St. Petersburg authorities will have increased autonomy in determining the specifics of complex territorial development (CRT), including resettlement boundaries and procedures for including houses in the program even without unanimous homeowner consent. The State Duma is nearing the final approval of the bill on CRT, concerning the renovation of older buildings. Opponents have voiced strong criticisms regarding the bill’s provisions.
The State Duma adopted the bill in its second reading on June 10, focusing on amendments. The final reading is scheduled for June 11.
The initial version of the bill only addressed property owners, excluding tenants. Deputy Denis Chetyrbok clarified that current legislation contains separate provisions for tenants.
An amendment now allows regional authorities in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Sevastopol to independently define resettlement boundaries, which has sparked controversy. Deputy Galina Khovanskaya argued against this, raising concerns that future governors might prioritize developers’ interests over citizens. Chetyrbok defended the decision by citing the unique territorial structures of Moscow, Sevastopol, and St. Petersburg.
The geography of resettlement in St. Petersburg remains uncertain, with the Legislative Assembly initially favoring resettlement within the municipality and adjacent areas. Chetyrbok stated that tenant resettlement would be addressed separately on a case-by-case basis.
Owners will receive monetary compensation by default, but can apply for alternative housing. The law does not currently specify requirements for new apartments. Chetyrbok stated program-specific contracts would define the conditions and apartment layouts for new construction.
Current housing code stipulations require equivalent housing to have at least the same living space and number of rooms as the original apartment, and greater total area. This must be located in the same district, however, the region does not have to provide such premises to owners.
The bill introduces three scenarios for including houses in the CRT program. The first two involve homeowner meetings voting for or against inclusion. The third scenario allows regional authorities to determine the procedure for including “silent houses” that did not hold meetings. Both owners and tenants can vote in general meetings, with the latter representing the city’s interests as the property owner.
Chetyrbok suggested that St. Petersburg should explore adopting Moscow’s method of offering new housing options through a program-based selection system to avoid individual preferences.
Critics claim the bill allows a simple majority to decide the fate of all property within a building. Deputy Mikhail Matveev criticized the initiative, arguing that it allows developers and officials to seize private property. His proposal for requiring 100% homeowner consent for CRT inclusion was rejected.
Opponents point out that compensation may not cover the cost of equivalent replacement housing. The proposed resettlement geography could displace residents to areas far from convenient transportation. The city law regulating CRT is currently suspended until the end of 2025, and will ultimately determine the specifics of “Renovation 2.0” in St. Petersburg.