Public hearings were ! rst introduced to Moscow planning practice in 2009 by the new Moscow City planning code of 2008. " is novelty might have passed relatively unnoticed if not for the media hype around Foster’s infamous “Orange” project that was to have been built on the site of the Central House of Artists (“CDKh”) — a modernist landmark with a sculpture park around it. " e ! nal project for the reconstruction of the space presented for consideration at public hearings was a di# erent one but still suggested demolishing the CDKh building and a series of unwanted changes to the intensely used public space that surrounded it. Public hearings on the Central House of Artists were the second ones of that kind that were ever held in Moscow. On the day of public hearings citizens organized a protest against reconstruction. On the

project’s side was the chief architect of Moscow and the head of Central Administrative District. Contrary to the act that prescribes participation of local residents only, o$ cials allowed participation of many public ! gures (architects, artists, activists) who supported the preservation of CDKh and its territory. " e procedure received wide-media coverage and ever since public hearings remain one of the biggest news-makers in the ! eld of planning and construction in Moscow.

>

Public hearings are among the biggest news makers in the ! eld of planning and construction in Moscow.

“PUBLIC” HEARINGS

<

Second public hearings on city-planning matters ever hold in Moscow concerned CDKh reconstruction project.

<

Project for construction of an administrative building in the North-West of Moscow and the same site on the Google map showing tra" c.

From the beginning, some were highly critical of this procedure*, arguing thatPublic hearings are a completely useless undertaking as they are just adding entropy to the city-planning process without having any tangible outcome as their results are nonbinding. But in fact adopting public hearings were a step-forward for the City-planning Code as it was the ! rst recognition of citizens’ interests and their right to participate in the planning process as any changes in this ! eld are a# ecting them directly. Besides, very often a so-called “lay expertise” can help to avoid planning failures.

On May 17th, 2012 public hearings were held on the site plan for an administrative building (the Civil Registry O$ ce, which is the traditional place for civic wedding ceremonies) to be located in Mitino (a region in the north-west of Moscow). At public hearings local residents expressed an undivided opinion that authors of the site plan did not take into consideration that there would be a daily stream of cars (many of them limousines) driving to this site. As the proposed location is just by the busy Pyatnitskoe Shosse (a highway), putting an administrative building there will most likely lead to local tra$ c collapse. " e results of the public hearings prompted the District

“...IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF LOCAL EXPERTISE OR OF THE OFFICIALS’ IGNORANCE...”

Land Use and Planning Committee to suspend the adoption of the project and examine the possibility of its relocation. It is questionable whether this is an example of local expertise or of the o$ cials’ ignorance but the moral is clear: without public involvement there would have been an irrational planning decision taken with signi! cant deterioration of tra$ c conditions as a potential result.

<

Project for constructionof an administrative building in the North-West of Moscow and the same site on the Google map showing tra" c.

On May 17th, 2012 public hearings were held on the site plan for an administrative building (the Civil Registry O$ ce, which is the traditionalplace for civic wedding ceremonies) to be located in Mitino (a region inthe north-west of Moscow). At public hearings local residents expressed anundivided opinion that authors of the site plan did not take into considerationthat there would be a daily stream of cars (many of them limousines) driving to this site. As the proposed location is just by the busy Pyatnitskoe Shosse (a highway), putting an administrative building there will most likely lead tolocal tra$ c collapse. " e results of the public hearings prompted the District

“...IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF LOCAL EXPERTISE OR OF THE OFFICIALS’ IGNORANCE...”

Land Use and Planning Committee to suspend the adoption of the project and examine the possibility of its relocation. It is questionable whether this is an example of local expertise or of the o$ cials’ ignorance but the moral is clear: without public involvement there would have been an irrational planning decision taken with signi! cant deterioration of tra$ c conditions as a potential result.

...and sometimes the church

" e construction of temples of modular structures in Moscow is gaining momentum — there is an o$ cial provision to erect 200 such temples and 60 land plots have already been allocated*. Although sacred, the construction of each temple requires holding public hearings before adoption of the project. Traditionally local residents unite against a developer in attempt to preserve another bit of public space or green area but the hearings on temple projects can turn into a “holy war” between believers and in! dels. To gain support for otherwise unpopular projects developers can built a shopping mall together with a church to facilitate the adoption of the project

In Soviet city planning since 1930s and ! rst few years of post-Soviet practice public participation was limited and fragmented and mostly concerned preservation matters*. Citizens’ right to deliberative participation in planning was ! rst introduced by the Federal Law of 1995 “On the general principles of city planning in the Russian Federation” (Article 8) and then further developed by the Federal City Planning Code of 2004 and the City Planning Code of 2008 in Moscow (Chapter 12). " e latter speci! es the procedure of public hearings by extending the list of documents subject to consideration.According to Moscow legislation the procedure of public hearings is supposed to regulate interaction between citizens, authorities and land-holders (developers, owners of capital construction objects)...

PUBLIC HEARINGS IN MOSCOW CITY-PLANNING CODE

Public hearings are a step in project implementation that is held right before the ! nal adoption which means that the project has already passed all the stages from land allocation to design and technical inspection. " e circle of participants is limited to local citizens, land and property holders (developers) or their representatives and authorities (municipal and Moscow City Duma deputies).Prior to the public hearings there must be an announcement followed by an exhibition of the project — usually lasting no more than 7 to 10 days. At public hearings every participant has a right to comment on and to contribute suggestions to the discussed project. All comments and suggestions

Participants in public hearings over construction of a modular temple in Zelenograd: supporters and protestants.

contributed by the participants have to be recorded and transcribed. After holding public hearings a report on citizens’ proposals and objections must be issued — it serves as a base for the o$ cial conclusion that comes in a form of recommendation issued by the City or District Planning and Construction Committee — a city or district advisory body with authority in the ! eld of land use and construction.

# e strength of a local community might in$ uence the way projects are exhibited. Left: a shabby structure with a site plan documentation printed black and white and pinned up to the boards in Mitino Uprava. Right: developers obviously have slightly more respect to the ever-protesting residents of Troparevo-Nikulino — technical documentation is accompanied by maps and visualisations.

1. Genplan: General Plan for Development

Genplan is “document of strategic development”, comprised of several maps outlining the future of Moscow transportation, residential areas, historical sights, etc. and explanatory texts. “So-called “public” hearing were held in Moscow in summer when most of the citizens are away on holidays. " ose Tverskaya residents who accidentally found out information about them came to hearings but the o$ cials could hardly answer any questions”.From the letter to Moscow City Duma Deputy V. Platonov

In Soviet city planning since 1930s and ! rst few years of post-Soviet practice public participation was limited and fragmented and mostly concerned preservation matters*. Citizens’ right to deliberative participation in planning was ! rst introduced by the Federal Law of 1995 “On the general principles of city planning in the Russian Federation” (Article 8) and then further developed by the Federal City Planning Code of 2004 and the City Planning Code of 2008 in Moscow (Chapter 12). " e latter speci! es the procedure of public hearings by extending the list of documents subject to consideration.

Part of Moscow Genplan adopted in 2009

Participants in public hearings on Moscow Genplan in 2009 Total: 29 000Moscow population: 11 000 000Source: interview with the head of Moscow territorial executive body, 2009ist fuga.

DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION AT PUBLIC HEARINGS

>0,26%

Moscowpopulation

2. Land Use and Development Regulations.

Land Use and Development Regulations were subject to public hearings at the same time as Genplan and in many cases citizens didn’t even know which documents they were deliberating over. " is situation was regarded as a violation of Moscow City-planning Code (Article 34, Part 2) as Land Use and Development Rules must be based on existing Genplan so they can’t be subject to public hearings before the adoption of Genplan. New Land Use and Development Rules must be issued by the end of 2012. Moscow City Duma issued a provision on a possibility of a “step-by-step“ adoption of LUDR so they will be processed in parts and subsequently subject to public hearings in corresponding municipal entities.

3. Territorial planning projects on development, reconstruction or reorganization of residential areas, green spaces, territories within historical and cultural preservation zones.

Green areas and cultural preservation zones are supposed to be treated di# erently and there is a certain set of requirements for the projects of reconstruction and reorganisation of these territories. At the same time, it is not a rare case in Moscow that a status of the site can be changed in order to allow the implementation of a certain project.“It is obvious that this project wasn’t made to help the museum. It was made to lobby interests of potential investors. Moscow Government is going to allow them to build a 17(!) story building of unclear purpose”.From a manifesto of “Art Territory Defenders Committee”, February 2009.

4. Territorial planning projects/site plans.

A site plan is a set of designs showing a) the boundaries of the planned construction objects and infrastructure; b) the key characteristics of the property such as density and height; c) features of the facilities — social, transportation and technical — required for the territory development ; d) materials for substantiation of the chosen design (Moscow City-Planning Code, Article 39-40). In the absence of Land Use and Development Regulations decisions on a certain site development are taking by the authorities based solely on the Genplan.

5. Land surveying plans.

It used to be a common practice in Moscow (in fact, on almost all the ex-USSR territory) to build residential block housing without setting boundaries to the land plot. At the same time land surveying is a prerequisite for condominium formation. " e purpose of the survey is establishing real estate and property rights for those who want to organize themselves into a TSZh (Homeowners Association). According to the Housing Code (Article 36, 37 and 44) residents of the block houses have a right for the allocation of the land that is “attached” to the house to create collective property. " e allocation process is complex and requires creating a land surveying plan for the plot subject to allocation and neighbouring territories. In Moscow, budget for land surveying expertise is provided by the City but the waiting period can be up to 8 years. Many citizens who want to organise a TSZh and allocate the attached land plot have to use private surveying agencies and pay for the surveying expertise themselves.

Planning project for the CDKh territory.

Territorial planning project for the site located East of Altu! evskoe highway.

Land surveying plan for a block in the Central Administrative District .ist fuga.

Part of Land Use and Development Regulations subject to public hearings in 2009.

6. Planning projects for territories within residential blocks or microrayons.

“In! ll construction” — a term that does not exist in Land or City-Planning Code but is widely used by media to describe a type of construction that violates the right to comfort environment of those who live in the neighboring buildings. In addition to that, “in! ll construction” can result in decreasing the price of the surrounding property. At the same time proposals for “in! ll construction” are often presented by the developers as a necessary improvement for the neighbourhood, e.g. a shopping area within walking distance. " e City used to have a special purpose program for the development of the built-up areas (a block or a microrayon) that was designed to protect the living standards of the residents: Resolution No.872 On the Targeted Investment in Moscow (2008-2010)1. Moscow City-planning Code rules prescribes that the parties in interest should be informed about the planned construction but apart from the declarative provisions there is no way to ensure the rights of citizens to obtain this information an express their opinion other than public hearings

Moscow expansion.

" e fact that public hearings — as an obligatory step in planning process — can only be held over certain documents (projects) was used as a technical excuse for not consulting with the public upon the expansion of Moscow borders

7. Permissions for the change of a “conventionally permitted land use” of a land plot or infrastructure object or for de! ection from the established construction parameters.

a) Permitted land use refers to the types of activities or construction legally permitted on a certain land plot. According to the Land Code (Article 7), there are 7 categories of land (zones): agricultural, residential, industrial, forest area, etc. Permitted land use corresponds with the land type as particular or speci! c corresponds with the general, hence the twain shall always be in accordance. However, an exhaustive list of permitted land use can not be found in Russian legislation. Another discrepancy is that the Land Code doesn’t determine who establishes permitted use of an individual land plot. Apart from the “permitted land use” term there is also “conventionally permitted land use” (Federal City-planning Code, Article 37). Again, there is no clear de! nition of the latter and how it di# ers from the “permitted land use”. But it is the change of “conventionally permitted land use” is the one that requires the consideration at public hearings in Moscow. According to the Federal City-planning Code (Article 39), a landholder can apply to the City or District City-planning and Land Use Committee to get permission for the change of the “conventionally permitted land use” of the plot. Town-planning and Land Use Committee must organise public hearings and then take a decision based on the result of the public hearings.b) De% ection from permitted construction parameters normally imply building hight or area increase. " is type or projects are rarely supported by public which often provokes landholders to violate the law in numerous ways — from bribing attempts to physical violence.

Project on the change of conventionally permitted land use for building a car service centre.

Territorial planning project for residential area in Troparevo-Nikulino that suggests building a shopping centre instead of a boulevard — a classic “in! ll construction” case.

Project on the change of permitted construction parameters..

Territorial planning project for the site located East of Altu! evskoe highway.

Projects subject to consideration at public hearings often appear inconceivable to average citizens.

“Do you trust local authorities?”Source: Levada Center

“...I DON’T KNOW WHERE IN RUSSIA THE INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FUNCTIONS PROPERLY...”

FLAWS

" e obligatory character of public hearings and the scope of questions subject to consideration guarantee citizens’ participation in the planning process at all levels — from parking construction to Genplan adoption. But in reality the mechanism of public hearings and its practical implementation is deeply % awed.“Public hearings as an instrument of expressing citizens’ will not work. O" cials do not take people’s opinion into account — they just create a visibility”.From an open letter to the governor of Saint-Petersburg.“I don’t know where in Russia the institution of public hearings functions properly”Aleksandr Lozhkin, architect“Why hold public hearing? In order to hear people’s opinions, to use their suggestions to change the initial project... But it just doesn’t work in our country. I won’t go to the next hearings — don’t want to stand in the crowd with some crazy men and women...”user Vasiliev on 47news.ru “If the only alternative to public hearings is a complete abolishment of all participation procedures, then I would say I support public hearings. But in their current state they are extremely ine" cient. O" cials will listen to you, maybe even pay attention to some suggestions, but will these suggestions be really taken into account? I doubt it. Public hearings’ verdicts aren’t obligatory for implementation. # is is the main problem”.Sergey Udaltsov, leader of the political movement “Left front” and Activist Group Union. Some of these % aws are the results of legislative failures, some are the consequences of various violations, some are the re% ection of the overall state of civic society in Russia and the common pattern of interaction with the authorities, while some are “growing pains,” as the practice of public hearing on city-planning matters is still very young.

1. Place in planning process In Soviet city-planning since 1930s and ! rst few years of post-Soviet practice public participation was limited and fragmented and mostly concerned preservation matters. Citizens’ right to deliberative participation in planning was ! rst introduced by the Federal Law of 1995 “On the general principles of City-planning in Russian Federation” (Article 8) and then further developed by Federal City-planning Code of 2004 and City-planning Code of 2008 — in Moscow. Hearings, as mentioned before, are the last stage before project’s implementation and although the results of public hearings are nonbinding, disapproval of the project can lead to its change or ban — this normally happens on the local-scale projects that are not lobbied by big bigness or governmental o$ cials. In this case the developer (land-holder) carries additional expenses that could have been avoided if public opinion was considered at the earlier stages of project development2. Inconceivability. Documents and projects subject to public hearings are of technical character and often appear incomprehensible for non-experts. " is problem, together with nonbinding results of public hearings, causes widely-spread “rational ignorance” — a refusal to invest time into the study of these documents because of the unclear outcome of participation. Not to mention that it is di$ cult to take an informed decision if the information is inconceivable.“" ese documents are practically unreadable not only for average residents but also for professional architects. Even mass-media has already raised the question of inconceivability. Looks like it has been done on purpose, so that no one can understand a thing which gives way to illegal construction”Kryvtsova Elizaveta, member of Moscow Socio-Ecological Federation

3. Under-attendance" ere is no o$ cial statistics on citizens’ participation in public hearings but there is numerous evidence that Public Hearings are often under-attended:“No one is coming to public hearings, no one is guarding their interests, expect for a handful of outsiders, who are unable to take rational decisions anyway”“" ere was no information on public hearings in local newspaper. " is shows how insecure the authorities feel: being afraid to announce public hearings — that no one attends anyway — to not provoke the electorate even though the matter is nonpolitical”.“We had been trying to ! nd any of the participants but by that time it has become clear that no one attended public hearings”“People themselves don’t want to control the process just like in case with Genplan or in! ll construction. No one cares and no one goes to hearings but the moment they see a huge newly built blockhouse in their yard they start complaining that no one asked their permission”Poor attendance can be a result of rational ignorance and unwillingness to invest the time into an enterprise of dubious results, insu$ cient informing (limited readership of local newspapers and limited audience of governmental websites that publish the announcement) as well violation of informing procedures. Another important factor is a level of scepticism in Russian society. According to Edelman Trust Barometer 2012 Russia is the ! rst amongst world distrusters which proves the general pessimism on the outcomes of participation in public matters and Levada Center surveys show a low level of trust to local authorities which results in refusal to interact with them even on matters that a# ect residents directly.

0

2011

100

YES

NOT REALLY

NO

Left: Uprava o" cials brought homeless people to the exhibition of a shopping centre project to “scare o% ” the residents. Right: Beating up the participant of public hearings on Okhta-center in Saint-Petersburg.

Genplan has to be independently considered in each rayon with local citizens only.District City-planning and construction Committee decided to rejects the project due to public hearings results.

In spite of all these failures, public hearings can function relatively well — at least in terms of taking people’s opinion into account — on a local level, especially in places where local communities are strong.

Restaurant in MitinoOn the 2nd of April, 2012 a project of a building that was supposed to host a restaurant was o# ered to public consideration. " e citizens’ who attended — 17 — in total — almost univocally expressed their criticism and suggested building a pool instead as “there were enough places to eat out already but the district pool is constantly overcrowded and there is a need in another one”. " e City-planning Committee issued a corresponding report and the project is now subject to change

Troparevo-Nikulino shopping mallCitizens of Troparevo-Nikulino cause headaches to all sorts of developers on a regular basis. " ey had been furious watch-dogs of their rayon even before the implementation of public hearings and managed to “! ght-o# ” a small green island between Lomonosovsky and Leninsky avenues.* Recently another attempt on the development of that area was undertaken. Local residents ran on- and o# -line campaigns inviting neighbours to come to hearings. After the hearings they continued to watch the work of District Planning and Construction Committee and reported violations on the issuing of the ! nal report on public hearings, sent requests on the ! nal desicion to City Planning Department. Finally they got a reply that “due to the protests of most of the citizens the project was cancelled”.At the same time, public hearings appear to be practically useless when there is a strong lobby — business or governmental or in many cases both — behind a certain project. " e results are ignored or — to save energy of the o$ cials — public hearngs are just cancelled altogether

4. “Locals only” policy " is policy ensures the right of local residents to be heard and is probably designed to prevent fraud and manipulation. But projects subject to public hearings can be of city-scale rather than local signi! cance (cultural heritage reconstruction, road project, etc.) or can be in the bordering area between two administrative districts — in this case there will be two public hearings hold separately in both areas a# ected. In Moscow this localistic policy has especially wide repercussions: it puts under question the feasibility of considering Genplan as a strategic development document — especially in context of the city expansion — as it is has to be independently considered in each municipality with local citizens only.

5. No expert involvement policyLay expertise can be insu$ cient for taking informed decisions on planning matters subject to public hearings, especially in the situation when projects and documents are inconceivable. However the list of participants doesn’t include independent experts and the “local only” policy can prevent them from participating, which creates a room for manipulations in the participants aren’t well-prepared or well-informed.6. Decision-making procedure lacks transparencyAlthough the members of the Land Use and Construction Committee’s are obliged to review and comment on all the suggestions and objections pronounced at public hearings, the decision-making process still lacks transparency. Public hearing is a deliberative institution, not a referendum, so the simple majority principle is inapplicable here. Together with the nonbinding results it can puts the feasibility of the public hearings as a procedure of accounting public opinion under question.7. Fraud, manipulation and abuse of authority " e list of possible infractions and violations can be in! nite: not informing the citizens, falsi! cation of reports, bringing hired “actors” that would speak on behalf of the residents, skipping public hearings, etc. And the higher the stakes, the more the chances for violation.

Residents of Troparevo-Nikulino launched a campaign against shopping center construction, participated in public hearings and won.

THEY WORK

Countess Saltykova’s villa In the very center of Moscow — Bolshaya Bronnaya street — another historical building is being turned into a “multifunctional” o! ce-building with two " oors added on top, and three — underground. # e author of the project is the same person who restored Voentorg and Moskva Hotel. Public hearings on the projects were never hold

Archangelskoe estate-museum

On the 11th of January 2012 public hearings on the project of development of Arkhangelskoe museum-estate (20 km west of Moscow) were held. " e project suggests construction of two “hype rmarkets” of 58 thousands square meters.

PREDICTABLY, MOST OF THE PARTICIPANTS WERE AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT. NEVERTHELESS PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THE PROJECT FOR IMPLEMENTATION. CONST-RUCTION BEGAN IN APRIL 2012

Another historic building is being turned into a “multifunctional complex” with o" ces, shops and underground parking.

Construction of a hyper-market for building and renovation materials in the midst of the estate-museum of Federal signi! cance.

WEAK SOLUTIONSTHEY DON’T WORK

" e overall ine$ ciency of public hearings is no secret and is constantly discussed by the public, expert community and oppositional politicians. Recently it has been o$ cially recognised by the government. As Moscow City Planning Code is undergoing changes in connection with Moscow expansion anyway, there were 5 million rubles granted by Moscow Government to research and improve the legislative part of public hearings “based on the experience of other big cities in Russia”*. Among the possible changes adjusting the time of public hearings and the register of participants if the project has to be constructed on a border territory between two municipalities.

BUT AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE TAKING THE FINAL DECISION ANYWAY...: “" ere was a precedent, — says the head of Rostokino (municipality in the North-East of Moscow) Uprava Petr Povolotsky — we hold public hearings on the capital reconstruction of four houses. In the end, we managed to restore only three houses because in one house there was a woman who ran a campaign against reconstruction. Now we have three houses with new façades and one is falling apart”. So considering the most common criticism of public hearings the possible list of changes can look like this:1. Allowing citizens’ participation at the earlier stages of the project development to make it more meaningful and avoid additional expenses for project changes in case it doesn’t pass public hearings;2. Establishing a di# erent set of requirements for projects and plans — especially visual material — subject to public hearings in addition to technical ones to increase their comprehensibility;3. Prolonging the terms of project exposition, especially in case of Genplan and Land Use and Development Rules; 4. Developing and implementing a criteria system for considering citizens’ objections and suggestions that would make City and District City Planning Committee’s decision-making mechanism more transparent;5. Making the list of participants in pubic hearings more % exible in order to overcome “localism” when discussing the city-scale matters and well as projects concerning more than one region – or “municipal district”, “city district” and “settlement” in the new terminology;6. Making participation of the project’s authors obligatory;7. Facilitating participation of independent experts, hold open hearings for experts only prior to public ones for such projects as the Genplan and Land Use and Development Rules;8. To compensate for the non-binding nature of the procedure, that can not be changed due to the nature of the institution, and to ensure citizen participation in further decision making, allow participation of citizens’ representatives (other than municipal deputies) in the in the District City Planning Committee.

<

Public hearings on planning and construction matters should be replaced by referendums.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ¬ POPULAR CONSULTATION

" e problem with these amendments is that they don’t ! x the main problem of public hearings: the nonbinding results that allow to discount citizens’ opinion and even cancel public hearings without a huge protest rallies in response as people don’t believe in this procedure anyway. As mentioned before, there are cases when hearings work but that’s mostly on a local scale. " ey can work on a bigger scale too if there is an international media-hype (CDKh project) or an authority of an international organisation like UNESCO involved (Okhta-center in Saint-Petersburg). But those were rather exceptions than common practice and the only thing that be could be set against the lobby of the government or big business should be something equally powerful. Something that doesn’t have the ambivalent and compromising character of public hearings, something that could really empower the citizens’. " e results of public hearings should not be just recommendatory but legislative. Public hearings should be replaced by popular consultations — a direct democratic procedure that has binding results, with people making ! nal decision on the project. All the rest — involving experts, changing terms of exhibition and visual materials — is just a palliative but not a cure. Ideally, the procedure of public hearings is supposed to be a system of “checks and balances” ensuring that interests of all the stakeholders are taken into account.

IN MOSCOW THIS SYSTEM IS HIGHLY UNBALANCED SO THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE IS TO THROW SOMETHING EQUALLY HEAVY INTO THE SCALEConsidering the fact that citizens are to decide on a project that is already designed it should be a open referendum — an open and direct voting procedure hold on any case — from a local pool construction to the 58 000 square meters development of a historical estate-museum. " e list of participants can vary depending on a scale of a project: from rayon scale to city-scale. To facilitate the procedure it can be hold online using the electronic signature. " e results should be open so in case of a manipulation suspicion (citizens sound in mind can’t vote for the building of a construction materials hypermarket in the middle of a historical estate) there is a possibility of investigation.If citizens are the ultimate authority it would launch a chain reaction for resolving other malfunctions of the public hearings:1.Place in planning processIf citizens are to be the ! nal authority, it is prudent to suggest that developers and authorities will make sure citizens participate in the project from the very beginning not to carry additional expensing for changing it. 2. Inconceivability of materials.Knowing that citizens are to decide, authors of the project would make their best to communicate it properly. Also, the rational ignorance wouldn’t be a

problem anymore as the outcome is tangible and there are reasons to spend time educating yourself.3. Under-attendance.Same goes with lack of attendance. Citizens who don’t normally participate in public hearing will now take active part in the planning process if they know they can make a change and they don’t want other to decide for them. 4. “Locals only” policy" e list of participants in the referendum will vary depending on the scale of the project: there is no need to involve the whole city if it concerns a construction of a garage in a microrayon in the North-East of Moscow but all Muscovites should have an opportunity to decide on a destiny of a park or a historical site of the city-scale importance. 5. No expert involvement policy. In 2006 President of Russian Federation issued a provision “On establishing advisory bodies for Federal Authority institutions”. In 2008 the similar advisory body was established for Moscow Government. Moscow Citizens can initiate establishing of the same body of independent experts to advice them on planning matters. 6. Decision-making procedure lacks transparency.It will become crystal clear now: yes or no.7.Fraud and manipulation.As the referendum will be open and every citizen will vote under their own name it will be possible to control violation. And there will be more citizen control as with binding results steaks are higher.Such a measure might be a bit extreme. But isn’t a situation when citizens, although being a fully legitimate stakeholders (Moscow City-planning Code, Chapter 12), are easily ignored, extreme too? It obviously needs an adequate response. Clearly, this referendum policy doesn’t have to be implemented everywhere. It could do good in Saint-Petersburg where same problems exist. Sochi — because of the Olympics — as well. Perm probably doesn’t need it, similar to some cities in Moscow region where self-governance is quite well-functioning. We have to note, though, that in order to follow the famous principle of the “unity of city property” that allowed to centralise power to in Moscow and practically eliminated self-governance*, the implementation of referendum for planning a# airs will require the symmetrical process of decentralisation in other ! elds.