I Think the Prime Minister is being a bit disingenuous here: the improvement of housing conditions and lower mortgage rates — a few different things, more specifically, the mortgage, the presidential challenge (if you approach it in a meaningful, not formal) is just one of the many (and most important) components. In the mouth of officials is a substitution of concepts, however, it does not apply exactly to the current study, a trend was set long before that.
the Privatization of housing in Russia to which public opinion has the least complaints — in fact, was a phenomenon in its consequences more devastating than voucher privatization. Initially incorrectly chosen strategy set the trend for nearly three decades, post-Soviet housing policy.
Distribution of housing in the private property apartment — without the awareness of the unity of the house space, community rights and responsibilities of its tenants, the need to participate in management — led to an absurd situation. Russia has become a country where there was a unique, nowhere else in the world common form of housing ownership — a conglomerate as it is called by the researchers V. Samoshin and Glazunov. In the end, in the same house can be flat and private, privatized (if the house is old) or bought, and which are in municipal ownership.
by Itself, door-to-door privatization was nonsense — it’s like to privatize the plant postrochno or collective farm barn postolowo. Different in the world of possession of the apartments in apartment house — a rare exception. Condominiums or housing cooperatives, make up a small percentage of all housing. We have, not creating a real condominiums, single spawn tens of millions of owners of incomprehensible legal form.
above all, failed to escape from the Soviet organization of housing (and now it seems that this task has not been set). Everything that has caused outrage in the perestroika period, quite successfully continued after 1991: the development of cities and suburbs (!) ugly model, bezlimita.ikimi high-rise buildings, understanding of housing as a human courci in the rabbitry.
Many researchers have noted the phenomenon of development of “sovietness” in the modern, like capitalist Russia. Housing is one of the examples. Even a market instrument, such as a mortgage successfully serves the preservation of the Soviet legacy. Abroad under the mortgage is essentially and predominantly a loan for the purchase or construction of your house, with a clear reference to his own land (as a variant — part 1-2-storey dwelling in the case of terraced housed, etc.). Mortgage loans for the purchase of an apartment in an apartment building there is a rare exception.
Accordingly, the housing problem there is solved not only through the purchase of their own home. A significant part of the population lives in rented accommodation of various types of property. So, in Germany those of 48.5%, in France — 35,6%. Basically this housing municipal or state, you can call it social for the Russian style.
no One thinks there are people without their homes, a loser. People just don’t want to acabastes mortgages, straining for square meters. They feel themselves in a rented dwelling, and their rights protected. The task of the state at all levels to actively build public housing (public housing) like the French HLM. Even in neocapitalist the United States has a Ministry of housing policy and urban development.
In Russia, when the poverty of its population and their small and unstable income, non-guaranteed long-term employment, emphasis was put on a purely self-sufficient people with housing mainly through the mortgage. It couldn’t be nothing but a gamble, like a bet on non-state pension accumulation. Social housing is provided only to certain categories of citizens: the poor, orphans, large families, disabled people living in dilapidated houses, etc. the Basic idea that the government mustabout to build housing for everyone, not even considered at the official level. Social flats for the needy given to new homes mixed with apartments, which are bought in their own, which leads to the continuation of the policy of conglomeratization.
the Municipalities do not report how much housing they have built. The relevant Ministry does not say how many million square metres of social housing will be delivered. Life officials relieved beyond belief. They slipped out of the need to provide housing for all citizens of Russia. People, as in times of wild capitalism, themselves seek the means of its acquisition. If I was a supporter of conspiracy theories, we would argue that mortgage as practically the only means of obtaining housing was conceived with the purpose of bringing to submission the most productive and active of the Russians, for, enslaved by it, and they don’t rebel and protest for fear of losing their jobs and property. The common people, swallowed their bait in the form of free privatization of apartments, is now reaping the fruits of former thoughtlessness, bound hands and feet, without requiring its government’s active housing policy.
that the housing market is massively offered only miserable carteresque in “cheloveynik” (and the recent statements Khusnullin to head the industry in the scale of Russia, can mean an even greater increase in their number), leads to a paradoxical situation: the largest country in the world with low population density more rapidly transformed into a kind of geographically tiny, Hong Kong or Singapore with their residential skyscrapers. But in Hong Kong, half of the housing controlled by the government, and in Singapore, about eighty percent. The arguments that municipalities and regions are not willing to invest in the infrastructure for development of low rise suburbs do not stand up to scrutiny: the world, in the US, the Federal government just committed to sponsoring the construction of communications — something that Russian authorities are ne engaged.
However, the public consciousness reflects the situation. People by nature are not revolutionaries and try to adapt to it, and not to change it. The government works for the interests of large construction companies, only concerned with quick profits and supplying regularly ugly, cheap apartment buildings. The population, unable to organize themselves to ask the government, is content with handouts in the form of a possible rise in mortgage interest rates. The country as a whole is on the edge of global urban trends. Typical state of the third world whose miserable quarters of the buildings in which citizens live separated with difficulty or took a mortgage on a very long term loan unaffordable amount.