Amendments to Federal Law 73 "On Cultural Heritage Sites", legitimizing the concept of "reconstruction" in relation to buildings with the status of a monument, were proposed by the head of another State Duma committee - not on culture, but on property, Viktor Pleskachevsky. Last Thursday, November 25, they were approved at a meeting of the Committee on Culture and thus recommended for adoption by the State Duma. Now, according to the law, only: restoration, conservation, repair and adaptation to modern use can be applied to monuments. If the amendments are adopted, the term “adaptation” will be replaced in this list by “reconstruction”.
The experts of the working group of the Committee on Culture are categorically against the adoption of these amendments, and twice suggested the committee to reject them. It is curious that some time ago the committee agreed with the position of the experts, but then changed its opinion: the amendments were submitted for consideration again and approved despite the opposition of experts. Frankly speaking, on November 25, experts were not really listened to: half of the deputies voted in advance, and many of them were absent from the meeting. The experts spoke, calling for the rejection of the amendments, in front of the half-empty hall, while the decision had in fact already been made - Rustam Rakhmatullin, one of the experts of the working group of the committee, told the Regnum news agency on November 26. In addition, Elena Drapeko, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture, told the press that in the process of considering the amendments, the committee was under direct pressure. The amendments are definitely "pushed through", despite the resistance of the professionals in the field of protection of monuments.
In addition to the amendments made by the head of the Property Committee, Pleskachevsky, implying permission (so far prohibited by law 73) for the reconstruction of monuments, the Committee also approved amendments introduced by MP Denis Davitiashvili. Their meaning is as follows: now only the Russian government can cancel the protection status. The deputy proposed to transfer this right to the Ministry of Culture (this idea comes from the government itself and therefore, most likely, is not subject to discussion - Rustam Rakhmatullin comments in an interview with IA Regnum).
The proposal to allow the reconstruction of monuments, on the contrary, does not come from the central government, but from St. Petersburg - even Pleskachevsky's project at the meeting of the Committee on Culture on November 25 was presented not by himself, but by the head of the Committee on Property Management of the city, Igor Metelsky.
Today the public movement "Arkhnadzor" issued a statement in which the situation is described in detail. It quite rightly asserts that both of these amendments, especially when adopted together, "will open up a" green light "for excavators and bulldozers" and make the law on the protection of monuments completely ineffective.
Arkhnadzor called on the State Duma deputies to reject the draft law on amendments to Federal Law 73 (it is expected that it will be submitted to the plenary session in mid-December) and to investigate the statement of Elena Drapeko about direct pressure on the Committee on Culture of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
Yu. T.
We publish the full text of the statement:
Mine under the cultural heritage of Russia
Public statement
movement "Arhnadzor"
Amendments on the reconstruction of monuments will make the law on cultural heritage a law on its destruction
On November 25, a meeting of the Committee for Culture of the State Duma of the Russian Federation was held, dedicated to the draft amendments to the current Federal Law "On Objects of the Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of the Russian Federation" (No. 73-ФЗ dated June 25, 2002). The Committee, contrary to the opinion of the members of the working group - highly qualified experts, specialists in the protection of cultural heritage, workers in this field, recommended for adoption amendments that legitimize the concept of "reconstruction" of historical and architectural monuments.
Reconstruction, i.e. changing the parameters and dimensions of the building, until now, is not allowed on the monuments by the federal law on heritage. It is this principle of the law that until now has been an obstacle to everyone who wants to change, for commercial, consumer or other purposes, the historical appearance and image of cultural monuments, to increase their "useful area", cubic capacity, and height. This principle exactly corresponds to the very meaning and purpose of legislation on cultural heritage: to ensure the physical preservation of historical and architectural monuments in their original form, without arbitrary additions and distortions, to preserve the cultural heritage of Russia for future generations. That is why the experts of the working group strongly opposed the legalization of the reconstruction of monuments and had previously rejected similar amendments to the law.
However, now, before the second reading of the draft law, scheduled for December, the unanimous opinion of experts, professionals, representatives of state heritage protection agencies included in the working group has been discarded. In the new version of the law on heritage, according to the intention of the authors of the amendments, the reconstruction will actually replace the concept of "adaptation of monuments to modern use" provided for by the current law.
However, there is a fundamental difference between these concepts. The adaptation of the monument to modern use ensures its preservation when included in the cultural or economic turnover; reconstruction is the alteration or rebuilding of a monument for the sake of secondary purposes not related to its preservation. At the same time, the ban on reconstruction does not mean at all that “nothing can be done with the monument,” as they are now trying to introduce it into the public consciousness. Thousands of monuments all over Russia - within the framework of the law - are adapted for modern use, renovated, they create comfortable conditions for the life and work of people, they are used not only for museum purposes, but also for housing, public centers, offices, restaurants, industrial workshops, etc.
The references of the authors of the amendments to the notorious "subject of protection" of the monument, which should not be touched upon during the reconstruction, do not stand up to criticism in modern Russian realities. Today, the "subject of protection" (which, moreover, does not have the criteria and mechanism of determination established by law, and is simply absent in tens of thousands of objects of cultural heritage of Russia) is determined by means of historical and cultural expertise, which any interested person has the right to order. Most often these are the investors themselves. The examination is carried out by a single expert who is connected with the investor by contractual relationship. The practice of recent years is replete with cases of arbitrary, scientifically unsubstantiated cutting of "objects of protection". The actual reconstructions carried out on the monuments in the recent past turned out to be a gross distortion of the appearance, or even direct loss of cultural heritage objects. The most striking Moscow examples of today:
- the building of the Detsky Mir department store, from the "subject of protection" of which unique, now destroyed, interiors are excluded;
- the estate of the Glebov-Streshnev-Shakhovsky on Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street, where the wing of the late 18th - early 19th centuries was demolished for the construction of a new stage for the "Helikon-Opera" musical theater (with a significant increase in the area of the object), the front yard was destroyed, and another wing was planned to be demolished.
Reconstructions carried out on the monuments in recent years were bypassing the current legislation. Now we are offered to implement them legally. This is no coincidence. In the past few years, the problems of preserving the Russian heritage have received wide resonance in public opinion. Public organizations and state bodies for the protection of heritage began to insist on the unswerving fulfillment of the requirements of the legislation on monuments, receiving the support of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system. Many unscrupulous owners, tenants and users of monuments, customers of illegal reconstruction, were punished, fined, brought to administrative responsibility, illegal work was stopped.
Such representatives of the class of "business entities" can no longer pretend that the law on inheritance does not exist. Therefore, an attempt has been made to break the law itself.
It is significant that the proposal to legitimize the reconstruction of monuments does not come from restorers, art historians or professionals in the field of cultural heritage protection, but from the chairman of the Duma Property Committee, Viktor Pleskachevsky (United Russia). And also from the government of St. Petersburg, where urban planning activities have been openly vandal in recent years. At the State Duma Committee, Pleskachevsky's project was presented not even by its official author, but by the vice-governor of St. Petersburg, head of the city's Property Management Committee Igor Metelsky.
Another amendment, which will be proposed to be approved by the State Duma deputies, comes from the deputy Denis Davitiashvili. It also meets the aspirations of those wishing to demolish and build on monuments. According to the current procedure, the decision to exclude an object of cultural heritage from the state register is made by the Government of Russia. It is proposed to transfer this right to the federal body for the protection of monuments, i.e. level below. The adoption of such an innovation will significantly simplify the process of removing historical and cultural monuments from state protection, expand opportunities for lobbying and corruption, and open the green light for excavators and bulldozers.
The media are citing the statement of the Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture Elena Drapeko that when discussing these amendments "direct pressure" is put on the committee.
The adoption of these amendments to the law on Russian heritage will mean that the state, instead of encouraging bona fide owners, tenants and users of monuments who comply with the requirements of the law, intends to encourage unscrupulous and selfish "owners". The proverb "let the goat into the garden", alas, will find its embodiment in the norms of federal legislation. Under these conditions, the existence of the very law on the protection of cultural heritage sites will become meaningless, and the entire state system of monuments protection bodies can be disbanded - as completely unnecessary.
The public movement "Arhnadzor" calls on the deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:
- to reject in the second reading the draft law on amendments to the current Federal Law "On objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation" 73-ФЗ dated June 25, 2002, to return to the version developed by the expert working group;
- to conduct an investigation on the statement of State Duma deputy Elena Drapeko about the facts of "direct pressure" on the State Duma Committee on Culture when discussing this draft law.
Statement of the public movement "Arhnadzor", 29.11.2010
