but if the Gov't wants to build a highway through your neighborhood, or decides that it is better for the city to rezone your neighborhood as 'commercial' and build a shopping mall, then there isn't much you can do about it. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the government can pretty much claim eminent domain over property whenever it wants.

tdk

Originally Posted by tdk2fe

I dunno - this type of thing happens in America all the time. Maybe not with all the theatrics, but if the Gov't wants to build a highway through your neighborhood, or decides that it is better for the city to rezone your neighborhood as 'commercial' and build a shopping mall, then there isn't much you can do about it. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the government can pretty much claim eminent domain over property whenever it wants.

tdk

See Lampada's post: the whole Kelo vs. New London thing. This IS a pretty exceptional case -- usually it's only applied in extreme cases where something actually important needs to come in (electricity/interstate/etc.). This case was a really flagrant abuse of eminent domain though. The argument was that the residents of the town would all benefit by some stupid mall -- which is a total crock of horsesh*t (coincidentally, it's a mall being built by the Pfizer (the Viagra-company) -- I guess they decided to use their product to rape some poor bastards who had land they coveted) Undoubtedly, it would bring some jobs and some tax revenue, but that wasn't the point of the law. It's all about the decision of some yokel-town council to make money at someone else's expense.

Originally Posted by TATY

As the population plumets by 700,000 a year

Is this true? Are they selling that many russian brides? Maybe russians should go to india or china to take reproduction lessons.

Maybe russians should go to india or china to take reproduction lessons.

No, Indians and Chinese will be invited here for reproduction of the population.

Khovanskaya also remarked sarcastically in her radio interview that the city authorities first must evict their own wives and also families of the Russian goverment ministers from Rublevka and take that ground for the city's needs. It would be in full harmony with the law, she said.

Originally Posted by Бармалей

See Lampada's post: the whole Kelo vs. New London thing. This IS a pretty exceptional case -- usually it's only applied in extreme cases where something actually important needs to come in (electricity/interstate/etc.). This case was a really flagrant abuse of eminent domain though. The argument was that the residents of the town would all benefit by some stupid mall -- which is a total crock of horsesh*t (coincidentally, it's a mall being built by the Pfizer (the Viagra-company) -- I guess they decided to use their product to rape some poor bastards who had land they coveted) Undoubtedly, it would bring some jobs and some tax revenue, but that wasn't the point of the law. It's all about the decision of some yokel-town council to make money at someone else's expense.

Бармалей, складно пишешь! Наверняка и по-русски так же будет получаться.