BY
For the
record, this blog is in favour of decentralisation and making local politicians
and local governance accountable to the local constituents, rather than them
having the continued, and well worn historical excuse, that “Kyiv” is somehow
responsible for their poor management and ludicrous decisions.
There are
however risks.
This entry is
not about to raise the risks of decentralisation in Odessa and frame it around
the Porto Franco/Freeport concept that many feel is a tool for separatism.
Although this issue has been raised once again within City Hall by the
deputies controlled by Sergei Kivalov, and is certainly not an idea pooh-poohed
by other serious “financial people” behind the Odessa curtain either, there is
a significant difference between the Freeports of Southampton or Stockholm
which enjoy certain local privileges and financial benefits, to a freeport that
sets its own trade (and therefore to an extent foreign) policy as these dubious
individuals would wish.
Considering
the organised crime credentials of many in control of Odessa – not to mention
some still having a distinctly thin patriotic veneer – an Odessa Freeport is an
excellent idea until the integrity of the local governance is then considered.
At the point it remains an excellent idea to be implemented when
organised crime no longer runs local government.
The risks
relating to decentralisation as far as Odessa is concerned however, do relate
to that very safe organised crime syndicate running local governance who have
very little idea about how to manage the city for the benefits of its
constituency.
Perhaps the
most obvious place to look, because it is physically visible, is the city
development plan – and also as far as criminality is concerned, a city plan
that looks to the future insofar as what nefarious deals can be struck daily in
pursuit of the plan.
In broad
brushstrokes, the issues relate to responsibility and accountable for
(increasingly awful, not to mention probably illegal, and certainly secretive)
decisions within City Hall. Mayor Trukhanov and the City Hall deputies
would seem to believe that democracy begins and ends with (disputed) elections
and a few months of voter bribery leading up to them – accountability and
responsibility will arrive only when decentralisation does – and then only in
the cases that they cannot squirm out of.
In recent
weeks Mayor Trukhanov has embarked upon bringing to life his “vision” for the
development of Odessa – or to be blunt, the development of certain, lucrative
parts of Odessa. For the souls inhabiting the historical and famous (see
the writings of Babel, Twain, Pushkin etc) Moldovanka region of the city, still
beautiful despite its now crumbling original architecture that inspired such
wonderful literary prose, there seems to be no hope of sympathetic
redevelopment and/or refurbishment – and with it the associated societal issues
will not be addressed either.
However, the
affluent and pricey Arcadia, Fransuski Boulevard or historic city centre have
the eye of Mayor Trukhanov – which is unfortunately not the eye of an
architect, nor historian, nor it seems, lover of the city.
In the city
centre, in amongst the two and three story original buildings which give Odessa
is character (low buildings and wide streets) there is now a monstrosity under
construction that completely dwarfs them and sticks out in the city skyline
being as welcome as a spare prick at a wedding – to use the
English idiom.
The reason
this architectural disaster is currently being built, according to some within
City Hall, is that nobody would build on this city centre lot if restricted to
no more than 5 stories – so they have allowed the construction of something
with at least double that number, despite the fact it completely disfigures the
city.
Clearly City
Hall believes that if there is no developer today that will build something
entirely appropriate upon that lot, then there will never be a developer that
would – so fuck it, let’s build a monstrosity permanently disfiguring the
historic city centre, instead of building nothing now and waiting.
There are also
issues on the wonderful Fransuski Boulevard too. Some of which is being
done with great consideration for the history
and surrounding buildings – and some of
which is nothing more than simply offensive to the history
of the city and also the eye of the beholder. This notwithstanding a
seemingly blatant disregard for existing city ordnance.
If only the
City Hall would give equal consideration to the redevelopment of the city as is
given to what colour to paint the Odessa Opera House.
There are then
several cases of existing residents being “pressured” to leave their homes for
developers to step in – both in the city centre,
and also the rayons within the
city limits – much against the wishes of those residents naturally enough.
The mafia sticking to mafia tactics.
Indeed, on
16th March residents arrived at City Hall to make their democratic
representations to the Mayor and City Hall – except they weren’t allowed to
make any statements whatsoever. This being because in true democracy
stiffing bureaucratic style, for the hoi polloi to address their own Deputies
in City Hall meetings, a Deputy has to invite them to do so – and none did.
Ergo nothing
officially recorded in the meeting regarding their obvious complaints.
How then remedy or redress?
What of the
city’s elected MPs to the Verkhovna Rada? Will they not intercede on
behalf of their constituency if the local government refuses to hear them?
Do they say nothing as architectural and city planning disaster after
disaster occur, and city ordnance is simply ignored? Is there no societal
redress to be found there?
Naturally not
– City Hall is comprised of their “people”. There are “Trukhanov people”,
there are “Goncharenko people”, “Kivalov people”, “Golubov people” etc., etc, –
there’s even a “Saakashvili person” but he gets physically removed from City Hall
by other people’s “people” on the odd occasion he turns up.
Suffice to say
none of “their people” make any effort, and indeed often support, the scarring
of the historical city centre – That is if they are actually aware of the
decisions being made, or of meetings that discuss such issues. Sometimes
the secretive meetings of the Commission for Architecture and Urban Planning
only become known after the event even
to the local parliamentarians within City Hall, when at other meetings the CAUP
“success” are mentioned in passing. Such secret decision making meetings
being entirely contrary to regulations requiring public announcement
facilitating attendance of interested parties.
If all elected
parliamentarians either local or national will not speak for their constituents
in defence of the city and constituents they represent, then surely there are
the courts?
Normally by
the time the courts get officially involved (if not previously involved in the
misappropriation of land, or ruling in favour of some odious/inappropriate
development despite the law), it is almost always too late. The
construction is completed before the case gets to court. There are cases
that are deliberately sent to the wrong court too, as this
case was relating to a scandalous development on Primorsky Boulevard .
The only notable things about this case was the ruling by Judge
Natalya Petrenko:
“The court is surprised that experts of Ukraine, Ministry of Culture,
giving the 2013 resolution on the implementation already made by the respondent
works for some reason have not paid attention to the lack of any coordination
of adjustment of the project, and does not take into account the provisions of
the above regulations or acts, though knowledge of such acts is their direct
responsibility.
All
of the above, as well as criminal negligence, officials of the bodies
responsible for the protection of cultural heritage and architectural and
building control, led to the fact that at the Promenade, which is included in
the historical area of Odessa, opposite the Vorontsov Palace, an architectural
monument of national importance illegally built on one floor, which undoubtedly
led to disruption of the spatial composition of the Primorsky boulevard and
could threaten the destruction of the supporting structures of the building
(!).
The
problem of illegal reconstruction of this object has received wide publicity,
often covered in the media and requires prompt and effective solutions.
By
submitting this particular definition of Vice Prime Minister – Minister of
Culture of Ukraine, the court requires verification of the legality and
validity of the issuance of the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine permission to
perform activities №2785 / 10/61/13 of 9 September 2013, as well as urgent
measures to protect homes №1 on Vorontsov lane, which is a monument of urban
planning and architecture of national significance.
Economic
Court further informed the Vice Prime Minister – Minister of Culture of
Ukraine, that the decision of the court on November 11, 2015 for the recovery
of the Ministry of Culture in information about the coordination of project
documentation and authorization is not satisfied, the reasons for failure are
not communicated to the court.
The
Court draws attention to the Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine – Minister of
Regional Development, Construction and Housing, which directs and coordinates
the work of the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate of Ukraine,
to the extremely poor performance of the department of legal maintenance
inspection, which is the plaintiff in the case and of which the representative
was not present at the hearing, did not send any notification about the reasons
for non-attendance, did not express its position on the merits of the dispute
and the court did not even notify of the State architectural and construction Inspectorate
of the alleged claim.
The
Court also draws attention to the Mayor Gennady Truhanov on the facts in the
determination of the court – it must take urgent measures to preserve the
architectural monument of national importance.”
(Excuse the
poor English, it is a “Google Translate” as your author is too busy to
translate it today).
What a truly
revealing, but sadly exceptionally rare public judicial display. (The
letters written by Judge Natalya Petrenko to the politicians mentions have
naturally not changed anything whatsoever.)
Local
government naturally covers far more than city planning – so a reader may infer
just how well (or not) City Hall in Odessa is dealing with other local
governance issues and how responsive and inclusive of the local constituency it
is when making decisions. (Secretive and nefarious meetings/decision
making remain the preferred modus operandi for the old nefarious patriarchal
and criminal infrastructure that remains firmly entrenched.)
One of the
theoretical benefits for a policy/political centre in decentralising power and
responsibility to regional/peripheral governance entities, is that if one
region is suffering from bad governance it does not necessarily infect all the
others, can be quarantined in its peripheral location, and thus dealt
with/cured. (Unlike the overly centralised system having bad governance
which naturally infects all the regional governance entities without
exception.)
However, even
an empirical glance at only one local governance issue (of dozens) in Odessa,
perhaps casts severe doubt over just how many regional and local
governance bodies are actually capable of responsible and accountable
democratic governance when they (eventually) become beneficiaries of decentralisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment