997
Neighbor President
Few people know that exactly opposite the Kremlin, in the recesses of leaving inland from the Sofia quay, just behind the pompous building of the Russian oil giant's alley households lost most that neither is a private home, where his wife from birth lives 73-year-old university professor them. Bauman - Victor Rozanov. The most central of the homeowners and direct neighbor of the Kremlin.
Victor A. looks very cheerfully and with good intentions, it does not give, and 70 years, with a good half of life from time to time he is fighting for his home. First time to evict him and his family tried 40 years ago. Do not evicted. "My house - my fortress" - these words are rightly Victor A. can say about your home.
From the roof overlooking the Kremlin. You can read the time on the clock of the Spasskaya tower.
How long have you lived here?
From birth, in 1938. In the 20's, when the Bolsheviks goof, announced the Institute of developers. The man took the collapse of the building, restored, and he gave it the right to acquire ownership. And his father in 1920 saw the house, the roof it was not, there were no windows, doors, too, were only mountains of ice on the water pipe burst, but he picked it up and restored. Where our family lived. In 1941, when the war began bread cards were not given the owners of the buildings. What to do? Two children, I, my sister, my father was working at a defense plant. Do not starve same die. Passed the House State, and when they returned from the evacuation there was already communal, four families were living. Then, when Nikita began to build five-story building, the people began to disperse, get an apartment, it was necessary not to allow another sleeping. The remaining two families, my neighbors. Neighbors left, but I refused and tried to help evict the prosecutor, did not happen. And then I have a house privatized, all restored in its present form, but in fact it is restitution. I restored everything that belonged to my father, it took about 6 years in the House, and the same on the ground, 326 sq.m.
On the site is a boat. Previously, it could pull on the Moscow River directly opposite the Kremlin. Now it has to go to the nearest boat station.
And in the 1990s, you did not try to evict you? ABOUT! We tried to evict the first time in 1971, in the 90's it all threatened to roll up the asphalt. [Victor A. whereas his wife and brought dogs]
In 1971, when we were two families left a piece of paper to come to come to the headquarters relocation. But I'm not going to move, throw a piece of paper. Another comes another one. It comes then: "In case of absence of the case will be handed over to the prosecutor's office."
I went to the commission for resettlement.
- So! You so and so? We have relocated.
- And on what basis? Which document? Show the Board's decision.
- No!
- Well, goodbye, and left.
Comes povestochka the prosecutor. I went, spent all, without waiting in any way. I went, sitting pretty woman, "What is it you say, young man break the laws?" The answer: "No, I did not break the law, and some representatives of the Soviet authorities break the law. Firstly, under no migrations are not allowed to worsen the living conditions, I have a separate apartment, this floor plan, and I was in the communal relocated. Second, even if you offer me a two-bedroom apartment in Konkovo, it will also be a violation of the law. By the decision of UNESCO's distance from the place of work is included in the quality of living conditions. That I now have to work in the center of the 5-minute walk. But as I understand it, an apartment in the center at the Board no. Third, ceilings I have 3, 5 meters, and there would not be such. Then the concrete house, and I live in a brick. A similar apartment I do not podyschut, somewhere in Konkovo and apartments in the center and so housed there. And, most importantly, the Board's decision is illegal. Why? It violates last Decree №91 of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers. "The woman already started, the Council of Ministers, all right, and the CPSU Central Committee, there is a jobless stay.
You see, this decision says that I evicted by decay. And the Decree №91 of house demolition are subject to having at least 75%, and I wear and 50% is not, here's a copy of the technical passport of the building obtained on demand through a law office - wear no more than 48%. A gross violation of the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers. Moreover, the percentage of depreciation is usually determined by the interdepartmental commission, and it was not, I just know it, a separate building, I would have had then opened the front garden. So the decision of the Executive Committee of the demolition of dilapidated violates recent Central Committee resolution, which I alerted to the appropriate authorities. They asked me to reiterate this on paper, and two weeks later I get a piece of paper: "your home from the lists of homes to be demolished for the dilapidated state, is excluded".
The house has a real fireplace.
And the house itself is how long? This is the end of the 19th century. There was a manor Matveev, and lived here their manager. After the October Revolution, there is communal, there is a complete collapse of that father and restored.
Dogs host started in the '90s, when he tried to evict criminal methods. Several times the dog catch the arsonists!
We would even evict everything for the garage, and three times when changing bosses. Last time it was already under the Democrats, when there were the Board, but the council there were, during the transitional period. Then again, we went the wrong way. I received a summons for resettlement, I come, and there again, "to evict you in disrepair." They brought the decision and asked to make a copy, and there was pinned additional annex 6 with a list of demolished dilapidated houses. On the application was not mentioned in the main text. I'm the prosecutor's office with the full description, again with reference to the decree №91, let not the continuity of the CPSU Central Committee, but by the Council of Ministers, it was, and then there's the criminal act - forgery of public documents, but that I did not write, said the prosecutor orally in order not to drive people into a corner. But made it clear that in an extreme case, it is a weapon are used, and the story ended with the eviction. And then began the story of the privatization. First, he privatized the house, and then came the right to privatize the land.
The story of the privatization in the post-Soviet period is also taken away and it was a long story, which has taken more than one or two years. In all instances Russian was denied, and what do you think, Victor A. tireless self came to the Strasbourg Court, which made the final decision in his favor.
Listening to a long story Rozanov more and more realize that it is on such people and is still Moscow. Those who do not give up and have the courage to defend what he loves: a piece of land and his home.
Source: zyalt.livejournal.com
Victor A. looks very cheerfully and with good intentions, it does not give, and 70 years, with a good half of life from time to time he is fighting for his home. First time to evict him and his family tried 40 years ago. Do not evicted. "My house - my fortress" - these words are rightly Victor A. can say about your home.
From the roof overlooking the Kremlin. You can read the time on the clock of the Spasskaya tower.
How long have you lived here?
From birth, in 1938. In the 20's, when the Bolsheviks goof, announced the Institute of developers. The man took the collapse of the building, restored, and he gave it the right to acquire ownership. And his father in 1920 saw the house, the roof it was not, there were no windows, doors, too, were only mountains of ice on the water pipe burst, but he picked it up and restored. Where our family lived. In 1941, when the war began bread cards were not given the owners of the buildings. What to do? Two children, I, my sister, my father was working at a defense plant. Do not starve same die. Passed the House State, and when they returned from the evacuation there was already communal, four families were living. Then, when Nikita began to build five-story building, the people began to disperse, get an apartment, it was necessary not to allow another sleeping. The remaining two families, my neighbors. Neighbors left, but I refused and tried to help evict the prosecutor, did not happen. And then I have a house privatized, all restored in its present form, but in fact it is restitution. I restored everything that belonged to my father, it took about 6 years in the House, and the same on the ground, 326 sq.m.
On the site is a boat. Previously, it could pull on the Moscow River directly opposite the Kremlin. Now it has to go to the nearest boat station.
And in the 1990s, you did not try to evict you? ABOUT! We tried to evict the first time in 1971, in the 90's it all threatened to roll up the asphalt. [Victor A. whereas his wife and brought dogs]
In 1971, when we were two families left a piece of paper to come to come to the headquarters relocation. But I'm not going to move, throw a piece of paper. Another comes another one. It comes then: "In case of absence of the case will be handed over to the prosecutor's office."
I went to the commission for resettlement.
- So! You so and so? We have relocated.
- And on what basis? Which document? Show the Board's decision.
- No!
- Well, goodbye, and left.
Comes povestochka the prosecutor. I went, spent all, without waiting in any way. I went, sitting pretty woman, "What is it you say, young man break the laws?" The answer: "No, I did not break the law, and some representatives of the Soviet authorities break the law. Firstly, under no migrations are not allowed to worsen the living conditions, I have a separate apartment, this floor plan, and I was in the communal relocated. Second, even if you offer me a two-bedroom apartment in Konkovo, it will also be a violation of the law. By the decision of UNESCO's distance from the place of work is included in the quality of living conditions. That I now have to work in the center of the 5-minute walk. But as I understand it, an apartment in the center at the Board no. Third, ceilings I have 3, 5 meters, and there would not be such. Then the concrete house, and I live in a brick. A similar apartment I do not podyschut, somewhere in Konkovo and apartments in the center and so housed there. And, most importantly, the Board's decision is illegal. Why? It violates last Decree №91 of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers. "The woman already started, the Council of Ministers, all right, and the CPSU Central Committee, there is a jobless stay.
You see, this decision says that I evicted by decay. And the Decree №91 of house demolition are subject to having at least 75%, and I wear and 50% is not, here's a copy of the technical passport of the building obtained on demand through a law office - wear no more than 48%. A gross violation of the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers. Moreover, the percentage of depreciation is usually determined by the interdepartmental commission, and it was not, I just know it, a separate building, I would have had then opened the front garden. So the decision of the Executive Committee of the demolition of dilapidated violates recent Central Committee resolution, which I alerted to the appropriate authorities. They asked me to reiterate this on paper, and two weeks later I get a piece of paper: "your home from the lists of homes to be demolished for the dilapidated state, is excluded".
The house has a real fireplace.
And the house itself is how long? This is the end of the 19th century. There was a manor Matveev, and lived here their manager. After the October Revolution, there is communal, there is a complete collapse of that father and restored.
Dogs host started in the '90s, when he tried to evict criminal methods. Several times the dog catch the arsonists!
We would even evict everything for the garage, and three times when changing bosses. Last time it was already under the Democrats, when there were the Board, but the council there were, during the transitional period. Then again, we went the wrong way. I received a summons for resettlement, I come, and there again, "to evict you in disrepair." They brought the decision and asked to make a copy, and there was pinned additional annex 6 with a list of demolished dilapidated houses. On the application was not mentioned in the main text. I'm the prosecutor's office with the full description, again with reference to the decree №91, let not the continuity of the CPSU Central Committee, but by the Council of Ministers, it was, and then there's the criminal act - forgery of public documents, but that I did not write, said the prosecutor orally in order not to drive people into a corner. But made it clear that in an extreme case, it is a weapon are used, and the story ended with the eviction. And then began the story of the privatization. First, he privatized the house, and then came the right to privatize the land.
The story of the privatization in the post-Soviet period is also taken away and it was a long story, which has taken more than one or two years. In all instances Russian was denied, and what do you think, Victor A. tireless self came to the Strasbourg Court, which made the final decision in his favor.
Listening to a long story Rozanov more and more realize that it is on such people and is still Moscow. Those who do not give up and have the courage to defend what he loves: a piece of land and his home.
Source: zyalt.livejournal.com
