摘要：The author raises the issue of improving the public hearing procedure. The author analyses the established practice of public hearings in Russia, criticizes the new Urban Planning Code adopted in the Russian Federation, and expresses her concerns about the violation of its provisions regulating public hearings and discussions. These concerns are the outcome of an extensive in-depth research into the practice of public hearings, the analysis of their minutes and resolutions; the process of monitoring the course of public hearings, and sociological surveys launched among different categories of respondents in Moscow. The author analyzes the findings of the polls launched among Muscovites, as well as the expert interviews given by the deputies of the Moscow State Duma and members of urban initiative groups. The author’s conclusion is that the conversion of public hearings into an efficient public and political institute requires the reconsideration of their organization and implementation processes, let alone the assignment of a legal status to resolutions of public hearings. The author proposes a two-step public hearing model that will make it possible to expose projects to thorough expert evaluations by independent specialists and to launch extensive discussions among urban residents.
其他摘要：The author raises the issue of improving the public hearing procedure. The author analyses the established practice of public hearings in Russia, criticizes the new Urban Planning Code adopted in the Russian Federation, and expresses her concerns about the violation of its provisions regulating public hearings and discussions. These concerns are the outcome of an extensive in-depth research into the practice of public hearings, the analysis of their minutes and resolutions; the process of monitoring the course of public hearings, and sociological surveys launched among different categories of respondents in Moscow. The author analyzes the findings of the polls launched among Muscovites, as well as the expert interviews given by the deputies of the Moscow State Duma and members of urban initiative groups. The author’s conclusion is that the conversion of public hearings into an efficient public and political institute requires the reconsideration of their organization and implementation processes, let alone the assignment of a legal status to resolutions of public hearings. The author proposes a two-step public hearing model that will make it possible to expose projects to thorough expert evaluations by independent specialists and to launch extensive discussions among urban residents.
