Despite the fact that the bill number 8391 on the agenda was the third question, addressed him first. And, in the absence of a quorum (see 7 out of 17 deputies), and 5 minutes, the decision was unanimous.
Related article: Yanukovich Azarov week to correct errors in construction reformWhen the MP Viktor Matchuk who was late and tried to return to the bill and began to talk about his absurdity, the other deputies began to make noise, and committee chairman Volodymyr Rybak said that the discussion is over.
Changes will be made after the first reading.
The fact that the project poses a number of corruption schemes, reduces the rights of consumers of utility services and eliminates the homeowners the right to dispose of his property, destroying the competitive environment in the market for housing and communal services.
First, if the Parliament will support the project management through the attraction of a service will be the only possible form of home control. In this community experts see lobbying management companies, thus trying to capture market housing management and to avoid this direct people, united in SDMX (Part 6 of Article 23).
Secondly, the sponsors want to deprive the manager responsible to the owners for providing services. Executive responsibility for the quality of municipal services bill is not provided (Part 8, Article 25).
The third bill allows decisions to only 33% of the votes owners. Allowed even the "absentee voting," which opens the interested parties ample opportunity for abuse when deciding on the choice of artist management services for home and other important decisions at home.
Moreover, the bill provides for the adoption of the owners of residential and nonresidential facilities in different buildings of joint decisions in the manner approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ".
This makes it possible, through manipulation of the quorum, the "common" general meeting "to decide on a particular house, even without the participation of owners of premises in such a house (Part 11.7 of Article 23).
The bill also proposes to pay the utility bills "in proportion of the area of ??residential or nonresidential facilities under their ownership, the total area of ??commercial and residential premises of the house."
Thus, if the project is accepted, payment of utility bills based on readings of meters will lose meaning. Furthermore, the proposal to pay for the service at the centralized supply of cold water or electricity on the basis of floor space, contrary to common sense (part 16 of article 23).
Following the adoption of the bill there is a risk that consumers will be forced to separately pay for the service management, which they, in fact, already paid in the service of house maintenance.
Because some project responsibilities artist management services to the home largely coincide with the obligations that under current law is of a service on the contents of houses, buildings and houses adjoining territories (Article 25).
The bill also restricts competition in the market for management houses. It creates a privileged environment for enterprises of communal property.
It provides that "the local authority in the absence of decisions taken by the owners ... on a competitive basis determines the artist management services to home," but "the competition is not required when determining the local authorities as an artist management services to the home entity, owned by is the corresponding territorial community "(part 2 of article 24).
The author suspects that these "artists management services" will lobby the issue of allocation of state funds for capital repairs for themselves, because as a fugitive co-owners take the money (even if available), and on the way AJOAH artificially created all sorts of obstacles, to have ceased to exist a desire to co-owners even think about self-organization.
P.S. After the adoption of "safety" of the law, in fact, eliminating the need to adopt a new Housing Code, against which actively supports the public. After all, the basic idea is to be implemented, the Housing Code may except to secure them.
Only a public outcry and public outcry can stop lobby management companies seeking to capture the market and pumping money from the owners on an unrestricted basis, without any obligations to them, as well as to stifle competition in the market for management, even before she been born.