Sevastopol deputies rejected the privatization program for the fifth time
The Legislative Assembly of Sevastopol for the fifth time rejected the state property privatization program proposed by the city government, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
As deputy Vyacheslav Aksenov explained, from time to time officials do not improve, but worsen the program. So, in the current version they added one more enterprise, about which deputies had questions. He also drew attention to the fact that the government has set a zero price for the bus station and recreation center on the seashore.
“Someone will raise their hand for the privatization of Sevastopol’s property when such assessments are given.” There are no sane people,” Aksenov said.
Vice-speaker Alexander Kulagin said that the list of Sevastopoltelecom property included the property of a private company that turned to him for help.
“I am sure that there can be quite a lot of such misunderstandings. We still do not know the results of the inventory of state property in Ukraine,” Kulagin said.
Deputy Tatyana Shcherbakova was outraged by the attempt to privatize the Unified Information Settlement Center, which was declared unprofitable.
“If it’s not profitable, let’s liquidate it and pay the resource companies. Why transfer into private hands a huge database of personal data - about housing, about debts, about residents,” said Shcherbakova.
Speaker Ekaterina Altabaeva believes that enterprises such as Sevavtotrans, Sevmorport and especially Sevastopolgaz should be excluded from the privatization list.
“Privatization may damage the operating system of this equipment and the distribution network. Social questions may arise about the price of these services,” Altabaeva said.
Deputy Alexey Chaly said that he is a principled supporter of a market economy and is not against privatization.
“But there are objects that should be managed by the state. These are natural monopolies, networks, roads, quay walls. Any prudent owner, when transferring his property, must determine a fair price for it, but we are not given such an opportunity and are not provided with documents. Secondly, we must, within the limits of our powers, formulate the conditions for their transfer,” Chaly said.
He noted that without privatization, a “hole” could form in the city budget and invited deputies to formulate a program themselves.
“It makes sense to divide the list of objects into three main categories: objects that, according to existing documentation, can be privatized, objects that could potentially be privatized, but additional information is needed, and objects that cannot be privatized under any circumstances. I propose that we take some of the initiative ourselves and vote on the first list at the next meeting. And then demand the necessary documents from the government,” Chaly said.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.