The Rostov-on-Don mayor, Alexei Logvinenko, proposed a form of relief for residents affected by a collapsed house. He suggested that a resident should be compensated financially, use available funds to settle the mortgage, and then proceed to acquire a new dwelling. This came to light through the telegram channel Don Mash, which shared footage of a meeting involving residents from the crumbling Narimanov Street building and the city mayor. The exchange highlighted the difficult choices facing families who lost their homes while navigating ongoing housing commitments.
During the discussion, one participant explained to Logvinenko that he had already fulfilled mortgage obligations for a lost apartment, yet remained obligated to continue payments for housing that no longer existed. The concern underscored the financial strain experienced by households caught in this situation, where insurance, loans, and rent or replacement costs intersect in complex ways.
In response, the mayor indicated that residents should retrieve their money and address their debt. When a woman pressed for more clarity, asking, “What happens next?” Logvinenko answered with a concise directive: “Purchase a new one.” The moment captured a pivotal question: how should families move forward when their homes have vanished, and where should relief funds be directed to maximize stability?
Earlier on January 27, Rostov-on-Don experienced the collapse of a wall in a five-story building, prompting the evacuation of 95 people. Those displaced were relocated to school number 82, where a temporary accommodation center was established to provide immediate shelter and support. The incident prompted a rapid response from local authorities and emergency services to ensure safety and basic needs were met for the evacuated residents.
Subsequently, Mayor Logvinenko commented that the residents of the Narimanov Street dwelling received compensation described as mercenary by some observers, reflecting differing opinions on the adequacy and administration of relief measures. The discourse highlighted debates over how best to distribute aid, address housing shortages, and assist families facing the loss of their homes without erasing the emotional toll of displacement.
Local resident Olga, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that authorities had provided a payment of 10,000 rubles to the victims, while reporting that doors had been welded shut within the ruined structure, effectively preventing residents from retrieving any personal belongings still inside. The account illustrated the logistical and emotional challenges involved in recovery, underscoring the need for careful handling of property retrieval and support for those affected.
In parallel coverage from St. Petersburg, residents of another collapsed building in the city center described delays by district officials in initiating repairs. The contrast between responses in different locales highlighted how municipal procedures and resource allocation can influence the pace of recovery, the level of communication with residents, and the overall confidence in local governance during housing crises.