Land seized from Ekaterinburg developers

“Land seized from Ekaterinburg developers,” (“U ekaterinburgskikh zastroyschikov otobrali zemlyu”), Ekspert Ural 26 (382), 6 June 2009. 1 July 2010 http://www.expert.ru/printissues/ural/2009/26/news_nash_dom/.

Report on ZAO Nash Dom losing two land plots that Sverdlovskii arbitration courts ruled had been improperly divided up by the city administration.  The land, nearly 42,000 m2 now returned to the city, was transferred in spring of 2007 by decision of the Ekaterinburg mayor; the courts noted that by law, after October 1, 2005, transfer of land was only legal through an auction.  Although the Land Code does provide that lands included in contracts drawn-up before the 2005 cut-off could be transferred no later than March 1, 2007, since the actual lease agreement had been signed neither by Nash Dom nor by the city, the agreement made by both parties in 2005 did not hold up against the general prosecutor.

Nash Dom must now return the 79 million rubles to investors in the projects planned for the land’s development, as well as face the lost 130 million rubles already spent in the preparation of the land.  Representatives of the company say they will file for compensation of these monies if the lands are returned to the city.  In Ekaterinburg, there are 200 other property transactions that could be disputed by the general prosecutor in the same way; these are the seventh/eighth substantial plots seized as such.

At the end of May, Duma to consider amendments to Land Code

“Dragonov: At the end of May, Duma will consider amendments to Land Code,” Edinaya Rossiya, 19 May 2009. 28 June 2010 http://www.edinros.ru/text.shtml?7/9830,.

Report on the Edinaya Rossiya party website on proposed amendments to the 2001 Land Code, regarding provisions that require firms to restructure their land holdings as leases or private property by January 1, 2010.  The party cites support for the changes from the industry, property, and land-issues committees.  The proposed extension on the deadline would be for 3 years until Jan. 1, 2013 (for lands under electric, telecommunication, pipe, motorway, and train lines, 6 years until Jan. 1, 2016).  Gosduma representatives calculate this will allow proprietors to “composedly (spokoyno)” make the required changes.

“In the opinion of [Valeriy] Dragonov,” vice-chair of the Duma Committee on Industry, “the deadline extension for the restructuring of these lands is one of the important steps to the comprehensive support of homeland industry.”  The party seems to view their postponement of short-term costs of land privatization (or restructuring as a lease) as a supporting Russian industry.

Perpetual land – for three years

Vasil’eva, Yuliya. “Perpetual land – for three years: Business asks to postpone the buy-out deadline for land plots to Jan. 1, 2013” (“Zemlya bessrochno – na tri goda”), Rossiiskaya Biznes-gazeta 692, 3 March 2009. 1 July 2010 http://www.rg.ru/2009/03/03/zemlya-vikup.html.

Summary of the history and current state of the Land Code amendments; stresses business’ desire to privatize/restructure their land use, but inability to do so due to bureaucratic barriers and high buy-out prices.  Power-mongering and super-control of the restructuring procedures on the part of local powers also complicate the conditions in which businesses were being required to buy-out their land.   The decrease in businesses’ liquid funds due to the crisis—funds that would be needed for land transactions—also increases the hardship.

In addition to these issues, RSPP department head Irina Kotelevskaya notes the lack of a “good register of land territories” as another complicating problem.  In the federal Duma’s Committee on Property, “it has been noted that in crisis-time conditions, with the increase in the price of credit and the insufficiencies of working capital at many industrial enterprises, the direction of significant monetary resources towards the organization of the buy-out of land plots might just lead to a worsening of their financial situation all the way to near-bankruptcy.

Land is looking for an owner

“Land is looking for an owner” (“Zemlya ishchet sobstvennika”), Agentstvo “Kadastrovie Novosti”, 18 February 2009. Federal Cadastre Agency for Real Estate, Media Materials: 14 July 2010 http://r41.kadastr.ru/news/media/805304/.

A step-by-step description of what must be done by Vladivostok enterprises wishing to restructure its land use from permanent (perpetual) use into private ownership or a rent.  “The procedure for restructuring land plots is both technically and judicially complicated and multiphase.  Realistically, it can take no shorter than six months. . .”  Enterprises, paying for all these services themselves, must order an official topographic map of the property from an authorized organization (though these sometimes turn out to be poor quality); they must have documents drawn up stating how they desire to restructure their land; they must arrange for a cadastral evaluation of their land; and finally submit these items to the territorial division of Rosnedvizhemost’ and the Department of Land Resources.

Land cadaver

“Land cadaver” (“Zemel’niy kadavr”), SmartMoney 22 (112), 23 June 2008. 12 July 2010 http://www.vedomosti.ru/smartmoney/article/2008/06/23/5760.

On the situation of unused state-owned land in the capital.  The Gosduma under the auspices of Medvedev has passed a new law (on the Assistance Fund for Residential Construction Development) aimed at redistributing currently unused federal lands that are the most valuable for residential development (as construction lands or as lands for construction material factories).  Out of the 10,000 most attractive hectares, half are located in settled areas, many of which are in Kaliningrad.  A special commission will assess whether or not suspected lands are being used, but the criteria for such categorization and seizure are not delineated in the law.

In one case with the Russian Academy of the Sciences (RAN), whose lands (under permanent perpetual use, according to Vikiteka at http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Устав_Российской_академии_наук) are threatened by the new law, RAN proposed to Putin directly to construct residential buildings for young scientists in order to avoid a supposedly temporary restructuring takeover by the state company “Rostekhnologiya;” nonetheless, in April 2009, operations on these lands were expected to be frozen by a special order of the administration, and then after the passage of the new law, will most likely be given over to the Land Fund or directly to the region.  (An order regarding this freeze of RAN lands from the Kremlin appeared on the Federal State Cadastre website on 30 July 2009 at http://r41.kadastr.ru/news/media/999725/; the first of these lands were to be put up for auction in November, according to http://www.nep08.ru/agroprom/news/2009/10/09/fond_rzhs/).

Difficulties with disagreements over fair compensation and with insufficient monies in the Moscow Department of Land Resources are described, although the new law is expected to inject new momentum and resources into the coffers of available, valuable lands; within the week, first vice-director of the department Oleg Ryzhkov planned to send notices to involved lands.  Some of these Moscow lands will be seized for but small roadway expansions, though seizures for transport were not intended to be enabled by the law.  The fate of a 500-hectare plot in Kaliningrad under military ownership is also discussed.

Profit spot: Land races

Terent’yev, Ilya. “Profitable spot: Land races” (“Dokhodnoe mesto: zemel’nye gonki”), Vedomosti 199 (1973), 22 October 2007.  23 July 2010 http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article.shtml?2007/10/22/134777.

Informative cataloguing of recent changes to the land market of the region up to 30 kilometers outside the Moscow ring road (MKAD), as a need for infrastructure to support growing numbers of suburban dwellers attracts commercial and industrial land buyers.

In the demand structure of the Moscow suburban land market, pre-crisis buying-up of land by speculators for cottage (individual house) construction has been replaced with developers and investors buying land zoned for industrial use, intending to launch manufacturing and building infrastructure; large retail firms and foreign logistic operators are especially active.  Since the completion of new residential complexes and houses, prices on industrially-zoned lands have gone up in anticipation of developers’ seizing on the opportunity to cater to new suburban residents: 50 kilometers from the MKAD, industry land costs $9000 per 100m2, and 10 kilometers from the MKAD, it can be $30,000 to $35,000 per 100m2.  These prices seem to scare foreign companies the least, as they often invest in these land with long-term plans in mind.  Competition among supermarkets and commercial chains (Auchan, Perekrëstok, IKEA, etc.) is expected to increase.

Side note: French chain Auchan purchases the land used under its supermarkets.  Although standard Auchan stores are 12,000-14,000 m2, the most recently opened Russian store in Petersburg was 9,000.  In Petersburg, Auchon representatives say the opening of new branches is in question due to the lack of desirable land available for purchase.  Additionally, the company has begun to experiment with different formats for new garden and bargain supermarket chains across Russia, the sizes of which range from 3,000 to 5,000-7,000 m2 (see http://www.bn.ru/articles/2009/10/14/49745.html and http://realty.lenta.ru/news/2009/12/11/raduga/).

Administration has little reason to block the increased purchases of land, as the population increase in the Moscow suburbs strains financial resources on the region budget for developing infrastructure.  However, difficulties remain in the process of land acquisition.  In the opinion of one commercial real estate specialist, those companies that have already successfully bought land in the region have less difficulty in obtaining more land for their enterprises than others; they have the necessary experience, and presumably, the capital and credit, to purchase non-agricultural land and to apply for the land’s rezoning as industrial land, taking on the risk that this back-door purchase strategy might not work.  However, forecasters speculate that landlords will next year see and fill the empty hole in the supply-side of the market. Accordingly, it seems administration will be less inclined to fulfill rezoning requests of this sort, and that prices will continue to grow.  Swiss cosmetics company Oriflame decided to buy a 40-hectare plot in an under-construction industrial park for 175 million euro, though investors expect a quick profit turnover once the factory begins work in 2013 (http://rus.ruvr.ru/2010/02/27/4878971.html).

“Many proprietors simply hold back their land, waiting until it becomes more expensive (i.e. private landowners holding property rights to 5-10 plots in the most in-demand areas of Moscow Oblast).  This way, a tacit agreement about the regulation of the market is in effect: a limited quantity of land goes up for sale in order to not saturate the market and to preserve the deficit of liquid land.”  In some cases, it is necessary to be personal acquaintances with sellers: “Sales [in these regions] carry a political character.”

Also: “Industrial lands towards Kiev Highway get expensive,” Arendator.ru: Commercial Real-Estate, 23 April 2008.  26 July 2010 http://www.arendator.ru/articles/1/art/21122/.  The 30-40% growth rate of land prices along the Kiev Highway outside of Moscow went up to 58% between 2007 and 2008.

Note: This falling of prices is an interesting fulfillment of a favor, with which the RSPP came to Medvedev in 2005, asking to lower prices for industrial land (Kommersant, 46.3130, http://www.kommersant.ru/doc-y.aspx?DocsID=555248).  It is conceivable that the barriers to land purchases (i.e. “political character,” etc.) are now what should be dealt with.

The Surveyor

Belykh, Anton.  “The Surveyor” (“Zemlemer”), Biznes-Zhurnal 7, 10 April 2007. 15 July 2010 http://www.business-magazine.ru/trends/government/pub282369.

Survey of Moscow land reform.  Article discusses the unwillingness of the Moscow bureaucracy to let go of land ownership, despite the April 2006 passage of No 431-PP “On the transfer of land plots in the city of Moscow to private ownership,” which was aimed at bringing Moscow land legislation and procedures in line with the federal Land Code.  More precisely, it was to change what had been, for all intents and purposes, a non-existent procedure for land privatization into its first existence.  For the law firm Vegas Lex, despite the significant number of land buy-out applications filed with the firm in the first nine months of the new law being in effect, no more than 10 privatization transactions have been successful.  Oleg Ryzhkov and his officers promise that the number of unsuccessful privatizations will soon start to come down.  In addition the bureaucracy’s grasping onto its land rights as a power control, the article also points out that lease payments from land tenants (mostly developers) generate more revenue than would land taxes (i.e., than they did in 2007 at publication).