Before sending an electronic appeal to the Ministry of Construction of Russia, please read the rules of operation of this interactive service set out below.

1. Electronic applications within the sphere of competence of the Ministry of Construction of Russia, filled out in accordance with the attached form, are accepted for consideration.

2. An electronic appeal may contain a statement, complaint, proposal or request.

3. Electronic appeals sent through the official Internet portal of the Ministry of Construction of Russia are submitted for consideration to the department for working with citizens' appeals. The Ministry ensures objective, comprehensive and timely consideration of applications. Review of electronic appeals is free of charge.

4. In accordance with Federal Law No. 59-FZ of May 2, 2006 “On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation,” electronic appeals are registered within three days and sent, depending on the content, to the structural divisions of the Ministry. The appeal is considered within 30 days from the date of registration. An electronic appeal containing issues the solution of which is not within the competence of the Ministry of Construction of Russia is sent within seven days from the date of registration to the relevant body or the relevant official whose competence includes resolving the issues raised in the appeal, with notification of this to the citizen who sent the appeal.

5. Electronic appeal is not considered if:
- absence of the applicant’s surname and name;
- indication of an incomplete or unreliable postal address;
- the presence of obscene or offensive expressions in the text;
- the presence in the text of a threat to the life, health and property of an official, as well as members of his family;
- using a non-Cyrillic keyboard layout or only capital letters when typing;
- absence of punctuation marks in the text, presence of incomprehensible abbreviations;
- the presence in the text of a question to which the applicant has already been given a written answer on the merits in connection with previously sent appeals.

6. The response to the applicant is sent to the postal address specified when filling out the form.

7. When considering an appeal, disclosure of information contained in the appeal, as well as information relating to the private life of a citizen, is not permitted without his consent. Information about applicants’ personal data is stored and processed in compliance with the requirements of Russian legislation on personal data.

8. Appeals received through the site are summarized and presented to the leadership of the Ministry for information. Answers to the most frequently asked questions are periodically published in the sections “for residents” and “for specialists”

1

The housing and communal services sector is one of the complex and large sectors of the urban economy, the efficiency of its functioning, which is reflected in the comfort and improvement of life of the population. Based on statistical information, the article analyzes the current state of the housing stock, its utilities, and discusses the problems of its functioning. As the study shows, the housing and communal services sector is still strictly administered, unprofitable, and lacks competitive conditions. Not only Russian citizens who use its services every day, but also government authorities are interested in increasing the efficiency of the housing and communal services sector. Therefore, one of the objectives of the study was to study changes in the regulatory framework for the functioning of the housing and communal services sector after the reform of the industry in the nineties. The author considers the necessary changes and additions to the legal regulation to solve the problem of high depreciation of fixed assets.

Department of Housing and Utilities

housing stock

common property

improvement

engineering Communication

1. Petruk G.V., Ustich I.S. Ensuring sustainable development of small businesses using materials from enterprises in the Amur region // Fundamental Research. 2014. No. 6-7. pp. 1464-1468.

2. Ministry of Regional Development [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.minregion.ru/ Date of access 05.10.15

3. Federal State Statistics Service [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.gks.ru/ Date of access 05.15.15

4. State Corporation - Fund for Assistance to Housing and Public Utilities Reform [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.fondgkh.ru/ Date of access 05.15.15

5. Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.minstroyrf.ru/ Date of access 05.29.15

6. Collection agency JSC “Sequoia Credit Consolidation” [Electronic resource] // Access mode: http://www.sequoia.ru/info/publication/876/ Date of access 05.20.15

The efficiency of the functioning of housing and communal services has always affected the majority of the population of our country. Until 1992, the state was responsible for preserving the housing stock transferred to its management. Perestroika made its own adjustments to the property relations of housing and communal services, as a result of which the state got rid of the burden of responsibility to the owners of residential and non-residential premises. The general goal of transformations in this area is to increase the efficiency of its functioning and transfer the industry to the rails of market relations.

In order to regulate housing and communal services during perestroika, a regulatory framework was created, including a number of laws that appeared only with the formation of private property. The adopted laws allowed:

• create a housing market;
• share powers;
• carry out the transfer of housing and utilities into municipal ownership, and then into private ownership;
• create conditions for the emergence of a subject of market demand for housing and communal services.

In 2004, a new Housing Code of the Russian Federation was adopted, meeting the requirements of the time and the established legal, economic and political situation. The Housing Code of the Russian Federation made it possible to:

• clearly delimit the scope of powers of public authorities in the field of regulation of housing legal relations, determine the range of their responsibilities;
• determine the structure of the housing stock of the Russian Federation and types of residential premises;
• create a procedure for transferring premises from one category to another;
• specify the rights and obligations of residential premises owners;
• introduce the concept of “common property of owners in an apartment building”;
• prescribe the obligation for the owners to choose the method of managing the house.

All these years, the activities of the federal government have been aimed at the formation of three markets interconnected with each other: utilities, housing services and housing stock.

The purpose of this study is to study the state of the housing stock and consider issues related to taking measures to restore it.

One of the main problems hindering the development of market relations in housing and communal services is the high depreciation of fixed assets, which, according to estimates by the Ministry of Regional Development, for individual utility facilities is 60%, and in some municipalities - 70-80% and increases by 2- 3% per year. A consequence of the high degree of wear and tear of equipment is that the specific operating costs of Russian housing and communal services enterprises are 3-4 times higher than in Europe.

The housing stock is the main element of infrastructure designed to meet the housing needs of the population. In accordance with Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the housing stock is “the totality of all residential premises located on the territory of the Russian Federation,” however, it also includes common property.

At present, the structure of the housing stock of the Russian Federation by type of ownership differs sharply from its structure in the early 90s. last century.
Data from the Federal State Statistics Service indicate that there is a steady increase in privately owned housing (Table 1).

Table 1 - Structure of the housing stock of the Russian Federation.

Type of ownership
State
Municipal

Despite the adoption of a number of laws, the state did not propose mechanisms to maintain the normal condition of the housing stock. Today, homeowners to whom the state has transferred common property for maintenance are experiencing difficulties in maintaining its proper condition. The technical condition of the housing stock of the Russian Federation as of 2012 is characterized by the following data.

Dilapidated and emergency stock has increased by 70% since 1990. This is due to the fact that, compared to Soviet times, the work on building new houses has significantly decreased in the country. In Russia, a trend continues to emerge towards preserving the old foundation instead of demolishing it and building a new one. This is due to the complexity and cost of relocating owners of residential and non-residential premises. According to the Federal State Statistics Service, 93.9 million m2 or 2.83% of the total housing stock is in disrepair or dilapidated condition (Table 2).

Table 2 - Dilapidated and emergency housing stock.

all dilapidated and emergency housing stock, million m2

including:

emergency

share of dilapidated and dilapidated housing stock in the total area of ​​the entire housing stock, percent

It should be noted that the presented statistical data from 2007 to 2013 indicate a general increase in the level of equipment for types of engineering improvements, which is mainly caused by the commissioning of newly built residential buildings with 100% equipment for types of communications. At present, dilapidated and dilapidated housing consists mainly of low-rise buildings, but in 10-20 years, multi-storey buildings with significantly more square meters will also become so. The measures taken by the state, in particular the introduction of Section IX “Organization of major repairs of common property in apartment buildings” into the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, are aimed at preventing deterioration of the housing stock.

The total amount of funding for resettlement programs from the Housing and Communal Sector Reform Assistance Fund for 2013-2017 is 183.4 billion rubles. In general, throughout the Russian Federation during 2014, as of January 1, 2015, 2,904.00 thousand square meters were resettled. meters of emergency housing, 184.21 thousand people were resettled. .

The total amount of funding for capital repair programs from the Fund for 2014-2015 is 11.1 billion rubles, including 7.1 billion rubles for 2014, which will allow for the repair of 7,364 houses.

Emergency and dilapidated housing stock is recognized as such due to physical wear and tear during its operation. In general, the technical condition of the house and the level of improvement affect the comfort of housing and the technical accessibility of utilities for consumers. On average in Russia, the share of comprehensively equipped housing (equipped with running water, sewerage, heating, hot water supply, gas or floor electric stoves) is 54.57%. By the end of 2013 it increased compared to 2005. by 4 percent.

Table 3 - Level of water supply improvement at the end of 2013 (in sq.m.).

WATER SUPPLY TO POPULATIONS
Number of settlements with water pipes (at the end of the year):
rural settlements
as a percentage of their total number
Street water supply network in need of replacement, thousand km
as a percentage of the entire length
Number of water supply failures, thousand

As we see from table. 3, urban settlements are 100% provided with a water supply network, in contrast to rural settlements, which by 2013 were equipped with 32% of water supply communications. Every year the number of kilometers of water supply networks requiring replacement increases. At the same time, their number also includes pipes whose operational warranty period has not expired. Which indicates the use of low-quality materials and inadequate control by supervisory authorities.

However, according to Rosstat, the number of water supply failures is decreasing annually. Accordingly, monitoring the condition of engineering communications is carried out as planned, which leads to positive results.

Regarding the improvement of housing stock with sewer networks (Table 4), similar conclusions can be drawn. Thus, rural settlements, compared to urban ones, are poorly equipped with sewage systems.

Table 4 - Level of sewerage improvement at the end of 2013 (in sq.m.).

SEWERAGE OF POPULAR AREAS
Number of settlements with sewerage (at the end of the year):
cities as a percentage of their total number
rural settlements as a percentage of their total number
Sewage treatment plant capacity utilization - total, percent
Installed throughput capacity of treatment facilities - total, thousand m 3 per day
Street sewer network in need of replacement, thousand km
Number of sewerage accidents, thousand

It is worth noting that the number of rural settlements with water supply and sewerage varies significantly. Judging by Rosstat data, water flowing in rural settlements has nowhere to drain. This suggests that near houses, the sewerage network is not centralized, which means it does not pass through treatment facilities, and accordingly, it harms the environment and causes the risk of emergency situations.

At the same time, the percentage of capacity utilization of treatment facilities is decreasing, along with the fact that the throughput of treatment facilities is increasing. Thus, the conclusion suggests itself about the irrational use of wastewater treatment plant capacities. As for the street sewer network, the need for its replacement is growing along with a decrease in the number of accidents.

As for the improvement of heat and steam networks in two-pipe terms and heating boiler houses, their quantitative indicators are growing. At the same time, the need to replace networks and reduce heat losses is growing.

Based on the level of improvement of the housing stock, as of January 1, 2012. The population living in housing without water supply is estimated at 29.2 million people, sanitation - 34.9 million people, heating - 22.2 million people, hot water supply - 47.1 million people.

The main problem of the housing and communal services sector remains the deterioration of fixed assets. For the period 2003-2009. In total, more than 219.3 million square meters were renovated across the Russian Federation at the expense of all sources of financing. m of total housing area. In other words, the total area of ​​capitally renovated residential buildings in 2008 exceeded, and in 2009 almost reached, the value of the used standard for the volume of repairs - 2% of the area per year. Thus, measures are being taken to restore the housing stock, but the state is not able to completely solve this problem.

At the same time, without government financial support, residential property owners are unable to accumulate funds for major repairs. It is also worth noting that previously, without the leverage to raise funds for major repairs, which is now prescribed in the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in Art. 169, many owners refused to pay for this article, since it was not mandatory.

Thus, for many years the housing stock remains without planned major repairs. However, if the timing of its implementation is delayed, the residual durability of the objects will decrease and subsequently it will be necessary to spend significantly more money to ensure it.

The problems voiced are far from the only ones. If the legislator clearly defined the procedure for carrying out major repairs in the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, then significant problems arise with ongoing repairs. Carrying out routine repairs is the responsibility of the management company. According to Art. 44 of the Housing Code, the decision to carry out routine repairs must be decided at a general meeting of owners. Thus, if the owners themselves did not initiate a meeting to approve the schedule and list of work for repairing an apartment building, the management organization has the right to act in the interests of the building without holding a general meeting.

Therefore, due to the passivity of people, management organizations independently decide when, how and at what price to carry out repairs on the house. This is one of the problems of the deterioration of the technical condition of the house, which followed the poor quality of home repair services. If we work out the mechanism for holding a general meeting on current and major repairs, it will be easier for residents to independently make decisions about choosing contractors. Resolving this issue will increase control over the condition of the housing stock.

According to the author, another solution to the problem of deterioration of the housing stock can be the creation of conditions for the development of entrepreneurship in the field of housing and communal services. Small businesses strive to work in the housing and communal services sector, which is very promising for the development of entrepreneurship. The annual turnover of the housing and communal services industry today is approximately 4 trillion rubles, which accounts for 7% of GDP. The volume of capital investments is 8% of the revenue of regulated organizations, or about 291 billion rubles.

At the same time, the hesitancy of business to transition to market relations with the housing and communal services sector is caused by systemic problems in the industry:

• subsidization (unprofitable business);
• taxation;
• lack of acceptable credit conditions;
• corruption;
• ineffective tariff policy. The predominance of political motivation over economic expediency when setting tariffs.

Thus, the housing and communal services market remains one of the lagging behind in Russia in terms of attracting private capital. To change the situation in the industry, the Russian authorities decided to develop a public-private partnership mechanism. In the near future, the government plans to improve the investment climate in the industry through the expected regulation of tariffs and attracting bank loans.

The difficulty of attracting investors is the high percentage of late payments for housing and communal services, and, consequently, the unpredictability of the financial model. According to analytical data, at the end of 2013, the overdue debt of the population for supplied utilities in Russia reached 259 billion rubles, that is, it increased by more than 27%.

As a result, citizens’ debts for utility services occupy second place in Russia’s “debt” list after bank loans (RUB 440.3 billion overdue). The reason for the traditional increase in the level of overdue debt of the population for utilities was several combined factors. First of all, this is a low level of payment discipline. Such sentiments often arise because the price and quality of the services provided are not comparable, which leads to the reluctance of consumers to pay for them. Secondly, the annual increase in tariffs has an impact: over the past few years, tariffs for utility services have been growing rapidly, several times faster than the rate of inflation in the country.

Thus, the state should pay attention to the quality of services provided in the housing and communal services sector. Improving the regulation of activities in the management of apartment buildings through licensing the activities of management organizations and mandatory disclosure of information are designed to combat the existing debt situation.

So far, apart from the formation of a class of homeowners and some progress in the development of housing self-government, positive processes in the housing and communal services sector are proceeding extremely slowly.

Today, competitive relations between enterprises managing and servicing housing and communal services are actively developing. In particular, management companies and contractors performing residential repairs are selected on a competitive basis. The situation is more complicated with competitive relations in the sectors of housing and communal services, tied to utility networks, in which subjects of natural local monopolies operate. In this regard, attracting private investment and stimulating competition in this area without government support is very problematic.

To solve pressing problems of housing and communal services, at the federal level, executive and legislative authorities are currently working on regulations aimed at solving housing and communal services problems.

However, there remains a need to further improve the regulatory framework to provide conditions for the implementation of modernization projects in the housing and communal services sector that are commercially profitable.

In order for the housing and communal services sector to become attractive to investors, it is necessary, first of all, to build a system of long-term tariff regulation, create conditions for the implementation of long-term investment programs and take additional measures to stimulate private business. For example, to attract investment in this area, it is necessary to use such common tools as tax breaks, subsidizing interest rates on loans for the modernization of housing and communal services, and others. At the same time, it is necessary to abandon the mechanism of subsidies to housing and communal services enterprises. Subsidies need to be translated into targeted personalized subsidies to citizens. We need to change approaches to tariff policy.

In addition, it is necessary to radically strengthen the responsibility and increase the transparency of the work of officials and management companies in the housing and communal services sector.

Taking into account the socio-economic situation of the bulk of the country's population, the price situation in the housing construction market, as well as the volume of the available housing stock and its technical condition, we can conclude that in the near future, priority should be given to major repairs. Thus, the solution to the housing problem should go both along the path of new construction, and in parallel, by improving the quality of the built and operated housing stock through major repairs.

Bibliographic link

Belova T.V. CURRENT STATE OF THE HOUSING STOCK: STATEMENT OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS AND WAYS OF SOLUTION // International Student Scientific Bulletin. – 2015. – No. 6.;
URL: http://eduherald.ru/ru/article/view?id=13409 (access date: 09/05/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

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 the 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 that were 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 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 launched 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 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 ACP 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 residential 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) generates 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 Russian Citizens” 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 planned 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, was precisely intended to limit 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 must 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 Russian Builders Association;

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 a 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, municipal 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 15-15 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 at their own expense 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 also face 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 their 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 insignificant 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.

A new approach to shaping housing policy

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 the 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 that were 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.

CONCEPT

SOCIAL HOUSING POLICY AND SOCIAL HOUSING IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Developers:

ASSOCIATION OF BUILDERS OF RUSSIA

Starring:

NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIP “OWN HOME”,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE MARKET PARTICIPANTS,

RUSSIAN MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY.

During the development, we used publications by the Deputy Head of the Federal Agency for Construction and Housing and Communal Services, as well as materials jointly prepared by the Institute of Regional Development and the Association of Builders of Russia for the Long-term strategy for mass housing construction for all categories of citizens.

GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. CURRENT STATE OF THE HOUSING SECTOR IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION
1.1. Social significance of the housing problem in the Russian Federation
1.3. The current state of housing construction
1.4. Reforming the housing market in the conditions of market relations of the year
SECTION 2. STRATEGIC GOALS, PRINCIPLES AND TASKS OF HOUSING POLITICIANS
2.1. Optimal housing market development scenario
2.2. Principles of housing policy and strategic goals of the state in the housing market
2.3. The housing finance system is a tool for implementing the state strategy in the market
2.4. Objectives of state housing policy
SECTION 3. SOCIAL PROTECTION MECHANISMS
3.1. Housing policy guidelines and housing affordability criteria
3.2. Mechanisms for creating and financing a social housing fund
3.3. Relocation of citizens from dilapidated and dilapidated housing and major repairs of existing housing stock
SECTION 4. MECHANISMS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT AND STIMULATION OF DEMAND
4.1. Rented housing market
4.2. Mortgage housing lending
4.2.1. Social mortgage programs
4.3. Targeted housing subsidies
4.4. Improvement and development of savings mechanisms purchase of housing
SECTION 5. MEASURES TO INCENT MARKET SUPPLY
5.1. Development of communal (engineering and social) infrastructure
5.2. Housing finance mechanisms
5.3. Integrated development of territories and the “Low-rise Russia” program
5.4. Development of the construction complex
5.4.1. Stimulating energy saving in the housing sector
SECTION 6. IMPROVEMENT OF REGULATION MECHANISMS ON HOUSING MARKET AND PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS
6.1. Self-regulation in construction and the housing market
6.2. Improving technical regulation and supervision in the housing market
6.3. Development of insurance mechanisms in construction and the housing market
6.4. Federal Housing Corporation
6.5. Fund for Assistance to Reform of Housing and Communal Services
6.6. Housing Mortgage Lending Agency

GENERAL PROVISIONS

In accordance with the Constitution, the Russian Federation is a social state whose activities are aimed at ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The most important right, the implementation of which is entrusted to the state, is the right to housing.

In accordance with Article 40 of the Constitution, low-income people and other citizens specified in the law e those in need of housing are provided with housing free of charge or for an affordable fee from state, municipal and other housing funds.

In fact, the problem of providing the country's population with affordable and comfortable housing is not one local problem, but a complex of large-scale interrelated problems that determine the state of society, the standard of living of the population, the social climate, and the strategy for Russia's socio-economic development.

Improving housing conditions is one of the main indicators of improving the well-being of citizens, a prerequisite for the political and economic stability of the state.

It is obvious that today the moment has come when the active formation of a comfortable and rational space for the population of Russia to live is becoming one of the most important tasks of state policy.

Housing is not only a product of labor and a consumer product, but also performs a set of specific functions inherent only to it, different from other durable consumer goods. It ensures the preservation of a person’s physical existence and normal life activity, shapes him as a person, fulfills economic and spiritual needs, being the material basis on which the family develops and is built.

Only a person who has decent living conditions is able to work productively, creating the basis for both his own well-being and that of all his fellow citizens.

SECTION 1. CURRENT STATE OF THE HOUSING SECTOR IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

1.1. Social significance of the housing problem

More than 40% of the Russian population lives in housing that does not meet the minimum requirements for improvement and comfort.

About 3.1 million families (6.4% of the country's population) were registered by local governments as those in need of residential premises.

According to sociological surveys, more than 60% of families are currently dissatisfied with their living conditions.

At the same time, no more than 15% of the country’s population has sufficient financial resources to purchase housing at the current price level.

The lack of real opportunities for citizens to meet their needs in comfortable living conditions hinders the full and harmonious development of the individual, reduces demographic activity, aggravates social tension in society, which ultimately leads to a slowdown in the country’s economic development.

Thus, the basis of state policy in this matter should be a focus on creating conditions that make it possible to satisfy the housing needs of the economically active part of the country’s population, as well as providing effective measures of state support to categories of citizens who, for objective reasons, cannot solve the housing problem on their own.

1.2. The current state of the housing stock

Volume of housing stock in the Russian Federation as of January 2007 was just over 3 billion square meters. m.

Number of apartments and individual houses(housing units) as of January 2007 is 58.02 million, with the average area of ​​a housing unit being 51.7 sq. meters. Thus, the housing supply in housing units per 1,000 people is 408 units, which is close to the European average.

At the same time, the average provision of living space population in the country is 21,1 sq. m per person, which is 2 times lower than the European average.

72% of the total volume accounts for the housing stock in urban settlements, 28% of the total volume – in rural areas, which indicates significant urbanization population in the country.

As a result of privatization, the volume of privately owned housing stock almost reached 80% the total volume of the country's housing stock. A significant part of the owners are not ready to take on the responsibility and costs of operating apartment buildings. Only in 6% homeowners' associations have been created for multi-apartment residential buildings.

About 20% the total volume of housing stock is in state and municipal ownership– basically, this is housing that is underprivatized for various reasons, provided under open-ended social rental contracts without taking into account level of real income of citizens, as well as the presence or absence of a need for government support, which leads to ineffective use of limited financial resources and does not contribute to an increase in the municipal fund housing, intended for social hiring.

The market has not developed sufficiently rental housing.

According to the degree of settlement on the territory of Russia: with the total size of all lands of the Russian Federation being 1,709.8 million hectares, the lands of settlements occupy 19.1 million hectares or approximately 1.1 percent of all lands, of which the lands of urban settlements account for only 7.9 million hectares or 0.46 percent, and the land of rural settlements is 11.2 million hectares or 0.65 percent of all lands in Russia. At the same time, in many large and major cities, the status of lands located outside the boundaries of populated areas, determined by their category, which does not allow housing construction, limits the possibilities of mass housing construction.

By type of development: 30,2% - individual housing, 69,8% - multi-storey buildings. These data indicate a significant predominance of multi-storey housing, and, accordingly, building density, despite the fact that in Europe, as a rule, multi-storey buildings account for 20 to 40% of the housing stock.

The degree of depreciation of the housing stock as of January 2007 was characterized by the following indicators:

60.2% of the housing stock has minimal wear and tear (from 0 to 30%),

36.0% of the housing stock has wear and tear from 31 to 65%, requiring repair or modernization,

Depreciation from 66 to 70%, at which it is mandatory to carry out major repairs or modernization of the housing stock, or its demolition, is 2.7% of the housing stock;

0.94% of the housing stock has a critical degree of wear and tear (over 70%) (0.9% in 2005).

At the same time, given that these indicators are calculated based on a formal calculation of the service life of residential buildings, they do not reflect the real state of the housing stock, and there is virtually no system for regular technical audit of the housing stock.

Total area" href="/text/category/obshaya_ploshadmz/" rel="bookmark">with a total area of ​​50.55 million sq. m., which is 116.1% compared to the same period in 2005. In the first half of 2007, 231.2 thousand residential premises with a total area of ​​21.2 million square meters of housing were put into operation, which amounted to 134.8% of the corresponding period in 2006. At the same time, the achievement of the construction volumes planned for 2007 (56.3 million. sq. m.) will not satisfy the existing effective demand of the population.

Housing commissioned per capita uneven across Russian regions. At the end of 2006, the country's average commissioned 0.35 square meters. m per person, with a range of 0.02 sq. m per person in the Murmansk region up to 0.9 sq. m. m. in the Moscow region.

The volume of housing commissioning in many constituent entities of the Russian Federation does not meet the existing need, which is due not only to objective socio-economic factors, but also to a number of subjective factors, including the quality of management at the level of regions and municipalities.

https://pandia.ru/text/78/621/images/image005_76.gif" width="642" height="360 src=">

The most important factors constraining the growth of construction volumes are the lack of urban planning documentation and land plots equipped with engineering infrastructure.

Currently, in most municipalities there are no developed territorial planning documents, and in some municipalities urban planning documents are outdated.

According to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, about 12.5 thousand hectares of land will be provided with engineering infrastructure in 2007. At the same time, the need for land plots provided with engineering infrastructure, if we are talking about a radical change in the situation in the provision of housing for citizens, is at least 5 times higher .

At the same time, the reliability of the existing engineering infrastructure in the regions, according to expert estimates, is significantly lower than the acceptable level (the number of accidents and damages ranges from 1.8 to 2.2 per 1 km of network per year, with an acceptable 0.3). At the same time, the scale of network replacement does not exceed 1.2% of their total length, and only in certain regions - up to 1.8%, with the required 4 - 5% per year.

Another factor limiting the growth rate of housing construction is insufficient resource support for the construction complex. The development of the construction complex is limited by: deterioration of production facilities, low competitiveness of a number of domestic building materials, insufficient level of introduction of modern construction technologies and building materials, and a shortage of qualified personnel at all levels. According to Rosstat, the depreciation of fixed assets in the construction materials industry is no less than 44% .

Housing cost in the Russian Federation continues to grow. Since 1998, the cost of housing has increased by an average of 27 percent per year, that is, significantly higher than the rate of inflation and the rate of increase in the cost of building materials. The most significant jump in prices over the past 5 years occurred in 2006 - by 53%; according to the results of the second quarter of 2007, prices increased by 17.5% compared to the end of 2006 and amounted to 42.3 thousand rubles in the primary market and 43.3 thousands of rubles on the secondary housing market.

The main reason for rising prices is the imbalance of supply and demand in the housing market.

Indeed, if in 2006 50 million sq. m. meters of housing, then theoretically, according to social norms (18 square meters per person), about 2 percent of Russian families could receive (purchase) it (assuming that the average family consists of 3 people). In reality, no more than 1.5 percent of families moved into new housing, since the living space of the housing actually being built significantly exceeds social norms.

At the same time, the percentage of families with income sufficient to purchase housing at current prices is, according to various estimates, at least 10-15 percent (taking into account the purchase of housing on credit). Even if we take into account that the need to improve housing conditions for this category of citizens is significantly less than the Russian average, then even then we will get more than a twofold excess of demand over supply. This means that there are no real economic factors acting in the direction of reducing prices or even stabilizing them. This is also evidenced by estimates of price growth in the first half of 2007.

A slight decrease in the rate of price growth in 2007 compared to 2006 (and even a slight decrease in housing prices in Moscow, where growth in 2006 was 96.8 percent) only indicates a certain “fatigue” of the population after the rapid rise in prices in 2006 .

Overall, the housing market in the medium term will there will be a monotonous increase in prices. However, this growth is modulated by annual cycles: in some regions, a year of accelerated price growth is followed by a year of relative stabilization.

The share of construction costs (design and construction and installation work) is Total only 50 – 60 percent from the cost of construction, which also includes the cost of land plots equipped with engineering infrastructure, the so-called fee for connecting to engineering infrastructure facilities, and the costs of obtaining initial permitting documentation.

There is an increase in the cost of housing construction, caused primarily by rising prices for building materials and energy resources, which amounted to about 12-14 percent in 2006, at the same time, the increase in sales prices for housing was more than 3 times faster than the increase in cost. The lack of economic incentives makes all efforts to achieve the use of cheaper technologies in construction ineffective.

Regulation of prices in the market segment by administrative methods is not permissible, since this will only lead to an increase in the speculative component of sales and the appearance of queues not only in the social housing segment.

At the same time, there is almost no segment where the financial participation of the state in the investment and construction process would make price regulation not only possible, but also necessary. We are talking about social housing funds.

Mechanisms providing social support (targeted housing subsidies) also stimulate only demand. The same applies to residential mortgage lending, where serious government support has maintained high demand growth dynamics.

Unfortunately, the subprogram “Formation of engineering infrastructure of sites for housing development” of the Federal Target Program “Housing” had practically no positive impact on the growth of proposals due to the ineffectiveness of the proposed investment mechanism and delays in the development of urban planning documentation.

The existing imbalance of supply and demand leads to a market orientation primarily towards high-income groups of the population.

In high dynamics of volume growth has been achieved mortgage housing lending. Due to the lack of supply of newly built housing, mortgage loans are issued primarily on the secondary housing market. Their number increases every year 2-3 times.

Achieving these goals, ultimately, should have led to the release of the state from the function of budgetary provision of the housing sector and its transfer to self-sufficiency and self-financing.

The transition of construction organizations and enterprises in the building materials industry to market forms occurred very quickly through privatization and the creation of new private construction firms. Currently, the share of private construction companies is more than 90 percent.

All this made it possible to create a new housing market in many regions of the country in a fairly short period of time (within years).

The privatization of the existing housing stock was very active during this period. By the end of 1995, more than 50% of housing was privately owned. Housing privatization was carried out free of charge, voluntarily and once for each citizen.

So the first two goals housing reform were implemented without great difficulty for the reason that they corresponded to the interests of the state, freed from the worries in housing and communal services, and the population becoming the owner of their home.

At the same time, the reform of property relations in the housing sector was carried out without taking into account the state of the actually existing housing stock, communications and engineering support systems. Large-scale privatization of housing has led to a significant volume of private housing stock, at the same time giving rise to the problem of “poor owners” who have become owners of their own housing, but do not have the means to maintain it. At the same time, the owners of premises in apartment buildings were essentially not involved in the process of managing these buildings.

Reform was much more difficult housing and communal complex. The measures provided for by the State Target Program “Housing”, due to objective reasons, did not lead to the expected results.

Economic crisis in August 1998 suspended carrying out housing reform until 2001, when the Federal Target Program “Housing” for 2002–2010 was approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 000 (hereinafter referred to as the Program).

With the adoption of this Program, the second stage of housing reform in Russia began. During her implementation The legal and organizational foundations of the state housing policy were created, its priority directions were determined and implementation mechanisms were worked out.

Over a period of 2 years. As a result of the implementation of the Program and its subprograms, the legislation of the Russian Federation was improved towards creating legal conditions for the development of the affordable housing market. The Housing Code of the Russian Federation was adopted, which is a key regulatory legal act in the package of laws that form the basis for the legislative support of the affordable housing market.

At the expense of the federal budget, 131.5 thousand families of citizens of various categories, defined by the legislation of the Russian Federation, are provided with housing. state obligations to provide housing.

It was possible to ensure growth in housing construction, significantly exceeding the program targets (the increase in housing construction in 2004 was 13 percent compared to 2003, with the Program target of 3 percent per year). The targeting of support to the population related to the payment of housing and utilities has increased (in 2004, 13 percent of all families received housing subsidies). 27,100 families were resettled from emergency and dilapidated housing stock. Unsuitable residential buildings with a total area of ​​630.4 thousand square meters were liquidated. meters. During the period, 6,700 subsidies were allocated to young families in the event of the birth (adoption) of a child, the number of families participating in regional programs amounted to 114 thousand.

At the same time, the main problems during this period were:

Insufficient focus of activities Programs to increase the volume of housing construction;

Lack of mechanisms for consolidating budgetary allocations at the federal, regional and municipal levels;

Weak use of extra-budgetary Programs, including funds from private investors, creditors and personal funds of citizens;

The insufficiency of the provided federal budgetary allocations to fulfill the state's obligations to provide housing for certain categories of citizens, as well as to stimulate the attraction of private investment for the implementation of effective regional and local programs in the housing and utilities sector;

Intensive growth in prices for land plots, building materials and services.

These problems have led to the need to develop a new approach to reforming the housing sector, which is reflected in priority national project “Affordable and comfortable housing for Russian citizens” ( further - Project ) , which started in 2006.

At the same time, the beginning of the Project implementation coincided with the beginning of administrative reform, which was aimed at increasing the efficiency of government bodies and creating favorable conditions for business entities to exercise their rights.

It was intended to limit government intervention in economic activity, including by ending excessive government regulation, while simultaneously developing a system of self-regulation.

The liquidation of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Construction and Housing and Communal Services and a significant reduction in staff led to the loss of the most professional personnel, resulting in a managerial vacuum. At the same time, the law of self-regulation in the construction sector has not been formalized into law. All this could not but affect the progress of the national housing project.

At the first stage of the Project implementation (2006–2007), four main directions were identified:

Increasing volumes of mortgage housing lending.

Increasing housing affordability.

Increasing the volume of housing construction and modernizing public infrastructure facilities.

Fulfillment of state obligations to provide housing to established categories of citizens.

There was a consolidation of the efforts of authorities, federal, regional and municipal levels aimed at implementing the Project . Constant monitoring of the implementation of housing programs in the regions and compliance with procedures for the allocation of land plots through auctions is carried out. The authorized capital for housing mortgage lending has been increased; additional funds have been allocated for the implementation of the Program.

This influenced the increase in the volume of housing commissioning and mortgage lending, the growth in the number of young families and other categories of citizens who improved their living conditions, the acceleration of the process of developing master plans, other urban planning documentation, etc.

Unfortunately, despite all the measures taken, there is currently a significant imbalance of supply and demand in the housing market, causing a decrease in the level of housing affordability for a significant part of the population.