Press Release, 15.11.2023

Photo: A five-storey house in St. Petersburg that will be pulled down due to renovation / Photo by the regional branch of Yabloko

The Yabloko faction in the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg is preparing an inquiry on behalf of the city parliament to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation so that to verify the provisions of the City Planning Code and the Housing Code regarding the integrated development of territories (renovation). This was stated by Boris Vishnevsky, deputy head of the Yabloko faction, at a plenary meeting of the city parliament on Wednesday, 15 November.

According to Vishnevsky, the federal legislation in this area is an example of open lobbying of the interests of developers to the detriment of the interests of citizens.

“When Chapter 10 of the City Planning Code of the Russian Federation was adopted, on the procedure for carrying out complex development of territories, in essence, the experience of the “Moscow-style renovation” [when whole blocks of houses were pulled down regardless of property rights of people living in these houses, as well as architectural or historical value of such houses] was extended to the entire country. In Moscow, they carried out the actual deportation of residents from the blocks that attracted the attention of developers, with the clearing of the territory and the relocation of citizens to high-rise “human ant hills”. This cannot be allowed to happen in St. Petersburg.”

Vishnevsky also said that he and his lawyers were preparing a request to the Constitutional Court to check several articles of the City Planning Code and the Housing Code for compliance with Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (no one can be deprived of their property except by a court verdict), as the provisions of Articles 65, 66, 67 of the City Planning Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 44 and 46 Housing Code of the Russian Federation envisage that, when conducting a complex development of territories, a decision of two-thirds of the owners of residential premises can deprive the remaining owners of their property. “In my opinion, these are completely unconstitutional provisions,” Boris Vishnevsky said.

​