Mortgage lending and problems of providing the Russian population with housing. How can you solve the housing problem?

It would seem that the solution to the problem of providing military personnel and citizens discharged from military service with housing lies on the surface: build more and populate them. However, the realities of life are more complex and harsher. There are many problems, both organizational and legal. Let's start with legal issues.

1. The first thing I would like to dwell on is the modern concept of the right to housing. The right to housing means the opportunity to have housing, to use it under the conditions determined by law, and also to dispose of it in cases and procedures established by law.

With the adoption of the RF Housing Code, myths regarding the “charitable function” of the Russian state were finally dispelled. If, according to the Constitution of the USSR of 1977, everyone was guaranteed the right to housing, which first of all meant the provision of free living space to Soviet citizens, and only then (as a non-main form) the possibility of independently providing living space through participation in cooperative and individual housing construction. This approach gave rise to dependent sentiments among almost the entire Soviet population, since the idea of ​​the state’s obligation to provide them with housing, without any adequate return on their part, was firmly ingrained in people’s minds. The result was well known - the housing problem has become one of the key problems of our state.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 40) also proclaimed the right to housing among the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen. At the same time, attention should be paid to the shifted emphasis in its understanding in comparison with the previously in force Constitution of 1977.

Constitution of the Russian Federation in Art. 40 provides that state authorities and local governments encourage housing construction and create conditions for the exercise of the right to housing. As for the provision of housing for free (or at an affordable price), according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, such housing is provided only to low-income people and other citizens specified in the law who need housing. In order to activate the population, it was necessary to move away from dependency and tell everyone, and this is correct, that only the low-income people will be provided with social housing by the state, for the rest it will create certain conditions so that they can solve individual housing problems independently or in partnership with the state.

And it was adequately accepted by everyone that military personnel belong to that category of other citizens (in the terminology of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) to whom the state guarantees free provision of residential premises due to their special functional purpose. Federal Law No. 122-FZ has finally dispelled any illusions among the entire population of our state (including in the housing sector), and above all among military personnel, since this particular category, even before the adoption of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, was deprived of the right to receive free housing under a contract social hiring.

Thus, today, the right of military personnel to housing, from its understanding as the right to receive permanent living space (living premises), as a mandatory condition for ensuring their decent standard of living, has been replaced in legislation by the possibility of obtaining service (temporary) living quarters or living quarters purchased with assistance from the state when using funds from military personnel, i.e. A serviceman must earn his own rent. However, the problem is that the gradual transition from the provision of permanent housing for military personnel in kind (in the form of an apartment for social rent) to its monetary equivalent (issuance and redemption of state housing certificates, a savings-mortgage system for providing housing for military personnel) is not associated with the growth monetary allowances for military personnel are the only legal source of formation of military personnel’s own funds, which can be used to purchase housing. Thus, the state, having unilaterally relieved itself of its obligations to provide housing for military personnel, is again pushing military personnel to look for other sources of income in order to provide themselves with housing. Is this compatible with military service?

So, on January 1, 2005, Federal Law No. 122-FZ of August 22, 2004 came into force, which introduced significant changes to Art. 15 of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel,” which regulates the housing rights of military personnel, and from March 1, 2005, as already mentioned, the Housing Code of the Russian Federation came into force. With the adoption and entry into force of these legislative acts, both individual institutions of housing law and legislation in general, and the system of housing provision for military personnel underwent significant changes, which gave rise to a number of organizational and legal problems, which we will analyze below.

2. From January 1, 2005, military personnel ceased to belong to those categories of citizens who are guaranteed the provision of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, with the exception of persons previously registered as needing improved housing conditions.

For military personnel registered as needing improved housing conditions before the entry into force of the RF Housing Code, it remains possible to provide residential premises from social use funds under a social rental agreement at the expense of the state housing stock assigned to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (other federal executive bodies, in which military service is provided for by federal law).

In accordance with the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (Article 49), and previously the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy", the housing fund for social use is allocated for socially vulnerable segments of the population (low-income citizens, minor orphans, etc.), as well as for certain categories of citizens who have a special (“special”) status due to the specifics of their purpose, for example, civil servants and other persons specified in the law.

As a legal prerequisite for the exercise of the right to obtain housing, the Housing Code of the Russian Federation indicates the amount of income per person. This prerequisite, as a mandatory one, cannot be applied to military personnel who have the right to provide residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, since by virtue of Part 3 of Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, free housing is provided not only to the poor, but also to other citizens specified in the law. Such a law regarding military personnel was the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel” (as amended in force until January 1, 2005).

What are the problems of changing the forms of housing provision for military personnel?

Firstly, not all categories of military personnel were covered by one or another possible and accessible form of housing support. Thus, military personnel who registered as needing improved housing conditions before January 1, 2005, continue to remain so until they receive residential premises under a social tenancy agreement. Military personnel who graduated from military educational institutions after January 1, 2005 or entered military service under a contract after this date are provided with office living quarters for the entire period of military service and take part in the savings-mortgage housing system, which assumes upon expiration of the established period purchase of housing property. However, current legislative acts do not establish a mechanism for providing housing for military personnel who do not belong to these categories, but during their service began to need living quarters due to certain life circumstances. For example, these are those who have housing, but gradually it becomes insufficient due to the increase in family composition (the family composition was 3 people, and after a few years - 5 people). Previously, such a serviceman did not stand in line because he was provided with housing, but then the need arose to improve living conditions. Naturally, there is not enough money to purchase new housing; this serviceman does not have the right to official living space.

This gap in the legislation must be eliminated, since the level of income does not currently allow military personnel to independently solve their housing problems by participating, for example, in cooperative or shared construction.

The inconsistency between individual institutions of military legislation has already become the talk of the town. Art. 15 of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel”, which does not say a word about such a new form of housing provision for military personnel as the savings-mortgage system, i.e. does not even contain a blanket norm referring to the Federal Law “On the Savings and Mortgage System of Housing for Military Personnel.”

Is it possible to use this form to solve the problem of housing for military personnel in the distant future? Today the answer is clearly negative. If the annual state contribution, as follows from official sources, will be 1 thousand dollars per year (over 20 years, approximately 20 thousand dollars), in what locality can you buy something for this money? In settlements remote from industrial centers, which can only be reached by helicopter, you can buy luxury apartments or build them for this money.

The calculation of the amount of the annual contribution should include the criterion of the possibility of acquiring standard living space in industrialized settlements. But this is not currently the case. Today's cadets understand that they can only be provided with official living space in a remote locality, and at the end of their service they will not have housing.

2. The Housing Code of the Russian Federation establishes two criteria for differentiating housing stock: by type of ownership and by purpose of use (Article 19).

Depending on the form of ownership, the housing stock is divided:

1) for private housing stock - a set of residential premises owned by citizens and owned by legal entities;

2) for the state housing stock - a set of residential premises owned by the Russian Federation (housing stock of the Russian Federation), and residential premises owned by constituent entities of the Russian Federation (housing stock of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation);

3) for municipal housing stock - a set of residential premises owned by municipalities.

Depending on the purpose of use, the housing stock is divided into:

1) for housing stock for social use - the totality of residential premises of state and municipal housing stock provided to citizens under social tenancy agreements;

2) for specialized housing stock - a set of intended for residence of certain categories of citizens and provided according to the rules of section. IV Housing Code of the Russian Federation of residential premises of state and municipal housing funds;

3) for individual housing stock - a set of residential premises of a private housing stock that are used by citizens - owners of such premises for their residence, residence of members of their family and (or) residence of other citizens on the basis of free use, as well as legal entities - owners of such premises for residence of citizens under the specified conditions of use;

4) for housing stock for commercial use - a set of residential premises that are used by the owners of such premises for the residence of citizens on the terms of paid use, provided to citizens under other agreements, provided by the owners of such premises to persons for possession and (or) use.

From which housing funds are the housing needs of military personnel and members of their families met? In accordance with the previously effective version of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel,” military personnel undergoing military service under a contract and members of their families living with them were provided with living quarters at the expense of the state or municipal housing stock assigned to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation or another federal body executive power, in which federal law provides for military service (clause 1, article 15). As of January 1, 2005, as amended by the said Law, there is no indication of the types of housing stock; at the same time, within the meaning of the Law and the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the provision of housing will be carried out only at the expense of the housing stock of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that the Federal Law “On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, from March 1, declared the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Fundamentals of Federal Housing Policy” to have lost force, according to Art. 7 of which the state housing stock was divided into two parts:

1) departmental housing stock, which is state property of the Russian Federation and is under the full economic control of state enterprises or the operational management of state institutions belonging to federal property;

2) a fund owned by the republics of the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as a departmental fund that is under the full economic control of state enterprises or the operational management of state institutions related to the corresponding type of property .

The departmental housing stock of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and other federal executive authorities in which citizens serve in military service is formed from residential premises received from housing construction, conversion of non-residential premises into residential ones and acquired by the relevant federal executive authorities. This mainly includes housing stock in military camps. According to Art. 15 of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel”, service living quarters are provided for the entire period of military service in closed military camps to military personnel - citizens of the Russian Federation, undergoing military service under a contract, and members of their families living with them. According to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, these residential premises belong to the housing stock of the Russian Federation. Consequently, we can talk about the presence of a departmental housing stock conditionally, understanding, first of all, the totality of office residential premises under the jurisdiction of one or another department (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, FSB of Russia, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, etc.) intended for housing provision military personnel of this department and members of their families.

Having removed from state authorities and local self-government the obligation to participate in the housing provision of military personnel, as well as other federal civil servants, the legislator did not provide a mechanism for imposing the obligation on these bodies to provide land plots for housing construction for military personnel, which once again gave rise to “pseudo-legal” actions of local authorities aimed at refusing to provide them. The question arises: what exactly should we use to build housing for military personnel, including service housing? It is necessary to legislatively determine as soon as possible a mechanism for providing land plots for these purposes, since they are derived from national tasks in the field of defense and security.

What should happen to official living quarters when a serviceman is transferred from one federal department (in which it was provided to him) to another (in which he also has the right to be provided with official living quarters)? Since the provision of service living quarters must be carried out at the expense of the housing stock of the Russian Federation, the legislation may provide for a twofold mechanism: 1) the serviceman will continue to occupy the previously provided residential premises with its transfer to the jurisdiction of another federal executive body; 2) the serviceman will continue to occupy the previously provided residential premises until another is provided by the federal executive body in which he will continue to serve. In any case, he is not subject to eviction without the provision of other living quarters.

At the same time, when a serviceman is discharged from military service and loses his right to be provided with official residential premises at the expense of the housing stock of the Russian Federation, the rental contract for official residential premises with him is terminated, which is the basis for his eviction without the provision of other residential premises, except in cases provided for in Art. 103 Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

3. According to the Federal Law “On the Entry into Force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Introductory Law), all citizens registered before January 1, 2005 for the purpose of subsequent provision of residential premises to them under social tenancy agreements retain the right to register for this registration before they receive residential premises under social tenancy agreements. However, the provision of residential premises will be carried out in the manner established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, and not the Housing Code of the RSFSR, i.e. the previous procedure for providing these citizens with residential premises under social tenancy agreements will not be maintained (Article 6 of the Introductory Law).

Attention should be paid to the fact that, in contrast to the previously existing procedure, the provision on the mandatory provision of comfortable living quarters in relation to the conditions of a given locality and its compliance with established sanitary and technical requirements is excluded. At the same time, after the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the Rules for registering citizens in need of improved housing conditions and providing residential premises, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of July 31, 1984 N 335, will continue to apply. According to clause 42 of the Rules, what is provided to citizens for residential premises must be well-equipped in relation to the conditions of a given locality and meet established sanitary and technical requirements. This “forgetfulness” of the legislator is hardly justified if we remember the nature of our state, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as a social state, the policy of which is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of people (Article 7).

4. According to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a rental agreement is concluded with persons who are provided with official residential premises.

In our opinion, both the lease agreement for service residential premises (Article 94 of the RF Housing Code) and the housing contract concluded with a military serviceman are varieties of a social rental agreement, which determines the application of certain norms of the RF Housing Code governing the procedure for providing residential premises under a social rental agreement . In particular, we are talking about providing them in order of priority (Part 1 of Article 57 of the RF Housing Code).

Since for military personnel undergoing military service under a contract, the provision of service living quarters is a form of housing support for the duration of their military service (i.e., over a long period of time), they must be provided on a first-come, first-served basis. In addition, it is advisable to consider the possibility of providing office residential premises to persons whose need for residential premises arose after January 1, 2005 and who meet the criteria for the provision of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement (including income level).

5. The introductory law provides for the preservation of the validity of articles of the Housing Code of the RSFSR concerning the grounds for registering citizens in need of improved housing conditions. This conclusion follows from the analysis of Art. 5 of the said Law, according to which this Code applies to housing relations that arose before the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in terms of those rights and obligations that arise after its entry into force, with the exception of cases provided for by the Introductory Law (this case concerns the procedure provision of residential premises). Consequently, the norms of the Housing Code of the RSFSR will be applied to a limited extent to housing relations that arose before March 1, 2005, despite the fact that the Introductory Law recognizes it as no longer in force.

Residential premises are provided to citizens who were previously classified as “in need of improved housing conditions.” These include two categories of citizens: 1) those who do not have living quarters at all, for example, most often these are military personnel, newlyweds, who previously lived in the living space of their parents or with private individuals on a sub-tenant basis; 2) persons improving their living conditions (most often those who move from one residential premises to another, larger, etc.). According to the new housing legislation, they are referred to as “persons in need of residential premises.”

As follows from paragraph 1 of Art. 15 of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel”, military personnel are not guaranteed, as previously, the provision of residential premises on a preferential basis, i.e. within three months at the expense of the state and municipal housing stock assigned to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (another federal executive body in which military service is provided for by federal law). Currently, the provision of living quarters to civilian military personnel and members of their families will be carried out in the order of general priority.

6. Military personnel provided with service living quarters for the entire period of military service are deregistered upon receipt of premises in accordance with established standards.

Residential premises are provided only to persons registered as needing residential premises, and only on a first-come, first-served basis. The only criterion in determining the priority is the time of registration (based on the date of the decision on registration).

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that with the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the preferential procedure for the provision of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement is canceled, with the exception of cases provided for in Part 1 of Art. 57 Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

Out of turn, residential premises under social tenancy agreements are provided to:

1) citizens whose residential premises are recognized in accordance with the established procedure as unfit for habitation and are not subject to repair or reconstruction;

2) orphans and children left without parental care, persons from among orphans and children left without parental care, at the end of their stay in educational and other institutions, including social service institutions, foster families, children's family-type homes, upon termination of guardianship (trusteeship), as well as upon completion of service in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation or upon return from institutions executing a sentence of imprisonment. By the way, this edition of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation says that if a citizen before entering military service belonged to the listed categories of citizens, then after dismissal from military service he acquires the right to priority provision of residential premises if he meets the other criteria (based on income level);

3) citizens suffering from severe forms of chronic diseases.

The specified procedure applies to relations that arose both before and after the entry into force of the RF LC (Part 2 of Article 6 of the Introductory Law). For persons who were included in preferential queues (for priority and priority provision of residential premises) before the implementation of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the previous procedure is not maintained, since Art. 36 (“Priority provision of residential premises”) and Art. 37 (“Extraordinary provision of residential premises”) Housing Code of the RSFSR. Residential premises are provided to citizens registered as needing residential premises in order of priority based on the time such citizens were registered, with the exception of cases of extraordinary provision established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. This rule applies if a different procedure for persons who are provided with housing under a social tenancy agreement is not specified in any law, as provided for in Part 3 of Art. 49 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (for example, paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Federal Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” provides for an extraordinary procedure for housing provision for judges; a similar provision of paragraph 4 of Article 44 of the Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation” is provided for prosecutors) .

The question remains debatable as to whether the previously established procedure is subject to application or not, according to which citizens entitled to priority provision of residential premises were included in separate lists (Article 33 of the RSFSR Housing Code). I am expressing my subjective point of view: the previous procedure can be maintained in certain cases for persons registered as needing improved housing conditions before March 1, 2005, because:

Citizens registered before March 1, 2005 for the purpose of subsequent provision of residential premises under social tenancy agreements retain the right to be registered until they receive residential premises under social tenancy agreements. These citizens are provided with residential premises under social tenancy agreements in the manner prescribed by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (Article 6 of the Introductory Law);

Residential premises of the housing stock of the Russian Federation or the housing stock of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation under social tenancy agreements are provided by other specified federal law or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to categories of citizens recognized on the grounds established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and (or) the federal law or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation as needing residential premises . These residential premises are provided in the manner established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, unless a different procedure is provided for by federal law or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (Part 3, Article 49 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

Therefore, to maintain an extraordinary order, two conditions must be met:

1) such a procedure must be provided for by federal law or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

2) the provision of residential premises must be carried out from the housing stock of the Russian Federation or a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

A similar conclusion can be drawn regarding the priority order for the provision of residential premises.

8. Due to the loss of the order’s significance as a basis for moving into a residential premises provided in the housing stock for social use, according to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the established judicial practice on declaring the order invalid and evicting persons who moved into a specific residential premises under it is not subject to application. Previously, violation of the order of provision of residential premises to citizens could serve as grounds for invalidating the order.

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not provide grounds for termination of a social tenancy agreement in case of violation of the priority order for the provision of residential premises from the social use fund.

Consequently, citizens who are registered as needing improved housing conditions and who believe that residential premises should be provided to them cannot go to court with such claims, since they do not have a subjective civil right to the residential premises specified in the rental agreement. The RF Housing Code does not establish the circle of persons who can bring a claim in such cases.

At the same time, attention should be paid to Art. 11 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the protection of housing rights. According to this article, the protection of housing rights is carried out in various ways, including a non-normative act of a state body or local government body, as well as the housing commission of a military unit (for example, a decision to provide specific residential premises to a person in violation of the order of priority), violating the housing rights of participants in housing relations , may be declared invalid by the court. In this case, it is necessary to file an application with the court against the unlawful decision that violated the order of provision of residential premises.

If the court recognizes the act as invalid, the violated right is subject to restoration or protection in other ways provided for by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation or other federal law, for example, by changing the housing legal relationship, etc.

Last week there was two pieces of news for military personnel, good and bad. Firstly, the State Duma adopted amendments to ensure affordable housing for military personnel. And this, of course, is positive. On the other hand, the initiatives of the new leadership of the Ministry of Defense to solve the housing problem once and for all ran into the problem of a lack of money in the budget.

According to two bills adopted in the third reading, military personnel who entered into a contract for military service before January 1, 1998 are provided with housing of their choice - not only under a social tenancy agreement, as currently, but also as property.

In addition, the law provides benefits to former military personnel who were on the waiting list for housing before January 1, 2005, but then moved to another location and registered there after January 1, 2005. Until now, such persons formally lost the right to housing in their new place of residence.

A little earlier, another bill was adopted equalizing the rights to receive compensation for renting housing for discharged military personnel and members of their families, regardless of the timing of their registration as those in need of residential premises. The fact is that, in accordance with current legislation, such compensation from the federal budget is provided only for those who registered before January 1, 2005, which, according to legislators, puts citizens discharged from military service and registered later than this date, and violates their constitutional rights.

In a word, it is impossible not to note: there are certain positive changes in the issue of solving the housing problem of military personnel. And although the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defense, Vladimir Komoyedov, quite optimistically noted that the adoption of these amendments “will speed up the solution to the housing problem” of military personnel and “reduce social tension among them,” there is still no reason for final joy. After all, as practice shows, there is a very deep gap between the law and its implementation.

According to Russian Deputy Defense Minister Ruslan Tsalikov, the legislation gave military personnel the right to an unlimited choice of housing, but at the same time it was unable to fulfill its obligations. And the problem is not only the low pace of construction of housing for military personnel.

At a September meeting devoted to this problem, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev made a complaint: they say, in recent years a lot of money has been allocated, “but we also have cases when houses built within the framework of relevant programs of the Ministry of Defense remained uninhabited.” “People are refusing apartments offered. There are human problems there, but overall this situation is abnormal,” said the head of government.

“It is clear that officers who have given their entire lives to military service (officers and their families, of course) have the right to count on normal, comfortable housing, and housing that is in decent conditions, and not in an open field, where there is social infrastructure , schools and hospitals," Medvedev added.

The problem, as the Ministry of Defense believes, lies in the system of distribution of apartments inherited from Soviet times, when military personnel received them in the form of specific square meters. And most importantly, they did not always get it where they wanted it. With the advent of the market, housing has also received its commercial value, and therefore not many are ready to agree to an apartment that will later be extremely problematic to sell or exchange for another.

Plus dependence on the developer, who is also looking for his own economic benefit. “Normal people work there too, not some kind of enemies or spies. They also need to get theirs on time. And they determine, based on economic parameters: let’s build it here better. Well, and then it turned out that they built housing here, but it didn’t in demand. Our number of unclaimed apartments last year ranged from ten to thirty thousand,” said Tsalikov.

All this, as well as a number of other nuances (including the number of military personnel in need of housing, which, according to the Accounts Chamber, at the end of 2012 there were about 100 thousand people) forced the military department to think about redrawing the current system of providing their charges with housing - move from the natural method to lump sum cash payments. The size of these payments will depend on length of service and family composition, but, according to the developers of the bill, they will amount to at least three million rubles. "We offer

From January 1, 2014, one-time cash payments will be made the main form of providing permanent housing. Then such a thing as a queue for housing will virtually disappear,” said Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

There were many complaints about the bill. One of the main ones is the relatively low amount of payments, which will not allow purchasing housing in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other large cities of the country. It is obvious that it is impossible to buy a more or less decent apartment in the capital of Russia for three or even five million rubles. It is difficult to find good housing for a large family for this money in a number of federal cities.

The developers are based on the maximum cost per square meter, determined by the recommendations of the Ministry of Regional Development - just over 34 thousand rubles. And if people had the opportunity to buy apartments at the prices that appear in the reports of the Ministry of Regional Development, I think there would no longer be problems with providing housing. For example, according to the department, the average cost per square meter in Moscow and the Moscow region is 34 thousand 600 rubles. And this, by the way, is the maximum figure. Perhaps municipal housing is provided to beneficiaries at such prices, but the commercial cost of a square meter in Moscow is at least 100 thousand rubles. And in regional centers they have long been using the figure of 50 thousand rubles per square meter.

However, according to the head of the Housing Department of the Ministry of Defense Sergei Pirogov, at the moment the single cost per square meter of housing is set at 34 thousand 350 rubles. And it seems that global changes are not expected. As the same Pirogov explained, recently there has been a heated bargaining with the Ministry of Finance “literally for hundredths of the coefficients” and now “the issue is close to completion.”

One way or another, the idea as a whole still seems sound. But only if you ignore Russian realities and imagine yourself in a country where economic and political stability flourishes, and citizens are confident in realizing their rights and opportunities. But since many years of practice makes people suspicious of government initiatives, very few among the military enthusiastically accepted the proposed formula.

On one of the sites for military personnel, out of 800 participants in a survey regarding cash payments for the purchase of apartments, about 650 would prefer the old scheme with natural apartments. “The experience of monetization shows that cash payments do not compensate for in-kind benefits,” is one of the main arguments. And then there are concerns about the amounts, the procedure for providing these payments, which can be very delayed, etc. The authorities, in turn, are doing everything possible to strengthen the military in their skepticism.

Recently it became known that there is simply no money in the state budget to provide payments. And it won't happen until 2016. Legislators, however, believe that there is no reason to worry about the failure of the military housing reform, and now there is an intensive discussion of this issue in the Duma, the Federation Council, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Defense.

It seems that the main and main problem is not so much in the forms of providing housing - in kind or in cash, but in the trust in the state on the part of the same military personnel. Apartments are often abandoned for objective reasons - the proposed living space looks completely unsuitable for living.

“One of us was offered the same apartment for individual permanent residence (individual permanent residence) with a 2 by 8 kitchen (roughly speaking), he refused. And then they gave us another apartment in the same place, but with a meter by meter corridor and a kitchen larger than a room 3 times. He refused, with an explanation why he didn’t take it. It’s just that the Moscow Region, as I understand it, has “hanging” duty apartments that no one takes. And if after January 1, 2014 such a “duty” apartment with a tricky layout will be offered (which no civilian buys or will ever buy) under IPM, then what?” asks one of the participants in the forum for mutual legal assistance of military personnel.

So for now, all state initiatives are perceived solely as another way to save money on those who have chosen to defend their homeland as their profession.

HOUSING AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM

Tretyakova Lyudmila Pavlovna

2nd year student, Department of Economic Theory, Alt State University, International Institute of Economics, Management and Information Systems, Barnaul

E- mail: r 2208@ bk . ru

Currently, Russian society is actively discussing the issue of ways to solve socio-economic problems and the need for housing and communal services reform. Moreover, scientific and public discussions take place against the backdrop of actions taken by authorities at various levels. However, the logic of modern Russian politicians “something must be done, otherwise it will be even worse” does not stand up to criticism. It seems that in solving such large-scale issues as housing, it is preferable to be guided by the old Russian proverb that it is necessary to measure seven times and cut only once. It is especially true for the housing issue due to its, on the one hand, special importance, and on the other, its complexity and complexity. The list of negative consequences of homelessness for a person is quite long. Having a roof over your head is a basic human need. However, it is quite difficult to measure, since there are problems of size, cost, location of housing, availability of amenities, etc. Demand for housing is also quite difficult to determine, since it grows not only as the population increases, but also with the emergence of new households , increasing life expectancy, developing the desire to live independently.

Housing policy is directly related to social policy, as it serves to achieve social goals and increase the well-being of the population. It is closely interconnected and interacts with other sectors of the social sphere. Housing policy affects all aspects of the housing issue. This is determined by the fact that solving it in modern conditions requires the consolidation of personal, commercial, and government efforts. State intervention in solving the housing problem is associated with its three aspects, namely the construction, distribution and maintenance of the housing stock.

The specificity of housing is that, on the one hand, it is a market product, and on the other, it is a social service. Practice shows that economic and political factors that determine direct government intervention in the housing system often outweigh social ones. Currently, housing is at the epicenter of a trend away from a model of government intervention to ensure the right to housing to a market model, where economic prosperity becomes the main guarantor of meeting the need for housing. Housing policy is an important means of government participation in solving the housing problem. At the same time, ensuring socially acceptable forms of housing distribution requires considerations not only of economic efficiency, but also of social justice.

The classic definition of social policy includes, along with education, health care, social security and personal social services, which are traditionally within the scope of its competence, and the solution to the housing problem. This is due to the importance for a person of being able to provide a roof over their head for themselves and their family. Meanwhile, at present we are talking almost exclusively about housing and communal services reform, as a result of which the implementation and formation of housing policy are essentially identified with housing and communal services reform and are considered primarily in technical and economic terms. At the same time, consciously or unconsciously, the deeper social consequences of actions taken in this area are ignored or hushed up. In this regard, considering housing policy as part of social policy requires a number of clarifications.

Thus, politics is inextricably linked with the state, which plays an important role in solving social problems, using various methods: indirectly regulates social processes; directly participates in the provision of social services to the population.

A generalization of social policy models in different countries shows that, on the one hand, the implementation of the same goals is possible in different ways, on the other hand, countries pursue different goals in their social policies.

Models of social policy are easily grouped depending on the degree of state participation in solving social problems. In this case, two poles are traditionally distinguished: liberal market and social democratic models. The first assumes that social problems are solved more effectively with minimal government involvement. This implies that the state comes to the aid of a person only when there is no other alternative left in the form of the market, various institutions of mutual assistance and charity, family and loved ones. That is, the state essentially becomes the last resort for providing support to those in need. At the same time, the fact that a person finds himself in a difficult situation is considered primarily as his personal failure.

The social democratic model recognizes the necessary participation of the state to ensure a fair distribution of social benefits. The state undertakes to provide a certain minimum standard of welfare as a citizen's right. Therefore, social programs are considered as an integral part of the life of modern society.

In addition, we can mention another model - structural - when the state takes full responsibility for the well-being of the population, correlating the provision of social services with the needs of the people. This model is based on the experience of theory and practice of social policy in the USSR and other socialist countries.

It should be noted that these models are not a description of the experience of specific countries, but allow us to highlight the general and special among the whole variety of social programs. Therefore, in practice these models may overlap in one way or another.

Housing should be viewed as a meritorious good. It may in principle be produced in the market, but its individual consumption has not only personal but also wider social consequences. Without government intervention, there may be a tendency toward underconsumption either because people do not understand the importance of meeting their housing needs or because they lack funds.

The housing problem especially clearly reveals the connection between the economy and the social sphere. On the one hand, having a “roof over your head” is a basic human need. On the other hand, the construction, maintenance and sale and rental of housing have become important manifestations of economic activity. More than half of all investment in construction is in residential construction, which acts as a source of employment.

At the present stage, the problems in Russia's housing policy are related to the fact that in the foreground today in Russia is the promotion of a market model of housing policy, as a result of which there is a change in the relationship between its economic and social components. Moreover, economic and political considerations prevail over social arguments in favor of direct government intervention in the housing sector.

Housing as a social problem: the role of the state

In order to define the housing issue as a social problem, it is necessary to keep in mind that the social in this context has two aspects. Firstly, a person experiences difficulties that in modern society are recognized as unacceptable and therefore require solutions. Secondly, in order to overcome them, he needs help from society. It should be remembered that the emergence of many social problems does not depend on the will of the person himself, but is caused by the socio-economic processes taking place in modern society.

In the broadest sense, the housing issue in a modern developed society is associated with ensuring the right to housing, or more precisely, the right to decent housing. It should be noted that under socialism the housing problem had a slightly different meaning. The task was set to completely solve the housing problem, which meant providing the population with housing in accordance with rational standards of consumption. Although these norms were also not static and changed over time.

Thus, the solution to the housing problem in one form or another is associated with the state. It is assumed that the state must make certain efforts for this. In this context, housing policy is a form of government intervention in the construction, distribution and use of housing stock, regulation of housing (houses) that affect its location, nature and availability, and rights associated with housing, without taking into account the form of ownership of real estate, land or construction materials. At the same time, the goals and objectives of housing policy should be formed taking into account the general goals and objectives of social policy.

The inclusion of housing in social policy in developed countries has always been quite controversial, in particular because the state has usually played a smaller role in this sector, especially in the area of ​​housing supply. Most of the housing stock was concentrated in the private sector, and although the state regulated (and stimulated) it, there is no clear consensus on how much government intervention is desirable and to what extent. Housing policy has strong economic and financial aspects, which often dominate open discussions.

The scale of government intervention is determined in accordance with the chosen model of social development. In Soviet times, most of the housing stock belonged to the state and was rented out to citizens. However, there has always been a private sector, including private houses in rural areas and housing cooperatives in cities. At the same time, the need to attract public funds for the construction and operation of housing was recognized. First, the shortage of housing and the strict regulation of its distribution were seen as a limiting factor in meeting people's housing needs. Secondly, since there has been an increase in the income and level of well-being of the population, it is assumed that it is already able to allocate funds for housing.

The popularity of own housing and the support of this idea by the state is a characteristic feature of the development of the housing issue in the 20th century. For those who have the means, this is also a good investment in real estate. The opportunity to obtain funds for the purchase of housing through a long-term loan, which can be partially repaid over 20-25 years and which is guaranteed by the cost of housing, has made its purchase acceptable to a wide range of people. This, in turn, pushed the construction of private housing for sale, as demand for housing expanded due to loans. It was also stimulated by the provision of tax breaks, usually in the form of a deduction from income taxes for mortgage interest payments.

Along with this, the state supported local authorities in the development of so-called social housing to give low-income groups the opportunity to rent housing at prices they could afford. Now its role is decreasing, it is mainly provided to the unemployed and low-paid who cannot afford to take out a loan.

Providing such housing often faces the following problem: providing each subsequent new housing unit may be more expensive than the old one (increasing construction or land costs, paying off most of the loans and credits on old housing, rising interest rates). Serious difficulties in repairing and maintaining old housing stock lead to a trend of rising costs in the long term. Therefore, the financial situation in the social housing sector varies significantly and depends on the age and condition of the housing stock, the scale of new construction and its location.

In some countries - France, Germany, the USA - the state provides subsidies to private providers so that they can rent out housing to those in need at low prices. Rents are thus kept below market while the subsidy is in effect or for a certain period of time.

The changing focus of government regulation and the important role of the private sector can be seen particularly clearly in the UK, where the balance of different forms of housing provision is changing. For example, the proportion of homeowners and people renting housing in the public sector from local authorities has increased, while the proportion of renters in the private sector has decreased. Moreover, this shift is often explained precisely by government intervention, in particular, the introduction of rent control and the protection of tenants in the face of owners. The latter, in turn, accused the state of not being able to obtain commercial benefits, and this forced many to sell their houses or demolish them. This can be partly explained by the fact that old houses were demolished as part of slum control programs, and new ones were already being built by investors with the expectation of selling. Moreover, both government organizations and private ones were encouraged to build, while private owners who rented out housing did not receive any support.

As for the specific implementation of state participation in solving the housing problem, many options are possible, and they have been worked out quite well in world practice. For example, the famous British economist Glenster identifies at least six areas of government intervention that are widely used in developed countries:

· regulation of the standards of houses under construction and permission to operate those already occupied;

· control over rent in the private sector and ensuring the length of stay for certain categories of residents;

·construction, ownership and management of own buildings;

·subsidizing the costs of tenants in both the public and private sectors and housing associations;

·subsidizing housing improvements by private and public owners;

· subsidizing the purchase of housing through the tax system.

One of the main problems of housing policy is the relationship between choice and resource constraints. When resources are limited, a choice is needed that satisfies both the consumer, the producer, and government demand. At the same time, the state is faced with a number of dilemmas, for example, to help specific people or subsidize housing; develop social housing or encourage private housing. Modern world experience demonstrates the following main trends in state participation in solving the housing problem:

·providing subsidies to the private rather than the public sector;

·providing subsidies to a person/family/household, rather than tying them to the housing stock;

·reducing direct government allocations to solve the housing problem while maintaining tax benefits for homeowners.

Comparing the practice of housing policy in developed capitalist countries and in socialist countries allows us to draw paradoxical conclusions.

· An arsenal of methods that can be used to help the population solve the housing problem is well known and is not fundamentally different in either developed or former socialist countries - these are either loans and subsidies for the purchase of their own housing and payment for services, or the provision of public housing.

·Many studies show that the methods used by governments committed to different ideologies differed little from each other. The most striking example is the housing policy of the Conservative and Socialist cabinets in France.

·The housing problem has never been completely resolved in the form in which it was formulated.

·The Russian government is obviously seeking to curtail its intervention in resolving the housing issue and shift it onto the shoulders of citizen-owners. It is argued that if a person owns a home, he will take better care of it. Yes, but if he has the appropriate funds for this. As a result, modern Russian housing policy is formed under the influence of three main factors.

Firstly, in the context of the transition to a market, new problems have appeared in Russian society - homelessness, and partly poverty. This refers to a broad understanding of poverty, which implies not just the level of income or consumption, but also includes health status, education, and social mobility. The urban poor suffer from overcrowding, violence, and ghettoization. On the other hand, modern Russia is faced with the problem of social polarization, concentration of poverty and wealth. Private construction for sale is developing rapidly, while market prices for new housing and maintenance of old housing stock are quite high. As a result, access to housing becomes problematic for the population who cannot afford to buy it.

Secondly, local governments play an important role in the development and implementation of housing policies.

Changes in the management structure associated with the election of regional authorities give the latter a greater opportunity to develop and implement housing policy within the framework of a general federal line. Decentralization of political and economic decision-making is the main direction of political development in Russia. This is seen as opening up the possibility of more significant institutional change, increasing democratization and increasing civil society participation. Today, local authorities are responsible for providing a range of services to the population. However, they have the problem of fulfilling increased responsibilities.

Thirdly, the shift in housing burden from the state to individuals and families reflects shifts in the provision of social services towards a market-based vision of social policy.

The relative roles of the private and public sectors are changing, with the private sector increasingly replacing the public sector. The promotion of market principles has become a determining factor in the development of the housing sector. However, the important role of the state remains in defining policies, implementing regulatory mechanisms and developing institutional structures to provide for socially vulnerable citizens. Therefore, the issue of integrating the economic and social aspects of housing policy is especially acute.

Providing housing for certain categories of citizens established by federal legislation (using the example of the Altai Territory)

According to statistics, the average provision of living space per rural resident of the Altai Territory increased from 17.9 sq. m in 1990 to 21.1 sq. m. in 2007 (or by 17.8%). Over the same period, the value of this indicator for the urban population increased by 30% from 15.52 to 19.7 square meters. m. Thus, the village is gradually losing one of its advantages - a higher provision of housing for the population.

Rice unok 1. Provision of housing for the rural and urban population of the Altai Territory in 1990-2007 gg. (sq. m per person)

Thus, during the implementation of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On providing housing for veterans of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945” in the Altai Territory, among veterans who received housing in 2010-2012. (of those registered after 03/01/2005), 72% were village residents. According to the Head of Social Protection, only 14% of veterans (857 people) purchased housing in villages and regional centers, the rest joined the number of urban residents of the region (or 4902 people).

The low level of housing commissioning has led to the deterioration and dilapidation of the rural housing stock: the share of stone houses (apartments) with wear and tear of over 70% has increased by 2.5 times, and wooden and other houses with wear and tear of over 65%.

Positive dynamics of housing construction began to be observed in 2011. 661.59 thousand square meters were put into operation. m of total area of ​​residential buildings, which is 2 thousand square meters. m more than in 2010

In rural areas, 231.3 thousand square meters were commissioned. m of total area, which is 32.2% of the total input on the edge and is 0.2% higher than in 2010. 26 residential buildings were built for veterans of the Great Patriotic War.

Rice unok 2. Entering the total area of ​​residential buildings (thousands. sq. m)

According to the effective demand of the population for housing, developers continue to implement measures to increase the number of commissioned apartments while reducing their average size: compared to pre-crisis 2007, the number of constructed apartments increased by 2,156 apartments, while the average area of ​​constructed apartments decreased by 13 square meters. m. This trend speaks, on the one hand, of an increase in the number of new residents, and, on the other hand, of the orientation of developers towards the construction of economy-class housing.

Rice unok 3. The ratio of the number of apartments put into operation and their average size

Despite the noticeable growth, the values ​​of housing improvement indicators still remain low. Thus, in 2007, only a little more than half (54%) of the living space in rural areas was equipped with running water, 38% with sewerage and 7% with hot water.

Rice unok 4. Provision of rural areas of the Altai Territory with public services in 1996-2007 gg. (% of equipped housing to the total area of ​​the housing stock)

The unsatisfactory condition of a large number of housing is due, in addition to physical wear and tear, to an ineffective management system, insufficient financial resources allocated for its maintenance, current and major repairs, and a high degree of wear and tear on equipment and utility networks. Some houses have not been renovated for 40-50 years.

In addition, in the current housing legislation, the absence of a centralized sewerage system and hot water supply in one- and two-story buildings does not serve as a basis for declaring a residential building unfit for habitation and registering citizens in need of improved housing conditions.

At the same time, according to the Head of Social Protection, about 31% of veterans and family members of deceased (died) disabled people and participants in the Great Patriotic War do not move into newly acquired housing. The reasons for this behavior of older people are both psychological and economic in nature. When examining the social and living conditions of veterans after the transfer of subsidies for purchased housing, carried out by local governments, categorical refusals of some veterans to be evicted from their old housing and to leave their “native walls” were recorded, despite the lack of improvement systems and the recognition of housing as unfit for habitation, as well as the tendency to minimize consumption and total self-restraint as an imperative for survival. New housing acted either as a source of additional income from renting it out, or was re-registered as the property of relatives. In isolated cases, reconstruction of old houses was carried out on existing land plots.

Currently, in the Altai Territory, only 12% of land plots from the total area of ​​the promising development territory are provided with engineering infrastructure. The problem of “infrastructure” has become a serious obstacle to the development of housing construction today.

Local governments need to take measures to organize territories for integrated development for the construction of residential buildings, including for certain categories of citizens.

First of all, it is necessary to plan the development of the territory taking into account the housing needs. Prospects for the development of housing construction should be taken into account when developing programs for the comprehensive development of municipal infrastructure systems. This program should be the basis for the development of investment programs by public utility organizations, which provide for financing the construction and modernization of the public utility infrastructure system through tariff regulation.

According to local government data, the total expected housing commissioning in 2012 is 506 thousand square meters. m of total area, which brings the region back to the level of 2006.

An analysis of the dynamics of housing prices demonstrates stabilization of prices in the primary housing market and growth in the secondary market. One of the reasons for this phenomenon in the secondary market is the significant influx of budget funds to provide housing for participants in government programs.

Rice unok 5. Average market value 1 sq. m of total housing area in the Altai Territory

The bulk of the colossal budget investments went to the secondary market, including during the implementation of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation in the Altai Territory, 5,469 veterans purchased apartments on the secondary housing market and only 4% of veterans (or 264 veterans) purchased apartments on the primary housing market, including including 26 veterans, individual residential houses were built. The amount of federal budget funds spent for these purposes amounted to 5607015.505 thousand rubles.

Rice unok 6. The amount of subsidies for veterans of the Great Patriotic War in the Altai Territory

The problem when purchasing housing is that the size of the subsidy for veterans is calculated as the product of the total housing area, equal to 36 square meters. m to the average market value of 1 sq. m of total housing area per constituent entity of the Russian Federation, approved quarterly by the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation. In 2009, the subsidy was calculated based on 22 square meters. m of total area.

Despite the increase in the size of the total area from 22 to 36 sq. m to calculate the subsidy, these funds do not allow citizens to purchase comfortable housing without adding their own funds.

In the general context of housing reform in Russia, the question of choosing priorities arises. Currently, they are mainly of a financial and economic nature - an increase in rent payments and a transition from subsidizing residential premises to subsidizing people with the establishment of a system of protection for socially vulnerable segments of the population. However, practice shows that to overcome housing insecurity, not only income support is needed, but also strategies such as:

1.Build apartments and houses using budget loans, and then offer them to program participants.

2. Resolve issues of forming land plots, providing them with engineering, utilities, and social infrastructure and present them to developers at auctions.

3. To form housing-construction cooperatives from among public sector workers and large families who need housing and provide them with land plots for residential development without an auction.

Bibliography:

1. Sergienko A.M., Rodionova L.V., The social sphere of the village: its features of development in the agro-industrial region. // Economic and social policy: theoretical and applied aspects, collection of articles. - ASU. Barnaul. - 2009. - 355 p.

2. Commissioner for Human Rights in the Altai Territory. Special report “On observance of the rights of certain categories of citizens to housing in the Altai Territory” [Electronic resource].// - Access mode: URL: http://protmen.ru/index.php?c=bibl/spec/spec1. (access date 10/19/2012).

3. Altai Territory Administration for Construction and Architecture. Report “On measures taken by the Altai Territory Department of Construction and Architecture to preserve and increase the volume of work in the construction market of the Altai Territory in 2011-20123.” [Electronic resource].// - Access mode: URL: http://stroy22.ru/news/2012/03/27/itogi_rabotyi_stroitelnogo_kompleksa_a... (access date 10/19/2012).

4. Chubarova T.V. Social aspects of housing policy//Housing issue as a problem of social policy. - IMEPI RAS. - M., 2004. - 179 p.

A. G. Kulikov

V. S. Yanin

In his first program article “Russia is concentrating - challenges that we must respond to,” V.V. Putin invited us to a discussion on the most important issues of the country’s socio-economic development. “Russian citizens ... should be given the opportunity to discuss not only the merits and demerits of politicians, which in itself is not bad, but content of policies, those programs which certain political figures intend to implement. The challenges and objectives that should be at the center of these programs... We need a broad dialogue about the future, about priorities, about long-term choices, national development and national priorities.”

One of the most important priorities, and, in our opinion, the most important national priority today is providing the population with comfortable housing. Housing is a basic, irreplaceable human need, the security of which is the most important characteristic of the quality of life of the population. But it seems to us that today in Russia the most difficult problem to solve. We are ready support the desire of our national leader to understand national challenges and make his modest contribution to a positive response to these challenges. But for this there must be honesty, transparency And objectivity in covering these issues. And today we do not always take into account these principles of assessing “where we are and where we are going.” In particular, among the achievements of recent years, V.V. Putin named “Housing conditions have improved significantly.” But who have they improved and have they improved? It is our deep conviction that ensuring population housing has not improved over 20 years of reforms in Russia, and worsened. This is evidenced by: 1) a crisis in housing construction, 2) a crisis in the housing market (limited access to affordable housing), 3) a crisis in the brain, i.e. a crisis in housing policy.

1. Crisis in housing construction

As is known, in the Soviet period, the housing provision system corresponded to the ongoing housing policy and consisted of a centralized distribution of budget resources for the construction of public housing and its free distribution to citizens standing in line for improved housing conditions. In 1987, the share of state capital investments in housing construction exceeded 80%, and funds from the population (including funds from individual developers and members of housing construction cooperatives) - only 14.6%.

By the beginning of economic reforms in Russia, there was no market mechanism for acquiring home ownership.

During the first decade of reforms (1991-1998), dramatic changes occurred in the field of housing finance. The state has ceased to be the main investor in housing construction. Mass free privatization of housing was carried out with the transfer of housing maintenance costs to the population. And the share of state and municipal organizations in the total volume of commissioned housing decreased from more than 80 to 20%.

As a result of the massive withdrawal of the state from housing financing and a precipitous decline in household incomes, housing commissioning in the 1990s decreased by 2.5-3 times, as evidenced by the data in Table No. 1.

Table No. 1

The volume of housing construction in the Russian Federation in 1987-2011.

One is the biggest problem of providing housing for young families This is the discrepancy in our country between wages and housing costs. Given the average wage in the country, this money is hardly enough to pay off a mortgage. In addition, this is difficult for young families due to wages that are often lower than average, and if a child is born into the family, then life turns into survival.

Assistance from the state to resolve the issue of providing housing for young families

For 10 years, the state has been trying to take some steps to make life easier and the purchase of real estate for young families. Social programs are usually designed for several years and affect the most needy groups of the population. The latest such programs are programs to provide and assist young families, orphans, disabled people and other vulnerable groups of citizens in purchasing real estate. The programs provide financial assistance in purchasing economical housing in the form of issuing certificates that can be used in settlements with mortgage banks when applying for a loan to purchase real estate. After submitting applications and approval of participation in the program, government authorities issue a certificate in the amount of 600,000 to 800,000 rubles, after which the citizen who submitted the application gets in line to purchase an apartment with a subsidy. The downside of the program is certainly that you have to wait a long time in line, since today more than 1 million families across the country are already participating in the program, and besides, developers often do not meet the deadlines for housing delivery, which is why the deadlines for purchasing housing and settling families shift.

Problems that the state cannot solve in purchasing subsidized housing for a young family

Of course, developers cannot reduce the cost per square meter of housing to a minimum, since the construction of residential real estate requires enormous costs, however, what the local Administration of each region is trying to work with is reducing the cost through the use of more economical materials that comply with GOSTs and specifications for construction . For this reason, in many regions of the country, the Administration has assumed obligations for the construction and organization of communication networks in new houses, and developers are reducing the cost of materials, thus, under new programs that have been developed over several years, the cost of one square meter of housing costs young people families within 30,000 - 35,000 rubles. The state is also unable to force banks to issue mortgages at low interest rates, since the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is dealing with this issue. However, at the end of 2014, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation D. A. Medvedev issued a resolution that the interest rate for the population would not exceed 14%.

The housing program for young families is a unique Russian program that helps young families purchase housing at a reduced cost with the help of the state...