The Great Movement

By Larysa Artemenko

Ownership will not defend you from the arbitrariness of the Kremenchuk officials 

You’ve always dreamt of an apartment of your own. At last, you bought one. It’s not big, but it’s downtown – both the kid’s school and work is not far. You save money, do some mending, renovation, and redecoration – now you feel like it is your home and you start your life there. Then, you are invited for a conversation where they announce to you that you do not live in your apartment anymore; you will live where you are told to.

Kremenchuk citizen Maryna Makarova recently turned to a couple of local newspapers with a story that is most likely to become a precedent in this city. In 1997 Mrs. Makarova bought a two-room apartment on 13 Butyrin Street. It had been her dream for a long time to have her own place near the city center as she works in the Arts & Culture Hall and her son studies in School #20. It took a lot of effort and money to make the new place their own. The building on Butyrin Street is very old, but the family decided on something within their means. At last, the apartment was becoming cozy, comfortable and nice. They moved in. Then - all of a sudden, - in December 2006, Maryna, as the apartment owner, was asked to come to the Apartment Administration, a Kremenchuk-based state-run company.  The head of the Administration, Mr. Obidchuk, announced that two buildings, #13 (where the lady lived with her family) and #14/30, were going to be demolished. In their place, the company Prydniprovsk Oil-Trunk Pipelines will make a new multi-story complex for its workers. The head of the Apartment Administration offered Maryna a document to sign that stated that she agreed to move to an apartment on 7 Koshovyi Lane (close to Moscow street). It was a two-room apartment in a newly built (not even finished) complex. Mrs. Makarova did not sign the document because she did not want to move away from the city center. The conversation was over. Almost a year later, in January 2007, she was again invited to see the head of the Apartment Administration. This time she was offered a letter of indemnity. In it, the administration stated that the Makarovys were granted a two-room apartment in the newly built complex at #7 Koshovyi Lane; the apartment was “fully paid for”; and that it would be finished and open for residents on March 30, 2007. All the expenses associated with the necessary documentation and ownership papers, the administration left for the family to cover. 

Maryna Makarova refused to sign the letter of indemnity again; she did not want to move out of the city center, which would involve transferring her son to a different school, and she would have to spend an hour and a half every day to commuting to and from work. Moreover, the new apartment itself was not attractive to her. Its only advantage was that it was in a new building, unlike building #13, but then again that was the only positive thing. Maryna was not sure when the construction would really be finished and how much work the apartment would need before the family could move it. The latter was never mentioned by the Apartment Administration, moreover they ignored the question.

Naturally, Maryna was annoyed with this “forced relocation,” but she did not worry about it too much, as she was sure that her ownership rights would be protected. She was not renting the apartment or using state property - she owned it. She bought it with her own money and only she had the right to decide whether or where to move.

One day when Maryna’s husband bought a local newspaper, the Kremenchuk Herald (issue #17), and they found a small article titled, “Tumbledown Buildings will be Bulldozed”. The family found out that “in one of the city council sessions, the Central Office for Housing and Communal Services was given authorization to demolish the two old buildings. The 22 families living there were already relocated (according to Volodymyr Obidchuk, the Apartment Administration head).”

The story came as a real shock to the Makarovys. How was it possible? Permission to demolish the buildings?! People had already moved?! They hadn’t even been warned about it! The family could not imagine that those kinds of things were happening in Kremenchuk. The Makarovys went to the head of the Apartment Administration again. This time the conversation was very short. Mr. Obidchuk affirmed that the city council deputies really granted permission to bulldoze buildings #13 and #14/30. Therefore, electricity, gas and water will be turned off. As to the family itself, he said that they can move into the new apartment as soon as it is finished. If they don’t like it, then it is their problem.

The Makarovys came to the Telegraph with their information, then it was our turn now to find out how the deputies could OK the demolition while people were living there; and why in Kremenchuk neither the Constitution of Ukraine nor the Law “On Ownership” was in effect?

                   

Deputies are not interested

At first, the Telegraph obtained the aforementioned city council session resolution (of April 24, 2007). As it turned out, they really did authorize the demolition of the two buildings. The reason for their decision was that “the state company Apartment Administration relocated all of the residents (22 families) … with funds obtained from the company  Prydniprovsk Oil-Trunk Pipelines, totally UAH 2,951,141.36” The session assigned responsibility for executing the resolution to Vice Mayor Mr. Porytskyi, and the permanent committee for the residential and community problems.

The Telegraph asked two deputy-committee members whether they knew before making the decision that not all of the residents had been relocated yet. The two deputies provided us with absolutely identical answers: “That is none of my business. The documents were prepared by Mr. Obidchuk and he said that everybody had already been moved.”

The Telegraph then questioned Mr. Obidchuk about why he provided incorrect information at the council session, even though he knew the real situation. The head of the Apartment Administration replied: “I made a statement that new apartments had been bought for all the residents! The new place that we are offering to Mrs. Makarova is wonderful! It is in a newly built complex! I have no idea why she is not happy with it!”

A wonderful apartment with a secret
Thus, we tried to find out why Maryna was not happy with this “wonderful new apartment.” The first reason we already knew – she did not want to move out of downtown, as she worked there and her child went to school there. In addition, she liked her home; she spent a lot of money to renovate it and make it comfortable. Also, Mrs. Makarova did not like the idea that the new ownership papers and other documents were to be made at her own expense, despite the fact that she was being moved against her will. 
The Telegraph was interested in the apartment offered to Maryna’s family. Mr. Obidchuk said that the building at #7 Koshovyi Lane was being constructed by Zhytloinvest. So, we contacted the company and asked about the apartment (Maryna had done this as well). We were told that the apartment would be furnished with windows, iron entrance doors, water meters and otherwise would be a cement shell – exactly how all new apartments are nowadays.  Hence, Maryna would have to install floors, doors between rooms, the plumbing, and cover the bathroom with tiles. Also, of course, they would have to do the wallpaper, whitewash the ceiling; basically - everything.

“How much?!!”
How much would all that work on the apartment cost? We got the answer to this question from the construction crew, that works with our newspaper.  Before she can move in, Maryna will have to spend about $10,000, maybe even $15,000.

So, who was going to have to pay for all that?  There was no mention of it in the letter of indemnity (№ 01-20/29), the only document given to Maryna by the Apartment Administration. It only said that the apartment was “fully paid for,” but nobody explained to her that the apartment was paid for without the floor, plumbing, doors and many other things. Basically, the administration concealed this important information. Now, if Mrs. Makarova wished to file a complaint, she would have nobody to address, as she had no agreement with the building crew, so she cannot blame them. Neither can she bring charges against the Apartment Administration, since they paid for the apartment, but did not specify the condition it would be in when delivered.

Yet, this is not the only strange thing that the state company did.

List discrimination
According to official procedures, the Telegraph received the Apartment Administration’s the list of people being moved from building #13. We were surprised to not see Maryna’s ex-husband’s name on the list, even though he was registered as a resident of the apartment #5. The officials did not write in someone’s name? Just like that? Why? Since he and Maryna were divorced, he should get a separate apartment, according to law. Why waste money, though, when you can simply not put someone on the list?.

We were even more surprised when we saw that Maryna was registered as a tenant, but that she had bought the apartment, which meant she was the owner. That is quite a strange slip of the pen; and very handy for the Apartment Administration! Naturally, a tenant has far less rights than the owner, since the former only uses an apartment while the latter owns it, which is a huge difference. 

By the way, a couple of families that used to live in one apartment in the building #13 received (legally) a couple of apartments in the new complex. Surprisingly, only Maryna’s ex-husband did not get a separate apartment. Actually, there are many different peculiar things.

Now, it is the right time to talk to the Apartment Administration head, Mr. Obidchuk.

 

“All of a sudden there appeared a lady that wanted an apartment near the Lenin monument!”

The Telegraph asked the Administration Head, Mr. Obidchuk, to comment on the conflict between the residents of apartment #5 and the Apartment Administration:

- Mr. Obidchuk, why are you forcing the residents of #13 Butyrin Street to move?

- They are being relocated since their building is old and dilapidated, it cannot be repaired.

- Who is covering relocation costs?

- The state is paying for it, or actually Prydniprovsk Oil-Trunk Pipelines, but this is a state company. They received more than UAH 3 million from the state for that purpose. In 2005 Prydniprovsk Oil-Trunk Pipelines and the Apartment Administration signed an agreement about relocation services.

- Are those paid services?

- Yes, for every apartment out of which people are moved the administration gets UAH 1800.

- Who determined how much relocation would cost?

- I did all the calculations separately for each apartment. And Prydniprovsk Oil-Trunk Pipelines ordered money from the treasury department.

- And why Prydniprovsk Oil-Trunk Pipelines pay for relocation?

- The city executive committee gave them authorization to build a new multi-story complex at the site of the two old buildings, #13 and #14/30.

- Why, do you thing, there is a conflict between Maryna Makarova and the Apartment Administration?

- She does not like her new dwelling. I offered her a newly built apartment that costs UAH 144,000 and she is just not happy with it! They do not like Koshovyi Lane! All of a sudden there appeared a lady that wanted an apartment near the Lenin monument! And why is that? In the Housing Code it says clearly that we can move people to any region in the city!

- However, this concerns tenants and Maryna is an owner. The apartment is her property and it is better to negotiate with her and not to tell her what to do, don’t you think?

- I totally agree with you! It is better to negotiate and that is what I told her: “you can look around tell us about other options.”  However, I cannot buy an apartment more expensive than UAH 2878/m², because I’m responsible before the state for the money. I have a state company and every quarter the Ministry of Building and Architecture fixes a price per square meter for the whole region. At that time, it was UAH 2878/m² and for that price, it is impossible to find an apartment downtown.

- Thus, it turns out that none of the building #13 residents had a chance from the very beginning to get an apartment in the city center?

- Well, you know in Kyiv a minister spends an hour to get to work, and it is not that big of a deal if they do not live in the center. I am more interested in why they even bought an apartment in a building constructed in 1910.

- I think it is their right to buy an apartment where they wish to and what they can afford to pay for.

- That is what I told them – if you do not like what you are given, then you are free to use your rights and I’ll be doing what I’m supposed to be doing for the state!

The great movement
Now, it is the right time to explain why we called the article “The Great Movement.” We believe that Maryna’s story is the first hint that a great movement has started. The reasons are quite evident. In the center of Kremenchuk, there is practically no available land, except for in Prydniprovskyi park but even that place is said to be spoken for by some important person. So, there is no land for all of the people that are eager to build apartments in the city center. What is the solution? It is very simple. The local authorities say the buildings on such attractive land plots are rundown. That is done legally, since any old building, the so-called “khrushchovky” (a name derived from Khrushchov, the head of state in the late 50s – early 60s when the complexes were built) in Kremenchuk can be classified as “rundown”. The city executive committee’s construction department head, Mr. Zybin, told the press many times that the basements of those khrushchovky buildings have outlived their term.  In our city, however, all of Pushkin Boulevard is covered with khrushchovkys, which is very convenient. Any ‘cool’ guy can come to the authorities and make them a deal, so that any one of those old buildings is declared rundown and they can start moving people out. The problem is that money for new apartments is allotted according to the prices on the outskirts of the city, which is the lowest. So, where can people be relocated? To Molodizhnyi region and Rakivka. In this way, the city center is vacated for the “cool”, while the “not cool” find themselves on the outskirts. However, the situation is not hopeless. For instance, in Moscow, when there was a similar situation and people were moved out of khrushchovkys, the story ended with a huge scandal. That forced the city council to pass a separate regulation on relocation. Maybe, the Kremenchuk deputies will also have to do something for their electorate.  

Lawyer from the project “An apartment – A prime target”, a civil law specialist, and private notary, Svitlana Dudkina, says:
The basic law that regulates eviction and relocation is the Housing Code of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (still part of the USSR). A new Housing Code has not been passed.

According to article 113 of the aforementioned Housing Code, in the situation of relocation, the residents must be provided with another place to live in the same city, town or village, which must correspond to the sanitary and technical norms stated in the Article 50 of the same Code.

However, as the woman is the apartment owner, not a tenant, then we are not only talking about the right to housing, but also about her ownership rights, which are protected by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law “On Ownership”. According to Article 321 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, ownership rights are inviolable. Nobody’s rights in this respect can be deprived or limited. Forcing someone to give up their ownership of such objects can be only performed out of the necessity to serve the best interests of society. It must to be done within the legal framework and only if the cost of the object is compensated. 

Obviously, the Housing Code is outdated and does not correspond to the reality nowadays. Eviction and compensation must be agreed upong. That is why in each individual case, the compensation and the provision for a new residence if the building is demolished, must be negotiated; if there is no agreement, then the case should go to court. Ownership rights are defended in the court or the arbitration court (Article 48 of the Law “On Ownership”).

I think that Maryna Makarova needs to turn to the court to defend her rights. I believe that in this case there is only one person who become a victim (why? – that is a different question), since her ex-husband was not on the list; she was registered as a tenant, not as an owner. In addition, the administration is prejudiced against only her, even though there are people who moved into the old apartments later than Maryna, but those people hosted their relatives and as a result different families got two apartments. Thus, what is the difference between those people and Mrs. Makarova? Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine says that “citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms, all are equal before the law”.

Original article in Kremenchuk Telegraph, June 2007