A new approach to the formation of housing policy. The state of the housing sector in the Russian Federation The state of the housing sector in the Russian Federation

Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation

FSBEI HPE "ORENBURG STATE

AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY"

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

Department of State and Municipal Administration

GRADUATION PROJECT

Development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability of a municipality

(using the example of the municipal formation “City of Orenburg”)

Graduate R.F. Saitov

Supervisor A.A. Pronina

Head department D.V. Kulagin

Orenburg – 2015

Worksheet

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...4

Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations for the development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability in the Russian Federation…………….………….….7

The concept and essence of the housing sector in Russia......7

Legislative and regulatory framework for regulating the housing sector in the Russian Federation……………………………………………………17

State regulation of the housing sector in Russia……26

Chapter 2. Characteristics of the main directions of development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability in the territory of the municipal formation “City of Orenburg”…………………………………..………….….36

2.1Analysis of the current state of the housing stock in the city…………………………………………………………………………………36

2.2Implementation of municipal target programs for the development of the housing sector…………………………………………………………….………45

2.3 Assessment of the implementation of capital construction of housing, structures and elements of the city’s social infrastructure…………………..54

Chapter 3. Improving the main directions of development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability in the territory of the municipal formation “City of Orenburg”……………………………………………………………...….64

3.1 Development of maintenance and insurance of the city’s housing stock…64

3.2 Ensuring the availability of mortgage lending in the city……………………………………………………….………...74

3.3 Increasing the role of local governments in regulating the city’s housing sector……………………………83

Conclusion…………………………………………………………….………93

List of sources used………………………………………………………...…98

Applications……………………………………………………………………………….……107

Introduction

Relevance The research topic is determined by the current stage of development of Russian society, which is determined by the implementation of socio-economic transformations and constant transformations in the economy of market relations based on various forms of ownership.

Currently, the implementation of housing policy is carried out in conditions of state support and control of entrepreneurship, designed to form not only a market for goods and services, but also a housing construction market. On the territory of the municipal formation “Orenburg city” there is a shortage of housing that meets regulatory and consumer requirements for a significant part of the population.

The importance of the study is also due to the fact that such fundamental changes are currently taking place in the economic and political spheres of Russian society, such as the expansion of democracy and bureaucracy, the formation of civil society, and changes in the material and spiritual basis for personal development. In the current situation, important aspects of the housing sector of the city of Orenburg are the housing shortage, the discrepancy between the structure of the housing stock and the demographic structure of families, and the discrepancy between the existing housing stock of the city and the requirements for consumer quality of housing.

One of the important aspects of this research topic is that the average housing supply in the city of Orenburg is 21.4 square meters per person. The municipal formation "City of Orenburg" ranks 80th in Russia in terms of housing provision per capita. Part of the population has less than 9 sq.m. per capita, residents often live in communal apartments. Such conditions adversely affect the socio-economic development of the city. That is why this issue is relevant in the activities of government authorities of the Orenburg region and local government bodies of the city of Orenburg.

Target diploma project - a study of the main directions of development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability in the territory of the municipal formation "City of Orenburg"

Tasks graduation project:

give the concept and reveal the essence of the housing sector in Russia;

study the legislative and regulatory framework for regulating the housing sector in the Russian Federation;

determine the directions of state regulation of the housing sector in Russia;

analyze the current state of the housing stock in the city;

analyze the implementation of municipal target programs for the development of the housing sector

assess the implementation of capital construction of housing, structures and elements of the city’s social infrastructure;

determine directions for the development of maintenance and insurance of the city’s housing stock;

make proposals to improve the availability of mortgage lending in the city;

determine the role of local governments in regulating the city’s housing sector

An object research - the activities of local governments to implement municipal policy in the housing sector in the territory of the municipal formation "City of Orenburg"

Item research - problems of development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability in the territory of the municipal formation "City of Orenburg".

Methods research. In the process of studying and analyzing the housing sector of the municipal formation “Orenburg City”, a structural-functional approach to studying the problem was used, methods of systemic, historical, sociological analysis, as well as empirical research methods were applied.

A great contribution to the study of the housing sector was made by such scientists as: V. Abramov, A. Avtonomov, N. Belyaeva, R. Bobovich, V. Vityuk, A. Volodin, E. Gellner, I. Danilevich, I. Kokorev, I. Kravchenko , A. Kulik, A. Larkina, M. Liborakina, O. Makarenko, E. Makhonina, A. Rakhlin, Y. Reznik, E. Rutkevich, L. Salomon, B. Sokolov, A. Solovyov, E. Shomina, V .Yakimets.

Structure the thesis project consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources used and applications.

Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations for the development of the housing sector as a factor of social stability in the Russian Federation

1.1 The concept and essence of the housing sector in Russia

The housing sector has always had a special social significance, therefore the modern socio-economic policy of the Russian state includes solving the housing problem as its most important priority. The social significance and urgency of this problem is evidenced by the annual Messages to the Federal Assembly of the President of the Russian Federation, in which the task of providing citizens with affordable and comfortable housing is “one of the most pressing tasks.”

The housing sector is an area of the national economy that includes the construction and reconstruction of housing, structures and elements of engineering and social infrastructure, management of the housing stock, its maintenance and repair.

The above definition of the housing sector quite fully reflects the essence of the processes of creation and consumption of housing and in its content is close to the concept of “housing sector”, widely used abroad.

However, there is currently no unified understanding of the housing sector as an object of research in the field of management in scientific and special sources. The housing sector is often identified with housing and communal services (housing and communal complex, housing and communal services), it is studied as an element of the social sphere. But the idea of the housing sector as a set of activities related to housing and forming an independent sector in the state economy still prevails.

Understanding the housing sector only as an area of the national economy emphasizes its economic component, but does not fully reflect its social orientation.

In this regard, the following definition is broader and more accurate, according to the author: “the housing sector is a multifaceted, complex system, an area of concentration of not only special economic, but also special social interests, determined by the primary importance of housing in people’s lives.” It emphasizes the special social role of the housing sector in the development of society.

It follows that the housing sector should be considered as a socio-economic system. At the same time, what is fundamentally important in revealing the essence of the housing sector is its purpose – meeting the housing needs of the population. From these positions, the housing sector of megacities appears as a system of socio-economic relations emerging in the urban community regarding the acquisition, ownership and use of housing.

Based on these theoretical premises, it should be noted that the housing sector has properties characteristic of complex socio-economic systems:

integrity,

manifold

the relationship of its elements,

dynamism, openness,

adaptability and self-organization.

But at the same time, the housing sector also has special, specific features due to its social and economic significance:

a clearly expressed social orientation related to meeting the need for housing - a vital benefit;

the multiplier effect of development, affecting the economic growth of cities and the income of the population due to the employment of a significant part of the working population;

the local nature of the problems and the priority role of local authorities in regulating the development of the housing sector;

growing consumer demand, since the need for housing is practically unsatisfied (family growth, desire to improve housing, etc.).

In the housing sector, the interests of the authorities, the population, and business, and therefore various segments of management theory, appear and come into contact.

The specific features of housing are especially evident in the process of housing maintenance and repair, which implies their division into social, economic and technical.

The social features of housing are manifested, firstly, in the fact that housing is a vital good, the right to which is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Therefore, state authorities and local governments create all conditions for the exercise of the right to housing.

The housing sector is a complex intersectoral production system, which includes part of the production sector and part of the service sector related to the design, construction, major repairs and reconstruction of housing stock, its maintenance, provision of utilities and other services to the population in order to ensure living conditions in housing fund of representatives of any form of ownership.

The housing sector is not just a sector of the economy, but a socially oriented sector of the economy, the purpose of which is to provide life support for Russian citizens as a factor determining the state of national security.

Figure 1 shows the structure of the housing stock located on the territory of the Russian Federation as of January 1, 2015.

Figure 1 - Structure of the housing stock located on the territory of the Russian Federation as of 01/01/2015.

As an analysis of Figure 1 shows, all residential premises located on the territory of the Russian Federation (housing stock), depending on the form of ownership, are divided (Article 19 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) into:

private housing stock - a set of residential premises owned by citizens and owned by legal entities;

state housing stock - a set of residential premises owned by the Russian Federation (housing stock of the Russian Federation), and residential premises owned by constituent entities of the Russian Federation (housing stock of constituent entities of the Russian Federation);

municipal housing stock - a set of residential premises owned by municipalities.

housing stock of collective ownership.

Figure 2 shows the structure of residential premises by type of ownership in the Russian Federation as of January 1, 2015

Figure 2 - Structure of residential premises by type of ownership in the Russian Federation as of January 1, 2015

As the analysis of Figure 2 shows, the housing stock is the totality of all residential premises, regardless of ownership, including:

residential buildings;

specialized houses (dormitories, shelter hotels, houses of flexible stock, residential premises from the housing stock for temporary settlement of citizens who have lost their housing as a result of foreclosure on residential premises, special houses for single elderly people, boarding houses for the disabled, veterans and others);

apartments;

service living quarters;

other residential premises in other buildings suitable for living.

The housing stock includes, in addition to those listed, also premises that do not correspond to residential premises in terms of sanitary and technical conditions, but are occupied by citizens for living.

Figure 3 shows the structure of the housing stock by purpose of use in the Russian Federation as of January 1, 2015.

Figure 3 - Structure of the housing stock in the Russian Federation by purpose of use in the Russian Federation as of 01/01/2015

As the analysis of Figure 3 shows, depending on the purpose of use, the housing stock is divided into:

housing stock for social use - a set of residential premises of state and municipal housing stock provided to citizens under social tenancy agreements;

specialized housing stock - a set of residential premises of state and municipal housing funds intended for residence of certain categories of citizens;

individual housing stock - a set of residential premises of a private housing stock, which are used by citizens - owners of such premises for their residence, residence of members of their family and (or) residence of other citizens on the basis of free use, as well as legal entities - owners of such premises for the residence of citizens on specified conditions of use (privatized residential premises);

housing stock for commercial use - a set of residential premises that are used by the owners of such premises for the residence of citizens on the terms of paid use, provided to citizens under other agreements, provided by the owners of such premises to persons for possession and (or) use (being leased).

In recent years, in regulatory documents at the federal and regional levels, concepts adequate to housing and communal services have been applied - housing and communal complex, and directly to public utilities - communal complex.

When considering the problems of managing the housing stock, as a rule, the effectiveness of managing housing and communal services (complex) is studied jointly, and the development of the communal services proper (heat, water, energy supply) is understood as the development of housing infrastructure. This confirms the opinion of many specialists in the field of management that housing and communal services, or more precisely, separate housing and separate communal services (municipal complex) are components of a single sector of the economy - the housing sector.

One of the most important areas of socio-economic transformation in the country is the reform and development of the housing sector, which creates the necessary conditions for human habitation and life. The strategic objective of the functioning of this industry is to create conditions for sustainable and effective economic turnover of the housing stock, within the framework of which the housing needs of citizens are met, quality standards for construction and maintenance of housing are maintained and developed, and positive impulses are reproduced for the development of other sectors.

All these activities are carried out as part of the implementation of the state housing policy.

Housing policy refers to the activities of the state and municipalities aimed at providing citizens of the Russian Federation with quality housing, both through direct participation in construction or subsidizing the purchase of housing, and through the creation of effective mechanisms that facilitate citizens’ independent solution of the housing problem.

The housing sector is currently in a state of transition, characterized by a turn from an administrative-distribution and centrally managed system to an open, free one, based on the transformation of housing into a commodity, on the independent interaction of economic entities, increasing the status of housing consumers, meeting the housing needs of the population based on supply and demand.

Despite the difficulties of developing and making business decisions, the housing sector has begun an active movement towards the formation of a housing market and is quickly adapting to market principles.

One of the most important characteristics of housing policy is the participation (activity) of the state.

Figure 4 shows the ways in which the state influences the housing policy of the Russian Federation as of January 1, 2015.

Figure 4 - Ways of influence of the state on the housing policy of the Russian Federation as of 01/01/2015

As the analysis of Figure 4 shows, classifying the degree of influence of the state on the economy, we can distinguish four main ways of influencing the state on housing policy and the system as a whole.

1. Direct service.

Here, obviously, it is worth noting the system of technical maintenance and maintenance of the housing stock, which, receiving a significant role in subsidies from local budgets, is essentially state-owned.

2. Regulation and control.

The state regulates the development of private entrepreneurship in the housing sector through a system of incentives for preferential taxation and competitive attraction to perform certain functions. Regulation is also necessary in the field of engineering infrastructure, where there is a monopolistic nature of production (water supply, energy supply, transport, etc.).

Government authorities allow such organizations to earn a reasonable profit, but limit their ability to raise prices since society depends on the provision of this type of service.

3. Stabilization and development.

Government bodies are trying to keep under control the sharp fluctuations in construction production from growth to decline by establishing preferential tax conditions, creating appropriate legal support that is adequate to the market, and spending on housing construction and engineering infrastructure.

4.Direct impact.

The state provides social support in the form of housing subsidies to pay for housing and utilities, as well as the purchase and construction of housing through targeted assistance programs for the poor, military, and migrants.

The determining direction that fundamentally influences the problem of housing provision for citizens with average incomes is mortgage lending. Local authorities regulate the development of the mortgage loan market and interact with all parties involved in the housing lending process: borrowers, lenders and investors who provide funds in one form or another for the construction or purchase of housing.

Thus, the housing sector is an area of the national economy, including the construction and reconstruction of housing, structures from elements of engineering and social infrastructure, management of the housing stock, its maintenance and repair. An important component of the housing sector is the housing stock. The quality of life of the population and the provision of housing for Russian citizens depend on how developed it is.

State housing policy is an important component of socio-economic transformations in Russia and one of the main activities of government bodies. In the process of transition to a market economy, the content of this activity is the reform of the housing sector, the central place in which belongs to the reform of the housing sector.

One of the most important areas of socio-economic transformation in the country is the reform and development of the housing sector, which creates the necessary conditions for human habitation and life. In accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy,” the housing sector is a branch of the national economy, including the construction and reconstruction of housing, structures and elements of engineering and social infrastructure, management of the housing stock, its maintenance and repair.

The basis of the city's housing sector is the housing stock: residential buildings, specialized buildings (dormitories, flexible housing, boarding houses for veterans, etc.), residential office premises in other buildings suitable for living.

The housing stock is divided into the following types:

private - a fund owned by citizens or legal entities: individual residential buildings, privatized, built and purchased apartments and houses;

state - a fund that is the property of the state or constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as a departmental fund that is under the full economic control of state enterprises or the operational management of state institutions related to the corresponding type of property;

municipal - a fund owned by municipalities, as well as a departmental fund consisting of the full economic management of municipal enterprises or the operational management of municipal institutions;

public - a fund that is the property of public associations;

collective - a fund that is in common joint or common shared ownership of various subjects of private, state, municipal property, and the property of public associations.

For a long time, the urban housing sector was part of the public sector of the economy, having received significant development during the Soviet period. At the same time, the quality of residential buildings and their level of exploitation remained low. Most citizens received new housing for free, on a first-come, first-served basis, and the payment for it and utilities did not correspond to the costs of its maintenance.

The rapid development of cities and the housing sector at the turn of the 21st century. was abruptly interrupted during the revolution and the civil war that followed it. Moreover, many cities, especially large ones, fell into decay. Almost all urban economic systems were destroyed, and the population fled abroad, to the south, or eked out a miserable existence and simply died out. It was at this time that the mass settlement of the poor into the apartments of wealthy citizens took place, as a result of which communal settlement became predominant. Rents were abolished, as money was completely worthless, and no services were provided to city residents. The housing stock was virtually left to the mercy of fate.

A certain economic revival and some streamlining of public life created the conditions for the revival of large cities and the restoration of the housing stock and utility systems. To resolve economic issues, the NKVD, which replaced the Cheka, created a public utilities department, which assumed the functions of coordinator for the restoration of housing and communal facilities in cities. Various forms of ownership of housing and communal facilities were allowed, and rent for the use of housing and communal services was restored.

Introduction

1.1 Concept of housing and communal services

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Among the most important areas of socio-economic transformation in the country, the reform and development of the housing sector, which creates the necessary conditions for human life, stands out. The leading industries within this area are housing construction and housing services, which ensure the reproduction and maintenance of the housing stock, as well as the delivery of housing and communal services to direct consumers. In Russia, the level of development of the housing sector does not meet the requirements: the tasks assigned to it are far from being fulfilled to the fullest extent, which significantly affects the decline in the quality of life of the population. In this regard, the housing problem remains one of the most pressing social problems in the country.

The housing sector is experiencing significant difficulties associated with an acute shortage of finance, a weak material and technical base, insufficient qualifications of personnel, the lack of a well-thought-out housing policy and insufficient elaboration of the regulatory and legal aspects of the activities of organizations in terms of their relationships with authorities and consumers.

The lack of necessary economic and legal support hinders the development of housing construction, which makes it extremely difficult to solve the housing problem. Housing, along with other public services, remains subsidized; its maintenance places a heavy burden on the city budget. Departmental monopolism, low quality of services provided and ineffective management also determine the need to reform the housing sector by demonopolizing it, transferring it to break-even mode and focusing on improving the quality of work and services provided to consumers.

housing utilities reform

The implementation of housing reform in cities is of paramount importance, since a huge housing stock is concentrated in them, the majority of the country's population lives and the main capacities of construction and housing organizations are located. It was here that the already mentioned negative features of the housing sector were most clearly manifested: departmental monopoly; insufficient qualifications of personnel; technical and technological backwardness and, as a result, an unsatisfactory level of work; ignoring the interests of the population and low quality of work performed and services provided to consumers. First of all, this concerns the housing sector, which is directly related to the population and is essentially the leader in the technological chain of housing and communal services for the population. Therefore, the first stage of the reform is aimed at increasing the efficiency of restructuring the housing system. No less important is the task of creating the necessary economic and legal framework to stimulate housing construction, which serves as the most important lever for solving the housing problem and can become a key link in bringing the country’s economy out of the crisis.

The aggravation of the housing problem and the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the housing sector in most large cities of the country determine the need for radical reforms and deep transformations of the housing system. Achieving these goals requires careful study of the main directions and measures of the reform, justification of the economic, organizational and legal mechanisms for its practical implementation.

The existing regulatory and legal basis for the implementation of housing policy in the transition period at the federal level and, first of all, the Law “On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy”, the main directions of the new stage of implementation of the State Target Program “Housing”, as well as relevant decrees of the President and decrees of the government of the Russian Federation determine the strategic plan for reforming the housing sector. But carrying out housing reform at the level of a specific city requires more detailed studies, taking into account the characteristics and specifics of the socio-economic situation in a given territory, the level of development of the housing sector and the state of the housing stock and utility systems.

The relevance of considering the most important economic issues of the functioning and development of the housing sector is explained by the lack of educational scientific and methodological works on this issue, which are complex in nature. Moreover, a comprehensive analysis of the housing problem has not been raised at all in the scientific and educational literature in the last decade.

Chapter 1. The state of housing and communal services

1.1 Concept of housing and communal services

Department of Housing and Utilitiesis a branch of the national economy, the main purpose of which is to meet the needs of the population for services that ensure their normal living and working conditions.

Housing and communal services are a complex management object.

Enterprises and organizations of the life support complex of settlements are very diverse. At the same time, they can be combined into two groups:

Utility enterprises and organizations producing material products (water supply systems, gas facilities, electrical networks);

Utility enterprises providing services (housing and maintenance organizations that create favorable conditions for living in residential buildings, urban passenger transport, sanitary cleaning enterprises)

The housing and communal services sector includes:

housing industry - an industry that includes:

urban housing stock;

private housing stock

repair and construction department

repair and maintenance department

resource supply - complex:

water supply - a set of measures to provide water to consumers in the required quantities and required quality;

sewerage (water disposal) - a set of measures and engineering structures that ensure the reception, collection and removal of water from the consumer, as well as their purification and neutralization before disposal or discharge into a reservoir;

heat supply - production and sale of thermal energy for heating and hot water supply needs;

gas supply - a set of measures for transportation, storage, supply of gas directly to its consumers;

power supply - transmission of electrical energy:

gas networks;

heating boiler rooms;

transport companies:

construction of external landscaping:

sanitary facilities

The housing and communal services sectors can be divided into two groups:

Competitive sectors of the housing and communal services sector (housing, repair and construction production, waste collection and disposal, etc.), where market prices can serve as economically justified tariffs;

Monopoly industries (water supply and sewerage services, municipal energy) - centrally established, determined on the basis of scientifically proven methods using relevant norms and standards.

1.2 Socio-economic essence of housing and communal services

State policy in the housing industry has been subject to “rethinking” more than once, and the inevitable vacillations in this case have caused those involved in it and residents to have a strong conviction that reform in housing and communal services will not go beyond talk. The adopted Housing Code of the Russian Federation dispelled such beliefs. It is designed to establish qualitatively new relations in the industry, which must correspond to a market economy. The Code, despite all its shortcomings, is capable of putting into practice the principle “who pays the call,” which meets the new economic situation and the urgent needs of the population.

The new set of laws eliminates the municipal monopoly on the management of housing and communal services organizations, which we inherited from previous times and which still exists today. It created such conditions for pricing, taxation and financing of the industry that citizens, instead of living normally in their apartments, were forced to survive. For example, can one count on decent quality of services if there was a huge debt of budgets at all levels to housing and communal services enterprises to repay benefits? On this basis, conflicts even arose between energy suppliers and the authorities. Housing cooperatives and homeowners' associations found themselves in a particularly difficult situation, to which the authorities did not consider it necessary to pay money for veterans and disabled people who receive benefits under federal law. Almost 50% of the people living in the HOA are veterans and beneficiaries. And it turned out that the authorities actually shifted their obligations to pay benefits to homeowners, since HOAs and housing cooperatives are obliged to calculate the amount of benefits and transfer payments for housing and communal services within the specified period and in full. As a result, the missing funds were paid through the costs of maintaining the house and maintaining it. Homeowners thus provided loans to the state.

With 100% payment for housing and communal services by the population in the industry, the costs for them are reimbursed much lower. This also happens because benefits and subsidies for those categories of citizens who are entitled to them in accordance with the law are still “virtual”, while housing and communal services providers have the right to demand real payments. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the population, which is entitled to state support, is not able to check the receipt of information and funds. The introduction of a procedure in which benefits and subsidies in monetary terms will be transferred to citizens’ bank accounts will help correct the situation. The need to introduce personalized accounts was raised in February 2004. This would solve several problems, including the debt to the population for services provided. In some territorial entities, such debt reaches tens of millions of rubles. The increase in tariffs for housing and communal services puts low-income citizens in a hopeless situation: they cannot pay their service providers because the state did not compensate them for their benefits in a timely manner, and even if they did compensate, local authorities found other uses for these funds.

The quality of services provided by housing and communal services organizations does not meet the requirements of the population and significantly lags behind the growth of tariffs. This causes a negative attitude towards housing and communal services workers in general. There was even a certain stereotype of a plumber who was always drunk and extorted money from residents. But frankly, it's hard to imagine the four million people who work in this industry being like that.

Funds for the maintenance and repair of housing are collected from apartment owners by organizations authorized for this by authorities, tariffs are approved by local governments, and the single customer service is also authorized by them. At the same time, most of the citizens’ funds intended to pay for housing are used by authorities for other purposes. Residents legitimately ask the question: in the “payment” there is a column “Major repairs”. Why is there no repair? Residents remain powerless before the administrative-command system and receive a tiny portion of the required services, since municipal authorities independently generate demand for housing services. This situation may change the approval of tariffs: without a decision of the authorized body of the subject of the Federation, the municipality does not have the right to change them independently.

Paradox: 70% of housing is privately owned, residents pay virtually 100% of the costs of producing housing and communal services, and the management company is determined by the municipal authorities, how much and what funds to send where - the administration. When the level of payment by the population for housing and utility costs was insignificant, this state of affairs did not raise any questions. But today the situation has changed radically: the budget is not calculated for the population, but the population fully pays for the services they consume. This is the main contradiction that the reform eliminates.

The housing and communal services reform is designed to ensure accounting of expenses and income, as well as annual reporting of the management organization to homeowners. The list of work to be performed in the house and the list of services to be provided to residents will be approved at a general meeting of residents. In this way, it is possible to regulate and limit the growth of tariffs - the choice provided to residents will make competition between service providers not virtual, as it is now, but real.

Also, the main objective of reforms in the housing and communal services sector is to create conditions for the development of private initiative and a competitive environment in the field of housing management, the withdrawal of state and municipal authorities from the housing sector. The first step towards this was taken 10 years ago, when they began holding competitions for the maintenance of housing stock. But what is characteristic is that officials “adapted” market principles for regulating relations in this industry to suit their needs and goals. Over time, competitions turned into a formality that provided “indisputable” advantages to municipal enterprises, which, despite the support of municipal administrations, remained unprofitable. And it was beneficial for local governments to have such enterprises - they retained leverage not only over these enterprises, but also over the population.

A sure sign that the situation has begun to change can be considered the interest shown by private capital, including such large companies as RAO UES, RAO Gazprom represented by its subsidiaries. They are attracted by the fullness of the payment, new conditions that allow them to “earn” money in the subsidized industry. For some, this causes panic: they say that now these companies will squeeze the “last juice” out of the industry and the population; no one will be able to “hold them by the sleeve” in their desire to constantly increase tariffs. Let's not make hasty conclusions. It is good that private capital has begun to look at housing and communal services as a potential source of profit. It is no coincidence that these companies persistently raise the issue of long-term lease of property and communications. It is simply impossible to extract any profit from them in the state in which they are: colossal losses of heat and water indicate extreme deterioration of fixed assets. Some experts even talk about an inevitable man-made disaster. With the arrival of large capital in the industry, you can count on the fact that these companies will begin to invest in the reconstruction of worn-out housing and communal services.

Private enterprises, which were the first to enter the housing and communal services sector, were also ready to invest in the repair of intra-house networks, entrances, and roofs so that there would be no further problems with the maintenance of housing. And at first, a number of enterprises did just that, installing metal doors at entrances, replacing rotten pipes in basements, purchasing the necessary equipment. For example, a project was developed for a lightweight pitched metal roof, which was installed instead of a flat roof on one of the apartment buildings of the serviced housing stock and which successfully withstood several winters. Its construction, as calculations show, is much more effective than major repairs using traditional roofing materials. But, unfortunately, the matter did not progress beyond the experiment. Inconsistent policies pursued in the housing and communal services sector in recent years have discouraged private enterprises from investing their money in the industry, which is an instrument of government manipulation. For those working in this industry, we need clear and precise rules of the “game” that would guarantee a return on investment, stimulate the desire to improve the quality of housing and utility services provided, and protect consumers from command and administrative arbitrariness. And such rules are now established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

Housing and communal services directly affect the quality of life of the population. But today is precisely the rare case when residents are given the right to determine the fate of the industry. Observing how passively the population reacts to the implementation of the new rights that have opened up for them, one has to doubt the success of the first steps in its transformation. But this is not the fault, but, most likely, the misfortune of citizens who have been alienated from the ownership and management of their homes for many years. Today, local authorities, on whose shoulders the main burden of carrying out the reform lies, are not eager to engage in reforms.

1.3 Housing sector. Essence, composition and structure

One of the most important areas of socio-economic transformation in the country is the reform and development of the housing sector, which creates the necessary conditions for human habitation and life. In accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy,” the housing sector is a branch of the national economy, including the construction and reconstruction of housing, structures and elements of engineering and social infrastructure, management of the housing stock, its maintenance and repair.

The housing stock is divided into the following types:

private - a fund owned by citizens or legal entities: individual residential buildings, privatized, built and purchased apartments and houses;

municipal - a fund owned by municipalities, as well as a departmental fund consisting of the full economic management of municipal enterprises or the operational management of municipal institutions;

public - a fund that is the property of public associations;

collective - a fund that is in common joint or common shared ownership of various subjects of private, state, municipal property, and the property of public associations.

1.4 Housing problems of housing and communal services and ways to solve them

Housing Market: Home prices depend on how many families want to buy a home and how many housing units are available on the market. So, when demand increases, prices rise, and when supply increases, prices decrease. The supply of new housing stock comes from the construction industry and depends on the ratio of housing prices and the cost of its construction (modernization). In the long term, the housing market should align housing prices with construction costs. In the short term, deviations occur due to delays inherent in the construction process. So, if the demand for housing increases sharply, and the supply of housing remains constant, then prices rise. As long as prices are higher than costs, housing is being commissioned. As newly introduced housing stock enters the market, demand is satisfied, prices fall, approaching costs. The most important factor influencing the demand for housing stock is income (potential rent) from purchased real estate.

Housing services market: Residents can be owners or simple tenants. The demand for housing services depends on family income and the ratio of the price of housing and the cost of other goods (food, clothing, etc.). Cost of housing services (amount paid for the use of housing) For a tenant, this is rent, for a homeowner, income from owning property. Demand for housing services depends on rent levels, income levels and the number of families. All other things being equal, if the number of families increases, then the demand for housing services increases, and if the supply is constant, rents increase. These are the laws of the housing market and housing services in the civilized world. Russia, due to its peculiar historical development, has a number of distinctive features.

In Russia there is no class of real homeowners; municipal authorities act as contractors servicing housing, nothing more. Private firms can also act as such organizations. This circumstance, along with the desire to get rid of losses in the housing and communal services sector, which are covered from budget funds, formed the basis for the housing and communal services reform proposed by the government. In fact, it can be reduced to the following main activities: organizing a single customer service. The role of the “single customer” is the municipality itself (or its representative; if the city is large, then the services of the single customer are organized in districts, districts), which offers a contract for servicing a group of residential buildings (block, microdistrict, courtyard). Certain requirements for the quality of service are established and the amount that will be transferred to the contractor if the relevant services are successfully provided. It is expected that competition will arise between municipal and private firms that will compete to obtain such a contract, which will, in particular, make it possible to strengthen control over the level of tariffs in the housing and communal services sector; a gradual increase in tariffs for utility services and an increase in rent to gradually eliminate the unprofitability of the utilities sector. In this case, the rent is increased to a level that covers the operating costs of the building and its current repairs; since, as already mentioned above, there is no homeowner in this scheme, the costs of major repairs and reconstruction of the building will either be carried out from the budget or will not be carried out at all. In addition, a contradictory situation is developing in the work of public utilities: they currently carry out the practice of cross-subsidization - part of the costs of providing services to one group of consumers (the population) is shifted to another group (enterprises, organizations).

Strictly speaking, an increase in tariffs for the population should imply their reduction for other groups of consumers of utility services, however, such a formulation of the issue is not explicitly stated in the proposed measures. This formulation of the case as a whole indicates a lack of understanding of the difference between the rent (rent) and the operating costs of the building in which the apartment is located. In particular, the operating costs of dilapidated housing stock and dormitories (with a relatively higher density of residents per square meter of total building area) are significantly higher than the costs of maintaining new luxury housing stock. Accordingly, the amount of payment for living on a “square meter” of a hostel turns out to be several times higher than for the same area of ordinary comfortable apartments, and in the latter, correspondingly higher than in “elite” apartments housing stock. Nevertheless, apartment rent represents rent (or, more precisely, quasi-rent) of the homeowner. The size of the latter is regulated by other reasons; it is not directly related to either the operating costs of the building or the cost of its construction. The absence of homeowners in this scheme for regulating housing services does not mean, naturally, the elimination of rental income due to location and different levels of housing comfort. However, now these incomes are appropriated by residents, and in an implicit form. This causes a number of important and not entirely obvious consequences, which are revealed only in the long term.

Firstly, the absence of explicit rental income taken into account directly in monetary terms narrows the city’s tax base. Moreover, the revenue item of the city budget (income from the rental of municipal property) turns into an expense item: even after the successful implementation of the housing and communal reform, major repairs of residential buildings will have to be carried out at the expense of budget funds in one way or another.

Secondly, in addition to the problem of capital repairs, there is also the problem of new housing construction and/or reconstruction of the old housing stock. It becomes impossible to stop the process of housing deterioration and at the same time continue new construction: high volumes of housing construction sooner or later lead to equally high volumes of disposal of housing into dilapidated housing stock. The progressive formation of urban slums is becoming inevitable. Even if the rent were set at least at the level of depreciation deductions for renovation, centralized funds would make it possible to carry out new construction and resettle dilapidated houses. In this situation, housing turns from reproducing capital into an exclusively consumer good with a long period of use. This in itself does not raise objections, especially in the case of an individual house (cottage), but the fact is that with such a mechanism for including housing stock in market exchange, this fund cannot become capital, that is, in fact, it cannot bring profit to its owner . Hence, strictly speaking, investments in housing construction become impossible, since we are talking about the acquisition of only consumer goods; Accordingly, lending for this process is also impossible (if we do not take into account the relatively narrow sphere of consumer credit). As a result, the total volume of investment decreases, which also affects the rate of economic growth in the country as a whole.

Finally, thirdly, the current situation significantly reduces the mobility of the labor market, since in general rent is still not included in the price of labor. The high rents that accompany the small market of residential apartments, offered mainly by individual owners of privatized housing and intermediaries, significantly complicate migration. Territorial imbalances are worsening, which also negatively affects economic growth. Cities, especially small ones, are turning into a kind of “trap for the unemployed.”

Thus, the main measures of the proposed housing and communal services reform only indicate a desire to free state and local budgets from part of the costs, but do not at all solve the main problems in this area. In order to achieve the launch of the capitalist mechanism of urban development, much deeper institutional changes are necessary (for example, the abolition of the right to housing, the introduction of deadlines for the privatization of housing, and other rather unpopular measures in modern Russia). In addition, structural changes are also necessary: the extremely high cost of building one square meter of housing coupled with its very low quality leads to the fact that the volume of new construction in Russian cities is constantly declining. Moreover, the low level of average wages in general does not allow large sections of the population to show demand for new housing. Ultimately, the construction price of 1 sq. m of new housing should be lower than the price of 1 sq. m. m. starog (meaning average price levels); in addition, even the minimum wage should allow the employee to rent housing. Only in this case can we talk about launching the market mechanism. Unfortunately, the current trends in the Russian economy are directly opposite; The result is a constant accumulation of imbalances. It is becoming increasingly difficult to eliminate the latter; the result of this development of the situation may be a return to the bureaucratic distribution of part of economic goods and rationing of consumption of an increasingly large part of services. The disproportions are far from being as harmless as they might seem at first glance - in particular, the lack of available housing does not allow solving the problems of closing a number of unprofitable mines in the coal industry, even with certain funds allocated by the government for the retraining and adaptation of miners.

In turn, the social protest of workers who, by the will of fate, find themselves in depressed cities and regions can ultimately lead to a change in political course and the curtailment of market reforms that seemed irreversible. There is clearly no understanding of the essence of the housing issue in a transitional economy by the state and economic elite. It seems that this makes future negative phenomena in the development of Russian cities inevitable.

Chapter 2. Reform of the housing and communal services sector

2.1 Main goals of reform in the housing and communal services sector

The main goal of the housing and communal services reform is to ensure high-quality, reliable and affordable provision of housing and communal services to citizens. Due to the change of formation in the country, the participation of the state in the economy has sharply decreased. Hence the second goal of the reform is to optimize budget expenditures in housing and communal services.

Essentially, housing and communal services cease to be a public good, but become a product of personal consumption, while the role of the state is transformed into ensuring the availability of a certain social standard of housing and communal services. The state also provides its citizens with a comfortable and safe living environment. In the list of tools for implementing this responsibility, ensuring water supply, sewerage, heating is far from the least important, therefore the state must ensure, through state regulation mechanisms, the safety and reliability of the provision of public services.

The initial goals of the housing reform determined its three main tasks:

Development of market relations in housing and communal services in order to improve the quality and accessibility of housing and communal services;

Increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures; targeted support for citizens in real need in providing a certain standard of housing and communal services;

Regulation of the utility complex to ensure its performance and development, reliability and safety of the services provided.

2.2 About the transition to a new system of payment for housing and utilities

In accordance with Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy" and in order to increase the level of housing and communal services to the population, the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation decides:

Approve the timing of a phased transition to a new system of payment for housing and utilities in accordance with the appendix.

Maintain for the transition period the existing procedure for financing the costs of major repairs of the state and municipal housing stock and not include these costs in housing and communal services paid by citizens.

Establish that an increase in the amount of payment for housing and utilities is carried out with the simultaneous use of social protection measures for citizens in the form of providing them with compensation (subsidies) for the payment of housing and utilities within the social norm for housing area and standards for the consumption of utilities, taking into account the total family income and existing benefits.

Approve the attached Regulations on the procedure for providing citizens with compensation (subsidies) to pay for housing and utilities.

To carry out, from January 1, 2014, the transition to contractual relations between the owners of housing stock and public utilities with business entities - housing repair and maintenance and utility enterprises.

Establish that the collection of payments for utilities and payment for housing provided for rent or lease is carried out by the owners of housing or a body authorized to perform these functions.

Establish that the approval of standards for the consumption of housing and communal services, rates and tariffs for housing and communal services within the terms and levels of payments of citizens as a percentage of the costs of maintaining and repairing housing and utilities, determined by this resolution, is carried out by the local administration.

Establish from January 1, 2014 the amount of penalties on overdue payments for housing and utilities at the rate of one percent for each day of delay.

To the Committee of the Russian Federation on Municipal Economy within 2 months:

a) approve:

methodology for determining consumption standards for housing and communal services;

methodology for calculating economically feasible rates and tariffs for housing and communal services;

b) submit proposals to the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation:

on the transition to determining housing supply and payment for the use of residential premises based on the total area of apartments;

on the organization of state control over the use and safety of the housing stock.

The Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation, within 2 months, submits to the Council of Ministers - the Government of the Russian Federation proposals on the procedure for calculating the average total family income.

The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation is to maintain, for the period of a phased transition to a new housing payment system, the procedure for providing subsidies to local administrations for the maintenance and repair of housing, as well as housing and communal services, to the extent not covered by funds received from citizens’ payments for housing.

Entrust the Committee of the Russian Federation on Municipal Economy with coordinating the work of executive authorities of the republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous districts, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg to implement a phased transition to a new system of payment for housing and utilities.

While state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments retain the right to establish the basic parameters of the transition to a new system of payment for housing and utilities, a system will be created in which the amount of funding from the federal budget (primarily in the form of transfers) will be calculated based on federal standards. At the same time, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are recommended to use a similar mechanism for distributing budget funds between municipalities.

Federal standard of social norm for housing area. State authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have the right, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, to establish regional standards for the social norm of housing area, as well as to delegate such a right to local government bodies. However, when redistributing federal budget funds between constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation will be guided by the federal standard.

The federal standard for the social norm of housing area is determined based on the following standards for the provision of housing for the population: 18 sq. meters of total housing area per family member of three or more people, 42 sq. meters - for a family of two people, 33 sq. meters - for citizens living alone.

Federal standard for the cost of providing housing and communal services per 1 sq. meter of total housing area. The specified standard is calculated based on the standard set of housing and communal services: maintenance and repair of housing, including major repairs, heat supply, water supply, sewerage, gas supply, electricity supply, taking into account the average prevailing consumption standards, as well as the average prevailing marginal cost of provision in economic regions of the Russian Federation housing and communal services. This standard is revised annually, and it should be established that changes in the value of the federal standard should be carried out taking into account the general level of inflation (except in cases of cancellation of cross-subsidies, as well as sharp changes in energy prices).

2.3 Public control in the housing and communal services sector

The Russian Ministry of Construction monitors and supports the development of a network of regional public control centers in the housing and communal services sector. Public control centers have been established in 71 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Public control in the housing and communal services sector is carried out in the following forms:

· monitoring of law enforcement practice in the housing and communal services sector;

· carrying out activities to analyze individual problems in the housing and communal services sector, both in the Russian Federation as a whole and within a specific region;

· carrying out inspections, including on-site inspections, to consider citizens’ appeals;

· providing assistance to citizens in protecting their interests in court;

· conducting public examination of regulatory legal acts at the federal and regional levels;

· monitoring the implementation of regional programs for resettlement from dilapidated housing and the implementation of regional programs for capital repairs in apartment buildings.

Non-profit organizations working in the field of housing education and protecting the rights of consumers of housing and utility services exist in all constituent entities of the Russian Federation. NP "Housing and Communal Services Control" has compiled a register of these organizations, which is publicly available on the website gkhkontrol.ru. The register was published in the form of a directory, which included 323 specialized non-profit organizations.

Since January 1, 2014, the public reception of the NP "Housing and Communal Control" and regional public receptions have received more than 2,500 requests from citizens, and over 400 educational and educational events have been held, including on the formation of a new capital repair system.

2.4 Fundamental changes in the financing of housing and communal services in the Russian Federation

As is known, before the reform, approximately 98% of the costs for the maintenance and development of the housing and communal services sector of the industry fell on the budget of ministries, departments, enterprises or organizations that were in charge of housing and communal services facilities.

The almost complete financial dependence of the housing and communal services sector on the budget, as well as the relevant departments and enterprises, had an extremely negative impact on its work, both due to the residual allocation of funds and, to a lesser extent, due to a lack of interest in their rational use. There was no ability to coordinate work and maneuver resources as a result of widespread departmental disunity. Huge losses at housing and communal services enterprises were common. The budgets of territories and departments experienced considerable financial difficulties. Expenditures on housing and communal services ranged from 30 to 70% of the budgets of many territories, cities and municipalities, which made it difficult to meet needs.

Enterprises in industry, agriculture, construction and other sectors of the economy, on whose balance sheet housing and communal services were located, were forced to engage in functions unusual for them. Labor, material and financial resources were spent, which could have been used with greater efficiency for the development and improvement of production, increasing its efficiency.

Therefore, the industry itself, as well as other sectors and areas of the economy, government bodies and budgets of all levels, were primarily interested in eliminating all these negative phenomena, and therefore in reforming the housing and communal services sector.

Currently, more than 90% of departmental housing and public utilities have been transferred to municipal ownership. Thus, the majority of enterprises that transferred housing and communal services facilities to local authorities have already freed themselves from non-productive functions that were unusual for them, focusing on production efficiency. Another positive result of this work was the transfer of the bulk of housing and utility companies to municipal ownership, which largely eliminated the negative phenomena associated with the departmental disunity of the industry. At the same time, territorial budgets incur significant additional costs for the maintenance of objects accepted into municipal ownership, in many cases exceeding the capabilities of the tax base of many territories. Subsidy payments have increased, and the number of subsidy budgets has increased.

Therefore, the need has intensified for a speedy solution to the main task of the reform - the transition of enterprises in the housing and communal services sector to self-sufficiency, reduction, and then elimination of its dependence on budget financing. To stimulate housing and communal reform, levers are also used to provide temporary financial assistance to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in particular when issuing loans from the federal budget to cover the cash gap, to pay off debts on wages and other social benefits.

2.5 Modernization of the utility complex. Attracting private investment into the industry

Modernization of the utility complex is one of the key areas of work of the Russian Ministry of Construction. Due to the fact that it is necessary to modernize the housing and communal services sector while limiting the growth of tariffs and with minimal use of budget funds, the state is taking measures to attract private investment in the industry.

At present, work has actually been completed on preparing a regulatory framework aimed at creating conditions for attracting private investment in housing and communal services.

About 30 regulatory legal acts have been adopted, including 16 over the past six months. A course has been set for the transition to long-term investment planning and tariff regulation. Key legislative changes have been approved aimed at creating conditions for attracting private investment in the housing and communal services sector, forming new “rules of the game”.

Today, the main task is to provide methodological support for the implementation of these rules, as well as the effective implementation of new legislation by regional and local authorities.

In this regard, for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the Russian Ministry of Construction has prepared a model set of measures ("road map") for the development of housing and communal services of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, containing a detailed list of measures to ensure the implementation at the regional and municipal levels of all federal decisions in the field of housing and communal services (modernization of utility infrastructure , improving the quality of public services, the work of regional systems for major repairs of common property in apartment buildings, the implementation of programs for relocating citizens from dilapidated housing stock, increasing the transparency of the industry, and others). Such sets of measures must be approved in each region during 2014 and will become one of the conditions for providing financial support to the regions from the Fund for Assistance to Housing and Communal Services Reform.

For market participants, regions, municipalities, banks, investors, the Russian Ministry of Construction has organized work to create a register of best practices for private investment in the industry, which will provide an opportunity to study, use and replicate successful experience.

Already, more than 70 investment projects totaling more than 227 billion rubles are being implemented in the regions. Of this, more than 139 billion rubles (61%) are funds from private investors.

Conclusion

Global economy is a strategy not of the housing and communal services enterprises themselves, but of the authorities in relation to them, which is legitimate due to their financial and administrative dependence on the city administration. Global economy does not provide for a short-term direct reduction in allocated budget funds or an increase in tariffs, all other things being equal.

Huge current expenses for housing and communal services and the need for capital investments aim at the formation of a system of multi-variant sources of their financing.

To form a system of multivariate development of urban infrastructure, a set of measures must be developed in the local government to facilitate the influx of financial resources. This complex is based on marketing tools. The funds received are used for the introduction of resource-saving technologies, automation, mechanization, insurance and other measures that will reduce current costs in the housing and communal services sector in the future.

The main direction of the global savings strategy in relation to housing organizations is the related diversification of the activities of housing and communal enterprises. A wide but harmonious range of services provided will lead to the emergence of new sources of financing for housing and communal services enterprises while maintaining the profile of their activities and better meeting the needs of the population.

The strategy of the global economy is the strategy of the authorities in relation to municipal unitary enterprises of housing and communal services, which involves comprehensive cost reduction through the implementation of a strategy of diversification within the enterprise, organizational and financial reengineering and mechanization. For utility companies, the strategy of the global economy is expressed in the introduction of energy-saving technologies.

A comparative assessment of the level of development of housing and communal services in Russia and developed foreign countries demonstrates an insufficient level of quality of service to the population and an ineffective management mechanism in the housing and communal services sector of Russia. The development and implementation of qualitatively new approaches to the organization and management of this complex should be carried out taking into account the experience of developed foreign countries.

In recent years, it has become obvious that the only way to implement the tasks of housing and communal services is a systematic approach, since the slowdown of reforms is not associated with individual failures of leaders, but has become a phenomenon that has affected a significant number of regions of the country. There is a certain contradiction in the fact that the management of the process of reforming the housing and communal services sector at the federal level is essentially of a sectoral nature, while at the municipal level it is truly comprehensive. Experts note a weak connection between housing and communal reform and the process of urban real estate management, reform of the budget and tax system, and the formation of a municipal base of socio-technical standards. Overcoming the crisis is only possible through a change in the overall functioning of the housing and communal services sector and the management of this area. A systematic approach must take into account the structural restructuring of the industry and changes in relations between participants interacting in this area.

The concept of a detailed program for the reform and modernization of the housing and communal services presented in the main points on the basis of the formulated universal social-market model of subsidy-free development of its constituent enterprises and organizations reveals the main directions, methodological approaches, and calculations of the proposed measures. And specific recommendations developed on its basis for the formation of a new quality of housing and communal services, their soft socially verified tariffs will help to increase the technological modernization of production, update equipment, communication systems, and most importantly - improve the comfort and standard of living of Russians.

The main goals of housing and communal services reform are:

providing living conditions that meet quality standards;

reducing the costs of service providers and, accordingly, tariffs while maintaining quality standards for the services provided;

mitigation for the population of the process of reforming the system of payment for housing and utilities during the transition of the industry to a break-even operating mode.

Bibliography

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation

Housing Code of the Russian Federation

Federal Law of April 5, 2013 N 38-FZ "On Amendments to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law "On the Fund for Assistance to the Reform of Housing and Communal Services"

Federal Law of December 25, 2012 N 270-FZ “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On the Fund for Assistance to the Reform of Housing and Communal Services” (as amended and supplemented)

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 24, 2011 N 975 "On additional financial support provided to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation at the expense of the state corporation - the Fund for Assistance to the Reform of Housing and Communal Services"

Abolin A.A. "Transformation of benefits for housing and communal services into compensation payments" 2013 P.22

Buzyrev V.V. "Housing Economics" 2006 P.173

Bashmakov I.I. "The ability of the population to pay for housing and communal services" 2013, pp. 126-134

Dronov A.A. "The state of housing and communal services in Russia and the prospects for its reform" 2013, pp. 11-14

Korzhov V.Yu., Petruseva N.A. Commentary to the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 N 190-FZ “On Heat Supply” (item-by-item). P.3-8

Panin A.N., Korzhov V.Yu. Commentary on the Federal Law of July 21, 2007 N 185-FZ “On the Fund for Assistance to the Reform of Housing and Communal Services” (edited by E.A. Kameneva). P.31

Tikhomirov M.Yu. "Homeowners' Association: new legislative requirements." - "Published by Tikhomirov M. Yu.", 2014 P.46

Chernysheva N.Yu. "Housing and communal services: a practical guide." - "Urayt", 2010 P.8

14. http://ru. wikipedia.org

http://gkhkontrol.ru

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The state of the housing sector in the Russian Federation.

A new approach to shaping housing policy

(Analytical review)

N.P. Koshman, President of the Russian Builders Association,

K.K. Glinsky, Deputy Director of the Department of the Affordable Housing and Mortgage Market, Honorary Builder,

V.N. Ponomarev, Vice President, Director of the Department of Affordable Housing and Mortgage Market, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor

From the Charter of Builders of Russia

“If the Government ensures the process of acquiring housing as personal property, then it fulfills its obligation to its citizens and expands the opportunities for their participation in the prosperity of the state”

F. Roosevelt

I. Condition of the housing stock

Half a century has passed since the adoption of the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers “On the development of housing construction in the USSR” in 1957.

Pre-reform policy in the housing sector was based on strict state regulation of housing relations, based on budgetary financing of housing construction and the state system of distribution of completed housing.

In 1980, privately owned housing accounted for 33.3 percent of the total housing stock (1861 million square meters), including in cities - 19 percent and in rural areas - 66 percent, respectively, of urban and rural housing funds.

In accordance with the Constitution of the USSR of 1977, the right of citizens to housing was ensured by the development and protection of the state and public housing stock, promotion of cooperative and individual housing construction, fair distribution under public control of living space provided as the program for the construction of comfortable housing was implemented, as well as low rent for an apartment and utilities.

New economic relations based on market principles have radically changed approaches to the housing sector.

In 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation assigned the state the obligation to encourage housing construction and create conditions for the exercise of citizens' right to housing. At the same time, a new significant clause appeared: “... low-income people and other citizens specified in the law who need housing are provided with it free of charge or for an affordable fee from the state, municipal and other housing funds (Article 40).”

The free transfer into the ownership of citizens of residential premises occupied by them in state and public housing funds (privatization) made it possible in a short time to form a huge layer of property owners, which subsequently became the basis of the existing housing market.

Already in 2000, the share of housing stock owned by citizens amounted to 58 percent (1620 million sq.m.). Over the next five years, this figure reached 73.7 percent and exceeded that of most developed countries of the world, which was the result of changes in state housing policy and the state’s refusal to directly finance mass housing construction.

If in 1990 the area of housing built by the population using their own and borrowed funds amounted to 6.0 million sq.m. out of 61.7 million sq.m. of built housing taking into account rural areas (9.7 percent), then over ten years this share increased to 41.6 percent, and in 2006 it was 47 percent, which demonstrates, since the 90s, the rapid withdrawal of the state from this sector of the economy .

Since 1987, the share of public housing stock has dropped from 80 to 15 percent. If in 1990 14 percent of families registered as needy received new apartments, then in 2005 this share was only 4 percent.

Thus, compared to the middle of the last century, the changes that occurred by the beginning of the new century in the political and economic structure of our country significantly influenced all components of the housing sector.

Unfortunately, at the first stage of the formation of the new legislative framework, the processes of actually transferring apartment buildings and adjacent land plots to the owners of premises for management were not logically completed.

Even now, two years after the adoption of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the organizational division of functions for managing and maintaining the housing stock has not really been completed.

After a significant breakthrough in the field of housing construction in the 60s - 80s, the Russian Federation entered the 21st century carrying on its shoulders the burden of problems that had accumulated in the housing sector over the past decades and reached a critical mass.

The catastrophic state of the housing stock, the extremely unsatisfactory state of the housing and communal services system, the almost universal emergency condition of engineering networks and communications, the low solvency of the overwhelming majority of the population - these are the main problems that every day have a greater impact on social stability in society.

There is no longer any need to convince anyone of the economic and social importance of housing.

Now eight out of ten people in the list of concepts of their wealth put the presence of a comfortable apartment or personal home in first place. Almost forty years ago, even the famous negative character of the popular film “White Sun of the Desert” Abdullah, characterizing his understanding of a happy old age, put “a good home” in first place.

By the beginning of perestroika in the USSR, 14 million families (about 40 million people) were on the waiting list for housing.

The largest number of people in need was in the RSFSR - more than 8 million families. At the same time, 17 percent of the total housing stock in Russia (30 million sq. m.) were dilapidated and unsafe buildings, more than 14 percent of the state and municipal housing stock was in need of urgent repairs.

II. Changes in the housing sector

What changes have occurred in the housing sector over the past twenty years?

Of the 19 million residential buildings that make up the total housing stock in Russia (2.956 billion square meters), more than 60 percent are over 30 years old.

The dilapidated and emergency stock has grown fourfold (up to 120 million sq. m.) and continues to grow at a rate of 20-24 million sq. m. meters per year. In 2006 alone, several disasters occurred in old houses, resulting in loss of life.

5.3 million families live in panel houses built in the 50-60s, the standard service life of which has expired.

5 million Russians live in multi-apartment housing stock, which requires immediate major repairs.

About 40 million people huddle in premises that, in principle, cannot be called “residential”, since they lack basic household amenities: of the total housing stock, 24 percent of housing does not have running water, 29 percent does not have sewerage, and 20 percent does not have heating. 19 percent of urban premises do not have a bath or shower.

Under these conditions, it is completely natural that a survey of the population in 100 settlements of 44 regions, territories and republics of Russia, conducted in March 2006 by the Public Opinion Foundation (www.fom.ru), confirmed the conclusion of many experts that the housing issue is one of the most pressing social problems.

Two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) believe that where they live, the population is provided with “poor” housing. Every fourth respondent rated the situation as “satisfactory”, and only 4 percent - as good.

The share of negative assessments of the housing situation is highest among rural residents (71 percent), as well as among respondents from Siberia (72 percent) and the Far East (75 percent).

Even in Moscow, half of the respondents believe that the population is poorly provided with housing.

Only 10 percent of Russians note positive changes in this area recently, while 28 percent of respondents hold the opposite point of view - the situation is getting worse. The majority (51 percent) believe that the situation in the housing sector has not changed over the past year or two.

The depreciation of fixed assets in housing and communal infrastructure and energy has almost crossed the critical threshold and amounts to 70 percent. According to experts, this will lead to large-scale man-made disasters in the coming years.

For the first time in recent years, a shortage of energy capacity has begun to develop in Moscow, the Urals and a number of other large regions, which continues to grow.

In general, since 1995, in the structure of production in the main industries in the electric power industry, there has been a decrease in volumetric indicators: if in 1995 the electric power industry accounted for 10.5 percent of the total volume of manufactured products, then in 2004 this figure decreased to 7.6 percent, which is 0.5 percent below the 1992 level.

All this required reforming the Russian electric power industry. The main focus was on improving the efficiency of enterprises in the industry, creating conditions for its development based on stimulating investment, and ensuring reliable and uninterrupted energy supply to consumers.

Radical changes have already begun: the system of state regulation of the industry is changing, a competitive electricity market is being formed, and new companies are being created. The Concept of the Strategy of OAO RAO UES of Russia for 2003-2008 was adopted. “5+5”, according to which the target structure of the industry will be formed in 2008.

We can only hope that the reform will reach the planned milestones, and the energy sector will be able to provide everything necessary to the country’s housing and communal services sector, which is growing simultaneously with the housing stock.

The average housing supply in Russia is 20.9 square meters. m per person, which is almost two to three times less than in developed European countries, where this figure is 40 sq.m. per person or more, and in the USA - about 80 sq.m. per person.

But this security, as they say in Russia, is “average for the ward.”

A small part of citizens live in luxury apartments with large areas and increased comfort (the number of four-room or more apartments is 4.1 million). 16.8 million families live in three-room apartments, and the vast majority - 36.5 million families - live in one- and two-room apartments.

These are mainly apartments received during the period of Khrushchev reforms. Over the years, the first owners have aged, their children have grown up, who have started their own families, their grandchildren have already grown up, and they all continue to live together, waiting for decades to advance in line for improved living conditions. Therefore, the national average indicator of the provision of living space does not accurately reflect the real picture.

If in 1980 0.43 sq.m. was introduced per person in cities and towns, then by 2005 this value decreased to 0.33 sq.m. Therefore, in order for us to achieve at least the European level of provision with living space, it is necessary to increase the volume of housing commissioning to at least 1 sq.m. per person per year.

III. Priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens”

1. Housing stock.

The catastrophic state of the housing stock, the right of millions of our citizens to live in human conditions, which has not been realized for decades, and therefore the social tension brewing in society, have left the authorities with no other alternative but to include the housing issue among priority social projects.

The national project “Affordable and Comfortable Housing for Russian Citizens” (hereinafter referred to as the Project) currently being implemented is as significant as it is difficult to implement.

The affordability of housing in accordance with the Federal Target Program “Housing” for 2002-2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Program), which forms the basis of the Project, is considered from the standpoint of the state’s statutory obligations to certain categories of citizens, distinguished from the general population according to certain unifying characteristics (northerners, Chernobyl victims, military personnel, migrants from Baikonur or young families). Simply put, these are categories of beneficiaries.

State support is established for them, which, according to the program developers, is capable of ensuring a sufficient increase in purchasing power.

Obviously, the problems listed above required, when developing a project of this scale, the most serious financial, economic, technical and sociological justification for the planned measures and mechanisms to ensure the achievability of the final results.

Although the financial indicators of the second stage of the Program (2005-2010) were clarified based on the results of previous years, partially structurally changed, and it itself acquired a single state customer and received new indicators, the Program retained the original principle - providing state financial support for the purchase of housing only to selected categories of citizens.

The main financial mechanisms for implementing the program are subsidies and loans, which, according to its developers, should increase the effective demand of the population, accelerate the formation of the housing market and thus quickly alleviate the acuteness of the housing problem. According to the classical scheme, demand should influence the growth of supply and attract significant investment in the construction of affordable and comfortable housing.

In this context, the opinion of A.S. Starovoitov, in the recent past the head of the State Housing Policy Department of the Gosstroy of Russia, and now the deputy head of Rosstroi, one of the leading specialists in this field, who in 2003 - 2006 was a member of the Advisory Network on Urban Issues, deserves serious attention. and the Housing Administration of the UN Economic Commission for Europe: “The term “affordability” appeared in the vocabulary of Russian housing specialists relatively recently, when many of them began to actively cooperate with various international organizations and experts working in the field of housing policy. In international professional usage, two English words are used, translated into Russian as “availability” - “affordability” and “accessibility”.

Accessibility in the meaning of the English “affordability” has an unambiguous interpretation of social orientation in matters of housing provision and is interpreted as the ability to provide adequate housing to those categories of the population that cannot independently purchase it on market conditions, that is, as a synonym for social housing.

In UN documents, the term “affordability” of housing is interpreted as follows: “Affordable housing is housing of standard quality, provided at lower prices than it is generally offered on the local housing market. This may include subsidized rental housing, subsidized low-cost private housing, including shared ownership housing, and in some market situations, low-cost housing for sale. The town planning and housing plans of local authorities should provide for the provision of an adequate amount of affordable housing in the above sense of the word.”

The UK definition of affordable housing is: “Affordable housing” can be classified as social housing provided for rent at below market prices, and may also include other forms of sub-market housing, such as “intermediate rentals”. » (when rental rates are higher than social rent prices, but lower than market rent). In a general sense, affordable housing refers to subsidized or “low-cost” housing of any form of ownership.

The term “accessibility” in the meaning of “availability” has a completely different meaning - a sufficient supply of housing on the free market for all market mechanisms for its acquisition or rental.

It is obvious that in the “Housing” Program the authors use the term “affordability” mainly to mean the creation of a sufficient market supply of housing for various affordable options.

An analysis of the proposed mechanisms for implementing the Program allows us to conclude that almost all the steps planned by the Government of the Russian Federation are aimed only at further development and improvement of market relations in the country’s housing sector.

Based on the initial data of the Program, we can conclude that of the 61 percent of families in Russia in need of improved housing conditions, approximately half of the families (30 percent of the total number of families) in the next five years will be able to solve the housing problem due to a sharp increase in the availability of mortgage housing loans . Another approximately 9 percent of families (or 4.5 million families) are on a waiting list for improved housing conditions and may be able to obtain housing from state and municipal social use funds within five to seven years.

But even based on these optimistic forecasts, the program does not offer any measures to solve the housing problem for the remaining 22 percent of needy families, or 32 million people.”

2. New and old problems.

The demographic component of the housing problem, which previously did not receive sufficient attention, is increasingly influencing the politics and economy of the country over time. Since the processes of external migration in our country have not yet acquired significant scale, the main demographic issues are related to the indigenous population.

The trends noted by the UNECE Committee on Human Settlements are characteristic of both Western and Eastern European countries, including Russia: an increase in households with a simultaneous decrease in their average size, leads to the growth rate of demand for housing exceeding population growth; an increase in the number of single-parent families, and therefore an increase in the number of children living in single-parent families; rapid aging of the population and the associated increase in dependency, which generates additional costs that must be borne by the state.

It follows that housing construction plans must also take into account existing demographic contradictions associated with the history of the formation of the housing stock, especially in large cities.

In the material by S.M. Lyzhin “Features of the development of the age structure of the population in mass-construction houses”, posted on the website www.asm.rusk.ru, and in a number of other publications, an analysis is given, based on materials from a study conducted by the author in 1986-2005 .

The formation of the structure of the housing stock in cities is considered over significant time periods corresponding to the socio-economic stages of the country's development. In the process of forming the city’s housing stock, the population is distributed in proportion to the time of construction and occupancy of the dwelling.

Residential areas consist of different types of buildings from different periods of construction and occupation. The majority of city residents who received housing from their enterprises practically did not change their place of work and residence, remaining there until their death.

According to the 2002 population census in Russia, 58.1 percent of men and women of working age live continuously in their place of permanent residence since birth, and 14.2 percent are over working age (for comparison, the average American family changes places of residence and work during its lifetime 6-7 times).

Because of this, in large cities, in the territories of residential residential areas built in the 60-70s, various social problems are growing: there is a catastrophic lack of clinics for the elderly, the number of preschool institutions is decreasing, which, especially over the last decade, have simply disappeared , giving way to private or government offices, or in their place, houses with luxury housing have grown.

In addition, the expansion of residential areas creates transport problems; the construction of large, expensive supermarkets that are difficult for older people to access has become fashionable, while small local shops familiar to residents are closing.

The reason for such phenomena lies in the fact that the need changes over time, reflecting the demographic movement of the population, the age characteristics of the inhabitants of the city and even territories.

If earlier enterprises that attract citizens to work themselves participated in the construction of housing and social infrastructure, now this has become the concern only of the local authorities, which, having received sufficient powers, in the conditions of a sharp change in the economic legislative framework in the field of urban planning, did not have time to prepare new urban planning plans and formulate plots for mass construction. If (as a rule) construction is carried out locally on the site of demolished buildings, then it is practically very difficult to improve the existing social infrastructure.

The results of studies of the demographic structure of the population in each type of residential building at the main stages of mass housing construction revealed a number of features and regular phenomena:

1. Each stage of housing construction has its own demographic structure of the population.

2. Each age group of the population requires the creation of appropriate conditions of service and comfort.

3. During the period of mass housing construction of industrial types of houses, huge territories of mass residential development with a specific demographic composition of the population were formed, which today require taking into account age characteristics when forming the structure of new housing construction and the social service system.

Each age of a person creates its own special relationships. Whether a small child, a schoolchild, a young or an elderly person - they all have their own characteristics, needs, habits and desires that must be satisfied.

The culture of housing must ensure such a level of comfort and quality of life not only in the residential unit itself - the apartment, but also on the territory, in the general structure of residential education, so that the needs of each age group of the population are met. Ignoring these factors can lead to an increase in social discontent among the population.

Therefore, criticism of the Federal Target Program “Housing” is heard to a large extent due to the fact that, while developing financial instruments that increase the possibility of purchasing housing (mortgage), it completely left behind the scenes the issues of obtaining a stable income for a long period (the presence of production or the creation of a new one), the availability or lack of transport infrastructure, development of medical, educational and other social services. That is, there is no general figure for the volume of capital construction that needs to be completed at the stages of Project implementation. Everything is brought under the responsibility of regional and local authorities and makes it impossible to imagine the full scale of the task.

If there is a developed engineering and transport infrastructure, then indeed, demand can increase supply and the market operates according to the classical scheme.

If the listed issues have not been resolved, and we know how great the disproportion is in the development of various regions, including in terms of per capita regional income of the population, then the task of the developers of the Program to solve the housing problem was to closely link it with other priority national projects.

Hence it is clear why special attention has recently been paid to the issues of the age and social structure of the population and, in the end, was reflected when considering approaches to priority national projects.

In July 2006, the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the implementation of priority national projects was renamed, and now it is called the “Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy.”

Speaking about the progress of the implementation of the National Project, First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev said: “This is not about getting a free apartment from the state, but about earning money to purchase it. Such opportunities are created all over the world by obtaining housing on credit against certain collateral. What we simply call a mortgage.”

Therefore, we had the right to expect that there is a long-term (since a mortgage loan can be issued for a period of at least 25 years) program (or socio-economic forecast) for employment growth, providing the opportunity for millions of people to “earn money to buy an apartment.”

If we take into account the fact that over the last 15 years of the country’s history, not a single state program has been implemented in full, then we can assume that without significant adjustments to the Project, the severity of the “housing issue” will not decrease in the near future for 30-40 percent of the population.

3. Issues of urban planning and the construction complex.

A certain idealization of market relations existing in the country did not allow the authors of the Program to timely take into account the real state of affairs in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, to correlate the growth rate of construction with urban planning plans, the availability of building plots, the state of the construction complex and the construction industry.

In fact, the question of improving living conditions for millions of our citizens (especially middle-aged and elderly) who are not “Chernobyl survivors”, “northerners” or “displaced people” remained open until recently. Only a year after the start of the Project, this topic began to appear in the plans of the Russian Ministry of Regional Development.

The negative consequences of a one-time transition to new urban planning and housing legislation were not predicted either.

The Town Planning and Housing Codes of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2004, were certainly a serious step towards creating legal conditions that meet modern market requirements (open competitive procedures for land allocation for construction, simplification of approval and state examination of town planning and design documentation, new legal relations in the field residential real estate, etc.).

The project was started in conditions where these laws were not supported by the appropriate regulatory framework at the federal, regional and local levels.

In addition, both the Town Planning and Housing Codes contain many internal contradictions and require urgent amendments.

Surprisingly, neither in the general part of the Program nor in the description of program methods was there any place for questions of construction itself. The subprograms included in the Program for the formation of land plots for construction and improvement of housing and communal services, from which actual construction actually begins, set control indicators for the market on the timing and volume of housing commissioning, but at the same time leave open the question of how soon the market will respond to the offer to invest in housing construction on the required scale and is the construction industry capable of providing the construction site with everything necessary?

The Program does not even answer the question with what forces and at the expense of what resources should local authorities simultaneously solve the problem of housing for low-income citizens, from what to form a maneuverable fund, and so on?

In the current conditions, to achieve the planned construction indicators on time without a special large-scale state program based on industrial construction methods and the development of low-rise housing construction, without attracting huge investments in the production of building materials and the introduction of new technologies (including through direct government investments), without preparation highly qualified personnel for construction is almost impossible.

The market is indeed able to quickly adapt to the situation, provided that there are all the necessary incentives provided by law for this, but at the moment, the forecasts of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, even for the medium term, do not foretell significant breakthroughs in the economy.

What problems should be solved in order to achieve a significant acceleration in increasing the volume of housing construction?

One of the most serious negative factors holding back the start of large-scale construction projects is the strong lag of the regions in matters of urban planning: territorial planning, urban zoning, territory planning, architectural and construction design, construction, major repairs, reconstruction of capital construction projects.

Since the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation does not allow the allocation of land plots for capital construction in the absence of urban planning regulations, and the urban planning plans developed in the previous period are already outdated, their development will require additional costs and significant time.

The irregularity and delay in the adoption of regulations of the Government of the Russian Federation, ensuring the implementation of the norms of the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation, as well as forming the basis for the affordable housing market and technical regulation, caused the unpreparedness of local governments to begin work.

Another problem is the existing rules for the circulation of land for development. According to the Federal Antimonopoly Service, over 90 percent of land plots for housing construction in Russia in 2005 - early 2006 were allocated in violation of the law.

An analysis of compliance with legislation at the local level, made by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, indicates the prevalence of offenses specifically in the scope of the Housing Project. First of all, when providing land plots for housing construction, when registering and implementing land use rights. Land is withdrawn from circulation for the purpose of subsequent speculative resale.

Until then, the sites are idle, waiting for prices to rise, and no tax sanctions can outweigh the possible profits.

On this occasion, First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev at a meeting on March 31, 2006 on the issue “On the readiness of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities to implement the priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens” said:

“These types of deals create the basis for pyramid schemes and instability in the housing market as a whole. It is clear that in such a housing market it will never be affordable. Let’s, accordingly, think about how to encourage owners to quickly use the land for its intended purpose, that is, in other words, just build houses.”

Until now, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation is conducting inspections in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with all established procedures and, as a forced consequence, the turnover of land has slowed down significantly.

The next negative factor is the infrastructural underdevelopment of small towns and settlements, which leads to population migration to large cities. There is such a sad fact - according to the 2002 population census, over 8 percent of settlements are listed as “without population.”

Since large cities, as a rule, do not have long-term investment development programs, such migration further exacerbates the social problems existing in them (unemployment, lack of housing, medical and educational institutions, crime situation, etc.).

The influx of investment in the development of housing and communal services infrastructure is hampered by two main reasons: the depreciation of its fixed assets and the huge accounts payable of housing and communal services enterprises, which reached 307.5 billion rubles at the end of 2004.

Adopted in 2005 for the purpose of financial recovery of housing and communal services enterprises, the Federal Law “On Concession Agreements” requires the development and approval of regulatory legal acts at the federal, regional and local levels, without which it will not become an instrument of business and investment activity in this area. Consequently, the deadlines for housing and communal services reform are being pushed back, but no one has canceled the classic link “time = money” and no one has considered what losses this will result in.

4. Construction materials industry.

From the point of view of the construction community, the development of a construction site depends not only on the availability of building sites. A sharp increase in the pace of construction is possible only if it is ensured by an adequate increase in the rate of production of building materials.

Now up to 60-70 percent of the production capacity of existing enterprises is worn out, the technologies used are outdated, and material and energy costs are extremely high. Given the existing payback periods (at least 8-10 years) and profitability indicators, the production of, for example, an additional 1 million tons of cement will require more than 4 billion rubles, which is impossible without direct investment from the state, although in certain circles there is a principled opinion that that investment in the market is only a matter for private capital.

Today, 60 percent of enterprises producing building materials are concentrated in the European part of Russia, so their supplies to the regions of Siberia and the Far East lead to a significant increase in construction costs. In order to correctly and optimally locate the production base of the construction industry, a clear, detailed housing construction program is required, based on the real needs for specific types of housing in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Finally, after numerous speeches by the Association of Builders of Russia at the end of 2006, a specific set of measures for the development of the building materials industry in the Russian Federation began to be considered at the government level, providing for various measures of state support for the industry.

5. Construction safety issues.

The construction of comfortable housing implies both its reliability and safety during long-term operation.

In this regard, one cannot help but call the situation critical with the development and adoption of technical regulations in the field of construction safety, which from January 1, 2010, in accordance with the Federal Law “On Technical Regulation” should replace the old SNiPs developed by the State Construction Committee of Russia, but due to bureaucratic delays at one time not registered by the Russian Ministry of Justice.

The development of technical regulations has been carried out since 2003, but the process of development and adoption has been unjustifiably delayed and, as a result, today construction is not provided with a legitimate regulatory framework.

At the same time, developers of technical regulations are faced with systemic problems.

The most significant difference between the Federal Law “On Technical Regulation” and similar laws adopted in European and CIS countries is the scope of its application.

The scope of application of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of December 27, 2002 extends to the safety of production processes. As a result, issues of technical regulation are beginning to include, in particular, issues of labor protection and safety, which belong to a completely different legal field. When implementing the Law, there is no unified methodology, as a result of which special technical regulations are developed in the absence of general technical regulations.

In addition, during the development of technical regulations, problems emerged that, according to specialists from the ASR Construction Department, headed by M.I. Kaykov, are systemic in nature.

Similar conclusions were made by the participants of the International Conference “International Standardization: A Way to Increase the Economic Efficiency of Russian Oil and Gas Complex Enterprises”, organized by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs:

“...the proposed principles of technical regulation are fundamentally different from the principles of technical regulation approved by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE; adopted by the EU countries and almost all CIS countries; thus, the ongoing technical reform does not actually take into account that the share of European countries The vast majority of Russia's trade turnover comes from the CIS;

Unlike the EU, CIS and EurAsEC countries, the scope of technical regulations includes the safety of production processes not only in terms of ensuring product safety, but also in terms of occupational health and safety, leading to the need for radical changes to current legislation in other legal areas, as well as development and adoption by federal laws of a significantly larger number of regulations than necessary (according to some estimates, up to 700);

in the international practice of technical regulation, product safety issues are resolved by type of hazard, but in Russia an industry-wide approach to the creation of technical regulations is being implemented, which leads to repeated repetition of identical safety requirements in similar regulations of each industry system;

Unlike European directives, where only general requirements for product safety are given, and all specific characteristics are given in standards harmonized with this directive, the Russian Federation proposes a method of “unpacking standards”, that is, a significant part of specific norms is removed and transferred from standards to technical regulations, which will lead in the future to multiple rewriting of regulations and the need for their adoption by federal laws every time these standards change with the emergence of new products or new technologies...”

The Association of Builders of Russia has repeatedly raised the issue of systemic errors inherent in this law and relating to construction.

For example, the Law contains a requirement to develop general technical regulations in construction with the title “On the safe operation of buildings, structures, structures and the safe use of adjacent territories,” which means that the safety requirements for research, design, and construction are not included in the general technical regulations will be installed. This approach is dangerous, especially against the backdrop of the recent increase in accidents during construction, often accompanied by human casualties.

Therefore, without waiting for final decisions at the state level, the Council of the Russian Builders Association made a decision on mandatory compliance by all its members with 14 fundamental SNiPs. These standards are aimed at ensuring the protection of the life and health of citizens, the property of individuals and legal entities, state and municipal property, environmental protection, compliance with environmental standards, and the prevention of actions that mislead consumers.

In conditions where the regulatory framework in construction is purely advisory in nature, the ACP took upon itself to comply with construction standards that do not work in Russia today, and obligated all founders and members of the ACP to comply with them.

These Construction Codes and Rules, until the state adopts the relevant technical regulations, will become mandatory for all organizations included in the ASR, and will allow them to carry out construction activities in a unified legal framework with the necessary responsibility for the work carried out.

Another feature noted by many experts. Among the developers of laws relating to construction, there are no professional builders and architects with practical experience in this area, hence the large number of errors that require immediate correction.

6. National project and tasks for builders.

What tasks should builders solve in the coming years in order to at least alleviate the acuteness of the housing problem?

Housing needs are characterized by the following figures:

over 60 percent of the country's population would like to improve their living conditions;

about 5 million families (almost 15 million people), most of which are low-income citizens, are in line to receive apartments;

to 1014 thousand citizens (including veterans and disabled people - 306 thousand people, citizens belonging to other categories - 708 thousand people) the Russian Federation, in accordance with federal legislation, has state obligations to provide housing.

In 2005, 43.2 million sq.m. of housing were commissioned. (with a planned forecast of 45-46 million sq.m.). At the same time, the growth rate decreased twofold: if in 2004, 13 percent more housing was commissioned compared to 2003, then in 2005 it was only 6.2 percent more than in 2004.

The maximum volumes of housing commissioning in Russia were achieved in 1987 and amounted to 76 million square meters. meters, a sharp reduction in the volume of housing construction began in 1992 and continued until 1999; since 2002, there has been a slow but steady increase in the volume of housing commissioning. The result of 2006 is 50.2 million sq.m.

In the current structure of commissioned housing, mass (dense) construction accounts for about 60 percent, i.e. about 27 million sq.m. per year, therefore, the existing volumes and rates of housing construction only slightly cover the disposal of the housing stock due to the transfer of housing into dilapidated and emergency stock (20-24 million sq.m.).

In the regions, housing is being built extremely unevenly. Thus, in 76 regions of the Russian Federation (with the exception of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Samara, Astrakhan regions, the Republics of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan) no more than 14-16 million square meters of economy-class housing are being built. m. per year. There is a particularly strong disproportion between large and small cities.

At the same time, in recent years the structure of newly built housing has changed in terms of comfort.

If we talk about the comfort of housing as one of the priorities of the national housing project, bearing in mind the improvement of its consumer qualities, then there are already trends towards this: in 1995 and 2004, the number of housing built was almost equal, but in 2004, 125 thousand families received apartments less, which is caused by the construction of larger apartments. In 1995 and 2004, 41.0 million square meters were commissioned. living space.

In 1995, the average size of the total area of apartments was 68.2 sq.m.

In 2004, the average size of the total area of apartments was 86.0 sq.m.

In this case, the market quickly responded to demand, while forming a new attitude among the population to the concepts of comfort.

But from the point of view of financial accessibility (available), the housing market has developed an extremely unfavorable situation.

The affordability coefficient adopted for assessments in the Federal Target Program “Housing” (the ratio of the average cost of an apartment, calculated according to social standards adopted in the Russian Federation - 18 sq.m. per person, to the total income of the average family), indicates a steady increase in housing affordability, despite extremely low incomes of the vast majority of the population.

However, in conditions of extremely small volumes of housing construction and a huge gap between the maximum and minimum incomes of citizens, this parameter does not reflect the real state of affairs and is more reminiscent of the “average temperature in a hospital.”

Indeed, housing built in 2005 (43.2 million sq.m.), in terms of social norms, was able to satisfy about 750 thousand families (the average Russian family is 3.2 people), and according to Rosstat, the number of families with income sufficient to solve their housing problem on their own (including purchasing housing with the help of mortgage loans) is at least 4 million (9-10 percent of the total number of Russian families).

Due to the serious increase in prices for housing and communal services and the significant share of utility bills in family budgets, the housing affordability factor should include not only the costs of purchasing an apartment, but also its subsequent operation.

By the way, in some cases, housing affordability is understood as a kind of connecting factor between the financial market and the real estate market. Then it can be assessed through real estate prices. In our case, the continuous rise in prices in both the primary and secondary markets indicates unsatisfied effective demand for housing.

Estimates of the residential real estate price index show that inflation in the housing segment of the consumer market is more than 2 times higher than the national average inflation rates in other sectors of the economy.

Natural economic limiters to the uncontrollable rise in housing prices are conditions under which an increase in supply, outpacing demand in the housing market, makes it profitable to work with turnover. Otherwise, low-cost housing will continue to be washed out of the market.

On average, housing prices across the country increased by almost 50 percent in 2006. Only in the third quarter of 2006 was there a decline in the rate of price growth, which, for example, in Moscow exceeded 100 thousand rubles per square meter of total area (according to Rosstat, the cost of living in the 1st quarter of 2006 was about 2,690 rubles, and cash income per capita in August 2006 in the Russian Federation amounted to 10,066 rubles).

However, the ratio of different population groups by income is such that the market is now potentially capable of absorbing a five-fold supply of volumes and therefore can withstand rates of price growth that were not seen during the entire previous period.

The direct dependence of the growth in housing prices on the pace of construction can be seen in the example of the Siberian Federal District, where the growth rate of housing commissioning was the highest (up to 15 percent), and prices increased the least (by 15-20 percent).

In addition, according to analysts and sociological surveys, the rise in prices is due to several more reasons:

active promotion in 2004 of a package of laws aimed at creating an affordable housing market, which convinced citizens that prices would soon decline. In this regard, pent-up demand arose, which began to be realized in 2005. The nervousness that arose in the banking sector in the summer of 2004 (this factor was especially evident in Moscow) also played a certain role in intensifying this trend;

entry into force on April 1, 2005 of the Federal Law of December 31, 2004 No. 214-FZ “On participation in shared construction of apartment buildings and other real estate and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Shared Construction ) negatively affected the supply of housing under construction (according to various sources, the reduction was 20-30 percent). Developers began to refrain from developing new sites for residential development. This factor will begin to manifest itself with greater force when the sale of housing built on sites developed before the introduction of this law is completed;

the introduction of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation and the beginning of the “redistribution” of land property - according to land allotments for the purpose of housing construction. A striking example here is Chelyabinsk, where in 2005 the price per square meter more than doubled;

a certain impact of mortgage lending on the growth of housing prices through an increase in effective demand.

In regions with a relatively developed housing mortgage lending system, a correlation with price dynamics can be noticed. The rise in prices on the secondary housing market (and so far, almost 90 percent of purchase and sale transactions using a mortgage are on the secondary market) in Bashkortostan, Chuvashia, the Orenburg and Samara regions is faster than the rise in prices on the market of housing under construction and indirectly affects the overall rise in prices.

There is another way to look at the problem of pricing in construction. For example, Pavel Goryachkin, director of the Department of Pricing in Construction and Expert Analytical Work of the Association of Builders of Russia, believes that government bodies, both federal and local, are to blame, which, having destroyed the existing system of providing land plots and shared participation in construction, offered instead ineffective and dysfunctional scheme. At the same time, construction companies, even temporarily receiving increased profits due to rising prices, should be considered, like citizens, “victims of the unfolding crisis,” because the most far-sighted of company leaders directly say that they are afraid of a future inevitable decline in the market and do not know where to invest money earned from rush demand. In many cities there is virtually no free access to land where one can invest money and where construction can be started.

In addition, the widely promoted increase in budgetary support for bank mortgages through the provision of guarantees to the Russian Federation for borrowings from the Housing Mortgage Lending Agency (from 4 billion rubles in 2005 to 14 billion rubles in 2006) gives rise to inflationary expectations. For developed markets, such a volume of financial injections would not be noticeable, but in Russia the mortgage market is just getting on its feet.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that even without significant volumes of mortgage lending, the balance of supply and demand in the housing market is disrupted.

According to information from regional mortgage operators, in many regions of the Russian Federation it is easier to get a mortgage loan than to find a built apartment. In addition, in the new edition of the Federal Target Program “Housing”, the funds provided (mainly state guarantees) for stimulating supply in the housing market will begin to bring the planned return in the form of new buildings no earlier than in 2 years, and even then with strict adherence to deadlines planned by Rosstroi.

7. Social significance of the Project.

Why is the priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens” so important in political and economic terms? What is the role and place of the state in the management and implementation of the Project at the present stage of its socio-economic development?

The majority of Russian citizens place improvement of living conditions in one of the first places among other life priorities. Consequently, the level of social tension and political temperature in society largely depends on the possibility of meeting citizens’ needs for housing.

Therefore, affordable and comfortable housing is the most important component of the material basis for achieving the goals of priority national projects in the fields of health, education and agriculture.

From surveys by the Public Opinion Foundation it follows that perhaps it was the high level of population dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the housing sector that predetermined quite significant interest in the national project “Affordable Housing”.

Almost two thirds of Russians (61 percent) already know or have heard something about this project, about a third (36 percent) have not yet heard of it. The level of awareness about the “Affordable Housing” project turned out to be noticeably higher than the corresponding figure for the “health” (48 percent) and “education” (39 percent) projects.

Of all the areas of the “Affordable Housing” project, apparently two are of the greatest interest - “financial assistance to young families when buying a home” and “increasing the volume of mortgage lending.” 39 percent and 37 percent of respondents, respectively, have heard about these project areas.

Russians’ expectations related to the national project “Affordable Housing” can be called cautiously optimistic. 40 percent of respondents believe that the implementation of this project will improve the situation with the provision of housing to the population, 33 percent of respondents hold the opposite point of view - the national project will not improve the situation (27 percent found it difficult to answer this question). At the same time, 16 percent of respondents expect significant improvements, and 24 percent believe that they will be insignificant.

It is significant that positive changes in the housing sector from the implementation of the national project are much more often expected by those who believe that the situation here today is “good” or “satisfactory.” At the same time, respondents who assess the housing situation negatively more often do not expect any improvements.

These indicators characterize the social significance of the Project.

Solving the housing problem requires not only the investment of huge financial resources, both budgetary and private, but also the joint efforts of all branches of government, the financial and construction business community.

Such cooperation, in addition to solving the direct problem of housing construction, will give impetus to the growth of other sectors of the economy, since the construction industry, being a system-forming one, directly influences the development of metallurgy, energy, mechanical engineering, transport and other industries.

The problems that have accumulated in the housing sector are so acute that they have become a brake on the socio-economic development of the country, negatively affecting the rational allocation of production potential and labor resources, not to mention the direct negative impact on the demographic situation.

At all stages of the development of our state, starting from the first years of Soviet power, measures were taken to resolve the housing issue.

At the very beginning, this was more in the nature of expropriation and was carried out through the so-called “densification” and the creation of apartments - communes. The most striking literary example of the formation of the institution of communal apartments of that period is the work of Mikhail Bulgakov “The Heart of a Dog”.

However, “communal apartments”, having at one time solved the immediate problem of providing housing for one part of the population at the expense of another, after decades turned into a tangle of problems that had to be unraveled in parallel with the restoration of cities destroyed by the war.

The only successful attempt to solve the housing problem can be considered the large-scale housing construction program initiated by N.S. Khrushchev, although it did not solve all the problems (communal apartments still exist today), but provided a qualitative breakthrough in the field of housing construction.

In the 60s, housing construction was carried out within the framework of the administrative-command system exclusively at the expense of budgetary funds by government contractors.

The priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for citizens of Russia” is not comparable to the housing program of the sixties either in its scale or in terms of the complexity and complexity of the tasks set.

More than 70 percent of the housing stock belongs not to the state, but to citizens; almost all construction organizations and industries are private, so the state cannot directly manage the construction process, as it was before.

Today, the relationship between the state and the population is based on legislation and market mechanisms that combine private investment (including public funds) with government support in the form of targeted budget subsidies, government guarantees and loans.

The success of the Project is largely determined by the activities of private investors, developers and contractors.

In this regard, a necessary condition for its effective implementation is the support of the plans by the direct executor - the Russian construction business, united in its own trade unions and associations operating on the principles of self-regulation.

Many years of practice have convinced us that monopolistic state regulation of the construction industry (licensing, architectural and construction supervision, technical regulation, etc.) cannot provide the required efficiency, as evidenced by the decline in the quality of housing construction, the increasing incidence of accidents and destruction of public buildings.

We need partnerships between the state, investors and builders - as the only way to achieve the goals of the National Project in the established volumes and time frames.

8. Self-regulation in the construction industry.

The administrative reform of 2003, initiated by the President of the Russian Federation, precisely assumed the limitation of state intervention in the economic activities of business entities, including the cessation of excessive state regulation, in combination with the development of a system of self-regulatory organizations in the field of economics.

If the first task was completed within a short period of time, the development of the system of self-regulatory organizations has slowed down, since the federal law on self-regulatory organizations has not yet been adopted.

A gradual transition to self-regulation involves the development and creation of special mechanisms for collective liability, compulsory liability insurance for developers and contractors.

What is the advantage of self-regulation?

As a rule, self-regulatory norms are more flexible than those established by the state and are easier to adapt to changing conditions.

Members of a self-regulatory organization (hereinafter referred to as SRO) have more legal opportunities to influence its policies than the policies of government bodies, including through the election of governing bodies of self-regulatory organizations.

Control of the activities of SRO members by their own control bodies turns out to be more effective in influencing and applying internal administrative and economic sanctions to SRO members, which cause less rejection among market participants than sanctions applied by the state.

Mechanisms for pre-trial resolution of disputes between consumers and producers of goods/services formed in SROs are usually cheaper for the parties and take less time than court proceedings. Dispute resolution procedures are better adapted to the conditions of a specific field of activity and the characteristics of relationships between market participants than standard judicial procedures.

The creation of self-regulatory organizations can have a positive impact on society's attitude towards business, including by increasing the openness of business and its social orientation.

It is impossible not to mention the disadvantages of self-regulation inherent in its nature:

the requirements imposed on members of an SRO are, as a rule, quite serious and may not apply to market outsiders (with the exception of special regulation through mandatory membership in an SRO);

the creation of additional barriers to entry into the industry (high membership fees, a given level of professional or civil liability insurance, high level of contributions to compensation funds, etc.) can lead to increased prices for goods/services of SRO members;

distrust on the part of society in the ability of business or professional associations to independently ensure regulation of a certain area and control of compliance with established standards and rules;

the possible emergence of a contradiction between the task of protecting the interests of its own members and business as a whole and the need to act in the interests of the whole society.

It should be taken into account that in practice, some advantages may remain unrealized, just as a number of disadvantages can be overcome by developing special procedures and mechanisms within the framework of the SRO. This mainly gives rise to disputes between supporters and opponents of self-regulation.

Nevertheless, the advantages of self-regulation, which has been used in world practice for several days now, are obvious:

independence of self-regulatory organizations from government agencies, the presence of their own bodies and control mechanisms;

transparency of self-regulation processes, consumer orientation, social orientation;

independent and stable financial support for self-regulatory processes, including on the basis of advanced investment standards;

increasing competence in accreditation and certification of organizations, certification and certification of personnel, as well as many others that contribute to the dynamic development of the market and business.

It is necessary to adopt this law as soon as possible, as well as to introduce appropriate changes and additions to other regulatory legal acts regulating activities in the construction market.

In this regard, the adoption of building standards mandatory for all members of the ACP is only the first step in the implementation of an experiment to introduce self-regulation in the Moscow construction complex, which is being carried out by the Association of Russian Builders.

Such an experiment can confirm in practice the feasibility of adopting a law on self-regulatory organizations and become indicative in terms of the implementation in practice of the norms proposed in the concept of the law even before it comes into force.

In addition, in preparation for the transition to the principles of self-regulation, the Legal Department of the ACP (department director A.S. Samoilov), together with the State Duma Committee on Property, prepared a draft Federal Law “On Amendments to the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation” (in terms of self-regulation of activities in engineering surveys, architectural and construction design and construction of capital construction projects), and documents have been developed to ensure the transition of ASR to self-regulation:

New edition of the Charter of the Russian Builders Association;

Regulations on the General Meeting (Congress) of members of the Association of Builders of Russia;

Regulations for holding meetings of the General Meeting (Congress) of members of the Association of Builders of Russia;

Regulations on the Council of the Russian Builders Association;

Regulations on the Audit Commission of the Russian Builders Association;

Regulations on the Committee on Rules and Standards of the Russian Builders Association;

Regulations on the Control Committee of the Association of Builders of Russia;

Regulations on the Disciplinary Committee of the Russian Builders Association.

As we can see, the Russian Builders Association took care of the regulatory documents in advance.

Unfortunately, during the administrative reform, among others, the Government Commission on Housing Policy was abolished, the absence of which (prior to the formation of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation) had a negative impact on the development of the national housing project, since the “think tank” that united representatives of federal and regional government bodies, as well as public and scientific organizations.

At the same time, the State Construction Committee of Russia was liquidated.

The reduction of its apparatus, which ensured the regulation and management of processes in construction, housing and communal services and housing policy, led to the loss of the most professional personnel, which could not but affect the continuity in stability and quality of work in the formation of housing and construction policy.

For reference: The number of Gosstroy of Russia at the time of liquidation was 460 staff units. The maximum number of members of the Federal Agency for Construction and Housing and Communal Services, which carries out the functions of providing public services, managing state property and law enforcement functions in the field of construction and housing and communal services, is set at 183 units. For comparison: in the most market-oriented country, which is the United States, there is a Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the number of which, together with regional divisions, is 12.5 thousand employees; in Germany, a similar specialized ministry has 3.5 thousand employees.

This is evidenced by the progress of development and adoption:

a package of laws aimed at creating an affordable housing market, the quality of which has a huge number of complaints not only from professional participants in the housing construction market, but also from lawyers. The negative socio-economic consequences of legislative miscalculations have already begun to appear and the situation will worsen if we do not immediately begin to finalize the legislation (notable examples are the Town Planning and Housing Codes of the Russian Federation, the law on shared-equity construction and a number of others);

regulatory legal acts necessary to implement the provisions of adopted federal laws. More than half of these documents were not prepared in a timely manner, as a result of which the laws do not actually work;

the new edition of the Federal Target Program “Housing” for 2002-2010, the development of which was delayed until the start of the new financial year 2006, as a result of which the regions received it very late, without having a reserve of time for timely preparation;

regulatory legal acts ensuring the implementation of measures provided for by the Federal Target Program “Housing”. As a consequence, there is a delay from the deadlines established by the schedule approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 14, 2005 No. 1926-r.

At the board of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia, held on July 5, 2006, which considered the issue “On the practical implementation of the priority National Project “Affordable and Comfortable Housing for Russian Citizens” and the federal target program “Housing” for 2002-2010,” it was announced that the program implementation schedule , approved in January 2006 by order of the Minister of Regional Development, was disrupted in a number of positions and their implementation was postponed to the 3rd quarter.

In addition, according to the head of Rosstroy S.I. Kruglik, in accordance with the Schedule for the issuance and distribution of state housing certificates for 2006, at the end of June of this year, certificate forms were issued and sent to the regions and federal executive authorities for issuance to citizens participating in the subprogram. However, at the time of the meeting, the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia had not determined the average market value of 1 sq. m. m of total housing area by constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the 3rd quarter of 2006 and the standard cost of 1 sq. m. m of total housing area in the Russian Federation for the 2nd half of 2006. At the same time, the validity of the certificates is limited to a period of 2 months from the moment the executive authorities receive the certificate forms.

Thus, there is a lack of positive effect from the reform and absolute indifference of ministerial officials to the needs of citizens, for whom these certificates are the last hope to solve the housing problem.

Despite the measures taken by the Government of the Russian Federation, sometimes it still seems that the place and role of state authorities in the organization and management of the National Housing Project, as well as the forms and degree of state participation in stimulating the processes of dynamic development of housing construction, have not been fully determined.

In the practical implementation of state housing policy by officials at various levels, in order to justify their inaction, the insufficiency of budgetary and extra-budgetary resources allocated to the housing sector has always come first.

To prevent this virus from infecting the National Project, it is necessary to transfer housing financing issues to the level of public-private partnership.

The analysis shows that the main reason for the acute shortage of investment and borrowing resources in the housing sector is the ineffective intervention (or ineffective non-interference) of the state in market relations.

We have not yet fully passed the stage of transition from an administrative-command system to a developed market economy, therefore, many citizens, especially the older generation, still have fresh memories of the successes of implementing large projects that were solved in the USSR through the concentration of efforts and mobilization of state financial resources for strategic important socio-economic areas (nuclear programs, space, virgin lands, housing construction, BAM and others).

Hence the natural desire of some government officials to actively intervene in the market in order to direct things in a commanding manner in the “right direction.”

There is still administrative pressure on regional authorities from the federal center in order to ensure increased housing commissioning rates. The temptation is still too great to report to the top about the implementation of plans in accordance with the “settings” of the national Project. This involuntarily takes us back to the recent past, when an almost imperceptible adjustment of numbers to the expected results “calmed” society.

The results of the past 2006 gave rise to increased optimism among managers of various ranks regarding the achieved volumes of housing commissioning, which gives grounds to compare them with the achievements of the late 80s - early 90s.

Indeed, according to Rosstat, in 2006, 50.2 million square meters were put into operation, which amounted to 115.2 percent by 2005, while in 2005 the growth rate of housing construction by 2004 was 106 .1 percent. At the same time, 19.8 million sq.m. built by the population using their own and borrowed funds, which is 13.1 percent higher than in 2005.

Unfortunately, a simple calculation shows that from the highest achievement in housing commissioning in Russia within the USSR of 76 million square meters, achieved in 1987, the 2006 data is only 66 percent.

But even the value of 50.2 million sq.m. raises doubts among many independent experts who have information about the state of affairs in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In a number of regions, housing with significant deficiencies and without connection to utility networks is being accepted and registered, or housing built in previous years is being rapidly registered. If we assume that the official statistics were obtained in this way, then the deviation may exceed the real figures by 10 - 15 percent. Thus, there was obviously no qualitative increase in housing construction volumes in 2006.

Consequently, so far we have not come very close to achieving the main goal of the Project - the affordability of housing has not increased, the imbalance between supply and demand in the housing market has not decreased, since household incomes have increased by 10 percent, and the main negative factor causing the rise in housing prices has remained.

9. State and business.

When the state acts as an investor (for example, in the construction of social housing for low-income categories of citizens), it has the right to regulate housing prices, which does not contradict market ideology, since the rules of the game in the market are always set by the investor.

The goal of the investor-state is also to make a profit, the only difference being that for him, profit is an effective solution to social problems.

In addition to increasing the efficiency of using budget investments, such regulation will have a positive impact on the behavior of professional market participants.

Extremely liberal ideas, according to which the market itself will put everything in its place, it is enough just to stimulate effective demand, and an investor will be found to invest in housing construction, are consonant only with countries with developed economies and established markets.

In our conditions, the market will also put everything in its place, the only question is when, in what time frame?

Proponents of such a liberal approach often cite as an example the glass industry in the Moscow region, where private investment without any financial participation from the state made it possible to create large production facilities (in particular, a plant in the city of Ramenki, Moscow region).

But at the same time they are silent that it took about 5 years for investors to “ripen”, and at that time Moscow received more expensive (due to transportation costs) and lower quality windows from the Saratov region.

Private investment will also come to the cement industry, but not immediately (due to long payback periods), and with a high probability from near and far abroad, although the state could well formulate its own targeted investment housing program.

If we want an accelerated solution to the problem of housing affordability in almost extreme conditions, then the state does not have the right to calmly watch and wait until the private investor realizes his social responsibility or when objective conditions favorable for investment are ripe.

When developing a package of laws aimed at creating an affordable housing market, a substitution of goals occurred, wittingly or unwittingly. The emphasis was placed on regulatory support for structural changes in the housing sector. It should be clearly understood that any reform is a very painful process of getting used to working under the new rules.

As a result, the not very developed market responded by increasing prices, and the responsible intentions of the state remained only good intentions.

The strategic goal of the National Housing Project should be to provide citizens with affordable and comfortable housing in the shortest possible time, and the development of mechanisms aimed at stimulating market relations should be a derivative of this goal (and not vice versa).

The state, within the framework of the developed transparent mechanisms of public-private partnership, should become a direct co-investor:

development of the defining segments of the construction industry base (a strategy and forecast for the development of the construction complex must be proposed and carefully worked out, with an emphasis on the advanced commissioning of housing, and the criteria for its affordability should be the determining factor);

infrastructure provision of territories intended for housing development, including through the investment component of tariffs of natural monopolies on the basis of regional investment programs that take into account the forecast of socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Of course, as the economic sector matures, this process will not be abrupt.

Thus, the main prerequisite for the successful implementation of the National Housing Project at the stage of transition economy is the precise determination of the degree and forms of state participation, the place and role of authorities in the organization and management of the Project.

If we look again into our history, we will be convinced that the peculiarity of the Soviet housing program was the need to resettle tens of thousands of people from basements, barracks and dugouts, and resettle multi-family communal apartments. Therefore, the requirement for comfort was understood in a very simplified manner and was reduced to a minimum of utilities, and the main parameter of accessibility was the number of individual apartments built and the order of the place in the queue for housing.

Look at the joyful faces of people on old newsreels, all of whose household belongings could be transported on a cat. They had in their hands a treasured warrant for a separate apartment, even a tiny one, and this could only be equated to a feeling of joy on Victory Day.

Today we are dealing with a qualitatively different socio-economic situation. The requirements for comfort (or in the old sense, livability) of housing have become different, more diverse and corresponding to the real incomes of citizens.

A clear formulation of criteria for housing affordability for various categories of citizens (in time and territorial terms) is required, on the basis of which quantitative indicators, stages and mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Project can be clearly identified. The methodological basis for determining housing affordability will allow regions to adopt their own regional programs that take into account:

forecasts of socio-economic development of regions, including labor resource needs;

condition and structure of the existing housing stock;

the state of engineering and social infrastructure, public energy and housing and communal services in general;

opportunities and prospects for the development of the construction industry base and housing construction technology, from the point of view of local raw materials, as well as formed preferences and ideas about the comfort of housing.

At the same time, it is necessary to once again clearly distinguish between the concepts of “social” accessibility and “market” and determine their proportion.

When organizing information and analytical support and monitoring of Project implementation, it is necessary to pay special attention to reflecting:

sufficiency of growth rates in housing construction volumes;

the structure of the housing being built (design solutions and construction technologies) and the form of its subsequent implementation (purchase, rental, social rental);

balancing effective demand, the needs of regional labor markets and supply in the housing market;

close linkage of investment and construction projects with the creation of communal infrastructure in areas intended for residential development.

A search and selection of optimal, from the point of view of accessibility, design and technological solutions for housing construction should be carried out.

By the way, such information has already been posted on a special website of the Council under the President of Russia for the implementation of priority national projects and demographic policy.

10. General tasks.

What are the main stages to go through to achieve the goals of the priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens”?

The essence of the state housing policy is based on the fundamental provision of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “The Russian Federation is a social state, the policy of which is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of people” (Article 7).

This situation was reflected in the development of the state housing policy strategy:

in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 11, 2000 No. 28 “On the concept of development of the housing mortgage lending system in the Russian Federation”;

in the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation of 2000 on the Strategy of State Housing Policy;

in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 17, 2001 No. 675 on the federal target program “Housing” for 2002-2010;

in the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 26, 2002 “On the progress of reforming the housing and communal services complex of the Russian Federation”;

in the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 20, 2003. “On the progress of implementation of decisions taken on the development of mortgage lending and additional measures in this area”;

during the discussion at the Presidium of the State Council of the Russian Federation on the issue “On the development of mortgages and other measures to stimulate housing construction” dated February 27, 2003 and subsequent Instructions of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 27, 2003;

in the decision of the Board of the Gosstroy of Russia from 2003 “On reforming the Federal Target Program “Housing” for 2002 - 2010”;

in the decision of the Board of the State Construction Committee of Russia from 2003 “On the strategy for the development of the construction industry”;

during the discussion at the Presidium of the State Council of the Russian Federation on the issue “On measures to provide Russian citizens with affordable housing” dated April 19, 2005 and subsequent instructions of the President of the Russian Federation.

Consistent implementation of this Strategy should lead in practice to increasing the affordability of housing for all categories of citizens:

the state provides effective social protection for low-income (socially vulnerable) citizens by providing them with housing from state and municipal housing funds for social purposes at the expense of budget funds under social rental contracts;

For all other citizens, housing is either provided under a rental agreement or acquired by them as property.

At the same time, the state provides certain categories of citizens with exclusively targeted financial support (targeted housing subsidies), which reduces social tensions caused by existing property inequality.

Achieving this lies on the path to solving the following tasks.

Objective 1. Providing housing for low-income citizens.

Without solving this problem, we will see an increase in social tension in society.

The adopted concept of the priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens” almost completely excludes issues of providing housing for low-income citizens, although the Housing Code of the Russian Federation pays enough attention to this category.

It is clear that caring for these citizens is the responsibility of municipalities, but the housing project is National, and therefore the solution to the housing problem of this category of citizens should be reflected in it.

It should be emphasized that effective social protection of low-income citizens is possible only if the economic system functions in such a way that ensures sustainable GDP growth and the filling of budgets at all levels.

This is achieved as a result of the activities of socially and economically active layers of society, primarily the middle class, which has stable employment, fairly high earnings, education (professional qualifications), and social security.

Consequently, ensuring decent living conditions specifically for the middle class is the basis on which state housing policy should be built. This consistency in building state policy for the development of the affordable housing market is the key to solving the housing problem for the entire population of the country.

A necessary condition for ensuring affordable housing for the able-bodied working population is the maximum stimulation of (solvent) demand while simultaneously balancing a balanced increase in the volume of housing commissioning.

The growth in housing construction will increase the efficiency of using budget funds for socially vulnerable segments of the population.

Task 2. Formation of mechanisms to ensure the functioning of the affordable housing market.

In the National Housing Project, increasing demand (solvent) is carried out within the framework of the subprograms of the Federal Target Program “Housing”.

The cost of programs related to increasing the (solvent) demand of the population is 588.6 billion rubles.

Including, at the expense of the federal budget - 187.4 billion rubles, regional budgets - 77.6 billion rubles, private investments (including funds from the population) - 323.6 billion rubles.

At the same time, the developers of the Federal Target Program “Housing” do not take into account the different nature of budget funds - direct investments and state guarantees.

Since government guarantees serve only as security for attracted loans, the real volume of budget investments is actually smaller. Therefore, 138 billion rubles planned in the form of guarantees for AHML obligations should be excluded from the calculation.

A positive aspect of the Federal Target Program “Housing” is the unification under the management of a single State customer of previously disparate subprograms and the transfer of all budget funding to a certificate form (proposal of the State Construction Committee of Russia in 2003).

In this section of the Program it is planned to provide apartments to 132 thousand families over 5 years.

At the same time, over the previous 5 years (2001-2005), only within the framework of the Presidential program “State Housing Certificates”, about 120 thousand families of military personnel who were discharged or being dismissed from military service received apartments. Thus, no breakthrough is visible, everything will remain at the level of the previous period. If this is caused by a gradual transition to providing housing for military personnel under a new mortgage scheme, then the Program should have indicated the stages and duration of the transition period.

The planned volumes of budget investments are based on clearly underestimated, rather than actually prevailing, prices on the housing market. As a result, citizens in many cases will not be able to purchase housing according to social standards, but will be forced to either buy apartments of a smaller area, or try to cash out funds secured by certificates, or purchase housing on the secondary market, which in many cases does not correspond to modern ideas about comfort.

To prevent this you need to:

develop methods for calculating the price per square meter of housing based on price indices to determine the cost of the certificate, maximally reflecting the real level of market prices for housing;

develop mechanisms that allow the use of funds provided by certificates to create offers on the housing market (proposals for a similar mechanism were developed by the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Construction Committee back in 2003). You can also use mechanisms for investing in housing construction through mutual funds.

This problem is also relevant for the savings-mortgage housing system for military personnel, since the relevant Federal Law of August 20, 2004 No. 117-FZ only stipulates the mechanism for accumulating funds for the purchase of housing, but not its actual purchase.

Task 3. Formation of a fund for commercial use (so-called apartment buildings).

The solution to this problem is currently hampered by the underdeveloped housing finance infrastructure. In particular, financial institutions such as investment funds (mutual funds in the real estate category) should be developed.

This task is ignored in the adopted concept of the National Project. The lack of appropriate legislation in the context of the growing need for renting apartments has already led to an increase in the crime situation, the emergence of robbery groups who, taking advantage of impunity due to gaps in housing legislation, literally terrorize apartment tenants in the private sector.

Task 4. Development of housing affordability criteria for various categories of citizens.

The problem of housing affordability can be solved by a housing finance system based on a differentiated approach to categories of citizens, including investment plans for the development of municipal infrastructure of territories, housing construction, mechanisms for reliable accumulation of funds by citizens and long-term housing lending in combination with targeted government support.

The number and size of targeted housing subsidies should be closely linked to budget capacity, the country’s socio-economic development priorities (including demographic and migration policies) and family income.

It is impossible to establish quantitative and qualitative indicators of the Project without formulating the concept of housing affordability criteria for various categories of citizens living in different regions of Russia in large and small cities and settlements.

The financial inclusion coefficient alone, on which the program indicators of the Federal Targeted Program “Housing” are based, is absolutely insufficient in this case.

Task 5. Increasing supply on the housing market.

In the approved Federal Target Program “Housing” for 2002-2010, budget funds are allocated to:

financing of the Subprogram “Providing land plots with communal infrastructure for housing construction” (377.1 billion rubles);

financing of the Subprogram “Modernization of Utility Infrastructure Facilities” (101.677 billion rubles).

The total cost of subprograms aimed at increasing supply in the housing market is 478.8 billion rubles, including:

at the expense of the federal budget - 55.7 billion rubles;

funds from regional budgets - 44.1 billion rubles;

funds from private investors - 379.0 billion rubles (the amount of state guarantees of 177 billion rubles is excluded from the calculations for the same reasons as in the direction of mortgage lending).

A positive aspect is the redirection of funds from the subprogram “Resettlement of citizens from dilapidated and dilapidated housing” to the creation of communal infrastructure, which, in principle, will make it possible to additionally attract funds from private investors for housing construction in the amount of 1300-1800 billion rubles (assuming that the cost of infrastructure is 15-1800 billion rubles). 20 percent of the total construction cost) and build about 90 -120 million sq. m. on dedicated engineering-equipped sites. meters of housing (with an average price of 17,500 rubles/sq.m.).

But at the same time, the complete replacement of the subprogram for relocating citizens from dilapidated and dilapidated housing with a subprogram for the formation of building plots with their subsequent auction sale postpones indefinitely the solution to problems for residents of this fund (that is, the affordability of housing decreases).

In accordance with Article 89 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, when a house is demolished, declared unfit for habitation, or when major repairs are carried out, tenants are provided with another comfortable living space in return.

If, according to the previous edition of the Federal Target Program “Housing”, federal budget funds allocated for the purpose of relocating citizens from dilapidated buildings were significant assistance for municipalities, now local authorities are forced to seek additional resources, since plots cannot be sold with an encumbrance, and the further commercial price of the housing being built will be installed by the developer.

One of the ways to increase supply in the housing market, which by the way is the least expensive financially, is individual housing construction, which occupies more than 30 percent of the total volume of construction and has recently been under the close attention of federal authorities and is referred to as “low-rise construction”, “wooden house building”, etc.

But the point is not in the name, but in the economy - there are a huge number of projects, both individual development and in the form of complex cottage development of territories, and most importantly - the building materials industry in a short time, including relying on local resources, is able to move on to the development of technologies for the industrial production of these projects or basic structural elements from a wide variety of materials from wood to autoclaved aerated concrete. In this case, the investment is minimal and pays off in a very short time.

Task 6. Financial mechanisms. From apartment loans to the mortgage securities market.

It has already become a generally accepted fact that the modern real estate market is largely a movement of financial flows. If the state’s financial policy in this market is structured correctly, then the economic effect is inevitable.

In general, if we talk about the main financial mechanism of the Program, on which special hopes are placed, this is mortgage housing lending, the development concept of which was approved by V.V. Putin in 2000 while still in the position of Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation (Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 11 2000 No. 28).

The Concept for the development of the housing mortgage lending system of the Russian Federation was based on a two-level model of the functioning of the mortgage market.

This model provides for the maximum development of the primary market for residential mortgage loans and the gradual launch of mechanisms for attracting long-term resources from financial markets, allocated for the purpose of refinancing credit institutions that provide mortgage housing loans to the population.

It was this approach that allowed the United States of America to provide a gigantic volume of the mortgage market (about 9 trillion US dollars) and surpass the government securities market, estimated at 4.5 trillion. US dollars, not to mention the corporate securities market - 2.4 trillion. US dollars.

The accelerated development of the mortgage institution, based on the use of a refinancing mechanism, is also observed in European, Asian and Latin American markets.

At the III Financial Congress of Central and Eastern European Countries, held in Warsaw in November 2006, dedicated to residential mortgage lending, it was emphasized that the future of mortgages significantly depends on the development of refinancing mechanisms.

Consequently, the choice of a two-tier model of housing mortgage lending as a strategy in the Russian Federation was correct and allows us to speed up the solution to the housing problems of the population.

Only on this path (even understanding the relative underdevelopment of the infrastructure of the Russian financial market) can the task set by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. be solved. Putin on the annual provision of 1 million families with housing on credit.

The essence of the functioning of the mortgage institution within the framework of the above model is:

in the accumulation of a pool of mortgage housing loans (mortgages), either on the balance sheets of primary lenders or mortgage conduits;

further sale of its company - agent (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV, special mortgage agent in Russian terminology);

securitization of this pool and the issuance of mortgage-backed securities (secondary mortgages) placed on financial markets.

Securitization is the structuring of financial flows generated by payments on long-term mortgage loans included in this pool into tranches that are collateral for the corresponding issues of mortgage-backed securities (usually senior, mezzanine and junior tranches).

The first two tranches are freely placed on financial markets. The junior tranche, which carries the bulk of the credit risks (and therefore has a higher profitability), either remains on the balance sheets of the conduit (or underwriting bank), or is returned to the primary lender, or is purchased by institutional investors (large insurance companies, pension systems, etc.) .P.).

Today in the Russian Federation, especially in the last 4 years, there is an active development of the primary market for residential mortgage loans provided through:

own resources of the largest, including state-owned banks;

credit lines opened by a number of international financial institutions (International Finance Corporation - IFC, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, etc.);

refinancing by the state-owned OJSC Agency for Housing Mortgage Lending (hereinafter referred to as AHML), which raises funds under state guarantees of the Russian Federation.

The number of mortgage housing loans issued by all primary lenders increases annually by more than 2-3 times. At the end of 2006, their value is estimated at 8-10 billion US dollars.

A key role in the development of the primary mortgage market, since 2002, has been played and played by AHML, which, being in fact a state institution for the development of mortgage lending, is at the same time a commercial organization whose goal is to make a profit (in the interests of its sole shareholder - the Russian Federation) .

Therefore, excessive government support for the Agency, without a clear definition of social priorities for its activities (for example, the acquisition of loans issued to those categories of citizens whose incomes require such support for the purchase of apartments according to social standards), may place AHML in unequal conditions in relation to other participants mortgage market.

In this regard, the mortgage community cannot help but be concerned by the statement of Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation A.D. Zhukov, who, in a conversation with journalists, said that the Russian Government has set itself the goal of reducing the level of interest rates on mortgage loans to 7 percent per annum.

According to him, despite a slight reduction in rates this year, mortgage loans remain very expensive and inaccessible to a large part of the population.

Mortgage loans are today unaffordable for a significant part of the population, primarily due to the low incomes of the majority of citizens and the ongoing rapid rise in housing prices due to the imbalance between supply and demand.

The state’s priority in the field of mortgage lending should be to create conditions for a qualitative increase in supply in the housing market.

In isolation from solving this problem, an artificial reduction in interest rates is not only pointless, since it is the rise in prices (about 50 percent in 2006) that makes the main “contribution to the unaffordability” of housing and mortgages, but is also harmful, because fuels inflation in residential real estate.

Increasing purchasing power through increasing the availability of credit funds, with unsatisfied demand for housing, only leads to speculation in the housing market.

To be fair, it should be noted that A.D. Zhukov, in his conversation with journalists, also said that reducing rates to 7 percent will be possible only after inflation in Russia falls to less than 5 percent.

Currently, attracting borrowers should be done not so much by lowering rates, but by improving the quality of service, reducing transaction costs, introducing new technologies that make it possible to issue loans in a shorter time, expanding and modernizing the product range, as well as establishing an institute for credit risk insurance (mortgage insurance).

For reference: this social government institution has played and is playing a huge role in the United States in terms of increasing the availability of mortgage loans through the creation of the Federal Housing Administration, before the establishment of a secondary mortgage market operator. This institute is actively developing in Kazakhstan.

In particular, this will be facilitated by work to standardize procedures and mechanisms of the mortgage market.

In mid-December 2006, at an extended meeting of the Committee of the Association of Russian Banks (ARB) on mortgage lending with the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, the Federal Financial Markets Service, the Bank of Russia, the Federal Registration Service, AHML, IFC, as well as the Association of Regional Banks "Russia" (ARBR), the National Association of Mortgage Market Participants (NAUIR - member of the ASR) and the Association of Mortgage Companies (AIC) reviewed draft standard forms of mortgages developed by the IFC, AHML and the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia.

The standard form of the mortgage is based on the mortgage approved by the Supervisory Board of OJSC Agency for Housing Mortgage Lending, but modified taking into account proposals from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, the Federal Registration Service, the Federal Service for Financial Markets, the banking community, mortgage companies and the IFC.

As a result of this meeting, the heads of the ARB, ARBR, NAUIR and AIC signed “Recommendations on the use of a standard form of a mortgage note”, which, after developing the final version of the mortgage note, were sent for use by the Federal Registration Service.

The adoption of such a document is relevant, since the standardization and unification of documents and procedures used when processing mortgage loans is one of the main conditions for meeting the targets for the volume of mortgage lending established by the priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens.”

It should be emphasized once again that the main factor influencing the reduction of interest rates, in addition to reducing inflation, will be a qualitative increase in the volume of mortgage housing lending (due to a decrease in unit costs for issuing loans).

At the same time, federal budget funds allocated to guarantee the Russian Federation for AHML obligations are limited.

At the same time, primary lenders providing mortgage loans using their own funds are experiencing an acute shortage of “long-term” money, since long-term resources occupy only no more than 8-10 percent in the structure of their balance sheets.

In addition, most banks are undercapitalized and therefore forced to take assets off balance sheet, and are also under pressure to reduce credit risks, including prepayment risks, and increase earnings per share (ROE) through balance sheet leverage.

For reference: refinancing not only improves the balance sheet of primary creditors and opens up access to cheap resources, but significantly increases the value of the bank in the eyes of investors)

Therefore, it is impossible to achieve a qualitative increase in the volume of mortgage lending without the use of refinancing mechanisms.

Serious progress achieved recently thanks to the development of mortgage legislation (including the adoption of a number of legislative and other regulatory legal acts relating to the circulation of mortgage-backed securities) and the stable development of the primary mortgage market, made it possible to come close to the formation of a system for refinancing residential mortgage loans based on using the securitization mechanism.

An important prerequisite for this was the creation (on the initiative and with the organizational and methodological assistance of the Gosstroy of Russia) in 1999-2004. in all regions of the Russian Federation, regional mortgage agencies and companies (regional mortgage operators, hereinafter RIO), which, as a result of active participation in the AHML mortgage program, have accumulated significant positive experience in organizing the issuance of mortgage loans in the regions of the Russian Federation.

The Government of the Russian Federation has approved, developed by AHML, the Concept for the development of a unified system for refinancing residential mortgage loans in Russia.

This Concept announced a gradual reorientation of AHML's activities from the redemption of mortgage housing loans issued by RIO to activities in the mortgage-backed securities market.

In this regard, it seems possible to consider the issue of the procedure for providing state guarantees to AHML, both from the point of view of increasing the efficiency of their use, and from the point of view of developing the mortgage market.

At the initial stage of the formation of the mortgage lending system, AHML did not have sufficient assets to ensure the refinancing of RIO. Therefore, the provision of government guarantees on its corporate bonds was necessary. This allowed the federal agency to successfully solve the task set by the Government of the Russian Federation to launch mortgages.

Today, AHML's obligations are already secured by fairly large liquid mortgage assets (over $1 billion).

Therefore, AHML can, in principle, independently refinance through the issuance and placement of mortgage-backed securities. It is advisable to use government guarantees to ensure their lower tranche, which for each pool of loans is no more than 10 percent of the cost. This will make it possible to attract 10 times more funds with the same volumes of government guarantees. At the same time, this competitive advantage of the state development institution will not be able, even potentially, to violate the principle of free competition. AHML will perform through guarantees only that function that the vast majority of private professional participants in the mortgage market cannot perform.

It should also be noted that the limits of state guarantees from AHML, with the increasingly high dynamics of growth in the volume of mortgage loans, may create difficulties for regional operators in long-term planning of their financial policies.

Thus, a situation may arise that reduces the importance of RIOs as organizational and methodological centers for residential mortgage lending in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

There is a risk that the new declared approaches will not yet be fully developed, and the already created RIO network will not be fully utilized.

Understanding this danger, many regional mortgage operators, along with fulfilling their obligations to AHML, are beginning to look for other partners to buy out mortgages on their balance sheets.

As a positive fact, we should note the attempts of RIO to create its own associations.

In particular, in October 2006, the Association of Mortgage Companies was registered with the organizational support of the state AHML.

According to the leaders of the mortgage conduit RuMAC and NAUIR, these organizations will also contribute as much as possible to the formation of interregional mortgage networks.

It is important only when creating them to ensure free competition in the market and real consolidation of mortgage assets (and not just formal political associations).

RIOs individually have not yet accumulated sufficient mortgage assets. The authorized capital of each of them does not allow them to enter a profitable mortgage business, which ensures a reduction in interest rates and, as a result, an increase in the availability of mortgage housing loans.

Many of them were created not in the form of joint-stock companies, but in the form of unitary enterprises or funds.

Due to the relatively small volumes of residential mortgage lending in each individual region, and in conditions of an acute shortage of finished housing, regional mortgage operators are forced to operate not only in the mortgage market, but also actively participate in the implementation of investment and construction projects.

This significantly increases credit risks for financing RIO and, as a result, does not allow reducing interest rates on loans to the population.

In this regard, there should be a separation of net mortgage assets into subsidiaries of regional mortgage operators, followed by the consolidation of these assets into interregional networks.

We also note that today a significant (over 80 percent) of mortgages are secured not by newly built, but by secondary housing. This contributes to the high growth rates of housing prices, despite the seemingly still very small volumes of mortgage lending (the factor that affects the underdevelopment of the housing market as a whole).

The weak impact of residential mortgage lending on the increase in housing construction urgently requires the introduction of convertible loan mechanisms (i.e., consumer loans that are issued at the construction stage, and after registration of ownership of residential real estate are converted into mortgage loans).

At the same time, this should be combined with the development and implementation of a mechanism for refinancing these assets.

Some of the largest players in the primary mortgage market in 2006 have already implemented the first “securitization” of mortgage assets, issued and placed mortgage-backed securities abroad and in Russia (Vneshtorgbank, City Mortgage Bank, Sovfin-Trade Bank), a similar transaction is close to completion AHML.

This was preceded by successfully completed transactions on structuring (securitization) of other credit products (car loans issued by Soyuz JSCB and loans issued at the stage of housing construction by the Housing Finance Bank).

On the initiative of NAUIR and ASR, specialists who took an active part in almost all of the above-mentioned transactions (except for Vneshtorgbank) created the first private specialized company (mortgage conduit) in the mortgage market, OJSC “RuMAC” (Russian Mortgage Acceptance Company).

The purpose of such a company is to organize and conduct securitization (primarily mortgage) in the interests of Russian primary creditors.

For reference: RuMAC company is currently developing a technology designed to provide refinancing of credit institutions that provide loans to the population at the stage of housing construction

The creation of mortgage conduits is due to the fact that independent refinancing of the primary lender on the stock market makes economic sense (in terms of costs and profitability) only when certain volumes of mortgage lending are achieved.

The optimal pool of mortgages is the value of which exceeds 100 million US dollars (3 billion rubles).

In the first half of 2007, we should expect the completion of further cross-border and Russian securitization transactions, which differ fundamentally only in the place of registration of the SPV and the type of mortgage-backed securities (mortgage-backed bonds or mortgage participation certificates - path-through bonds) [Figure 2, 3].

The advantage of cross-border “securitization” is the ability to attract cheaper funds to refinance mortgage loans. The price of funds raised for already completed cross-border transactions was: LIBOR plus 1-1.6 percent per year.

This will help increase the availability of mortgage loans for the population.

The placement of mortgage-backed securities denominated in rubles on international financial markets will stimulate the solution to the problem of ruble conversion.

The main type of mortgage securities placed on international financial markets will be mortgage participation certificates - path-through bonds, the advantage of which is the transfer of the risk of early repayment of mortgage loans from the primary lender to the buyer of mortgage securities.

As a result, more efficient risk distribution and efficient pricing are achieved.

The issue and placement of this type of securities in Russia is still impossible due to the shortcomings of the Federal Law “On Mortgage-Based Securities”; therefore, it is necessary to amend this law as soon as possible, as well as the adoption of the Federal Law “On Securitization”

Thus, processes have now begun in the mortgage market towards the formation of an All-Russian system for refinancing residential mortgage loans.

It must be added that the scale of the goals laid down in the National Project is such that the existing legislative framework begins to slow down the development of mortgages as a universal financial mechanism, all the possibilities of influence of which on the market we have not yet assessed.

In addition to various changes proposed by the banking community that are required to be made to the Federal Law “On Mortgages (Pledge of Real Estate),” but which are rather technical in nature, AHML has recently put forward proposals to expand the possibilities of pledging real estate beyond the norms established by the relevant federal legislation.

We are talking about a proposal to make a number of changes to the Federal Law “On Mortgage (Pledge of Real Estate)” and to the Land Code of the Russian Federation, enabling local authorities to receive funds for laying engineering infrastructure and preparing land plots for construction on the basis of collateral of the lands they own.

In fact, this is a step towards the development of land mortgages, and it is all the more relevant because to implement the National Project by 2010, it is necessary to develop from 80 to 100 thousand hectares of land for housing construction (Interfax information on the AHML website dated January 21, 2007 at http: //www.ahml.ru).

Objective 7. Development of a public-private partnership system

The National Housing Project is a business project implemented with the participation of budget resources on the principles of public-private partnership.

In this sense, the experience of the Republic of Kazakhstan is instructive, where a similar public-private business project is already being implemented.

In Kazakhstan, engineering infrastructure is actually created on the principles of public-private partnership.

A private developer receives sites and carries out construction using a government loan at prices agreed with the investor (state), and then sells the constructed housing using mortgage loans issued by private banks, which are purchased by the State Mortgage Corporation using funds from the Pension Fund at a rate agreed with it. All financial flows and deadlines are interconnected.

The affordability of housing is ensured by the fact that the state is a specific investor: for it, profit is the number of families provided with housing. In addition, it distributes the burden associated with the creation of engineering infrastructure between buyers of specific housing (on-site networks) and the entire community living in a given municipality (but in installments, through the investment component of tariffs).

This does not create a state monopoly. Private professional participants continue to work in the market according to the laws of the market.

The “National Housing Project of Kazakhstan” in all its aspects (including mortgage lending) concerns only those categories of citizens that are determined by the state, and the amount of assistance is limited by social housing standards.

Result:

As can be seen from the consideration of even a far from complete list of problems existing in the housing sector of Russia, the main obstacle to their solution is weak investment activity.

It has already been said above that only a properly structured financial policy of the state, aimed at:

Real increase in housing affordability for all categories of citizens, regardless of their income;

Development of market relations in the housing sector, ensuring a dynamic and at the same time balanced increase in housing supply and effective demand for it.

Consequently, the solution to the listed problems lies in the plane of both public and private investment through the following mechanisms:

budgetary financing of the construction of social housing (for low-income citizens);

attracting long-term financial resources to create a rental housing sector;

state support in the form of targeted housing subsidies for certain categories of citizens;

mortgage housing lending, including mechanisms for refinancing organizations providing mortgage loans (loans), through the involvement of long-term resources from financial markets, including those accumulated in the pension system;

accumulation of funds by citizens for the purpose of construction and purchase of housing (savings and loan banks, construction savings banks, etc.);

investing and lending (including at the expense of citizens) for housing construction. Refunds are made through sales, including sales through mortgage loans;

attracting resources for investment and lending for the creation of communal infrastructure;

investing in the development of the construction industry base.

In this case, state resources play only the role of catalysts for investment processes, reduce the risks of investments and increase their attractiveness, reduce property imbalances among various segments of the population and, thereby, reduce social tension, increasing the political stability of society. As a result, they create favorable conditions for subsequent investments.

So, we see that the tangle of problems that have entangled the housing sector can be completely resolved through the development, consistent implementation and implementation of state housing policy, and this entirely depends on the coordination of actions of all branches of federal, regional and local government.

List of used literature

1. S.M.Lyzhin. The intrigue of the home. - Ekaterinburg: Publishing House “Philanthropist”, 2005 “Architecture and Construction of Moscow” electronic version of the popular science magazine No. 2-3 for 2006 www.asm.rusk.ru

2. Magazine "Architecton". It appeared as a printed publication in October 1992. Since May 2004, the magazine has existed only in an electronic version, retaining the continuous numbering of issues. His address on the Internet is http://archvuz.ru. No. 13, 2006

3. A.S. Starovoytov. “Social housing in modern Russia - myth or reality,” POISK magazine, No. 3 June 2006.

4. Magazine “National Projects”, No. 1, No. 2, DirectPress LLC, 2006, www.rus-reform.

5. V.N. Ponomarev “Reflections on mortgages”

6. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2005 No. 865 “On additional measures for the implementation of the federal target program “Housing” for 2002 - 2010.”

7. Materials of the International Seminar “Housing Finance, Mortgage Lending”, Dubna, Moscow Region, February 9-12, 2004.

8. L.A.Kazinets, A.A.Gerasimov, P.A.Zhbanov, A.S.Samoilov, I.Yu.Tomova, S.T.Frolov. Fundamentals of the concept of accreditation of construction organizations in the context of the transition to self-regulation of investment and construction activities in the Russian Federation. Association of Builders of Russia. Moscow: Publishing house "Granitsa", 2006 - 96 p.

9. Rosstat. Russian statistical yearbook. Official publication. Information and Publishing Center “Statistics of Russia”, www.infostat.ru.

10. Draft EEC strategy in the field of sustainable quality of life in human settlements in the 21st century. UNECE Committee on Human Settlements. Geneva, September 19, 2000

STATE OF THE HOUSING SECTOR IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.