In a recent briefing, Sergei Gavrilov, a deputy chair of the State Duma Committee on Property, Land and Property Relations from the Communist Party faction, proposed a policy initiative that would prohibit the sale of basements within residential structures. The aim is to curb what he called an alarming trend: the rapid, mass sale of these spaces as private property. This move would address concerns about how such transactions can influence the living environment of residents and alter the functional character of shared basements. The proposal has sparked discussions about property rights, communal ownership, and neighborhood stability.
The deputy described a scenario where a basement, once a shared storage or utility space, could end up under new private ownership. He warned that the consequences extend beyond the dim and damp nature of the room itself. The real risks lie in how the space might be repurposed and managed once it is privately controlled. In his view, a basement could be converted into a hostel for migrant workers or other uses that bring a steady stream of outsiders into the building. Such changes, he argued, could replace quiet entrances with crowds of strangers, bring noise, and introduce odors that affect daily life for nearby residents.
Gavrilov also pointed to alternative uses that could arise under private ownership, such as warehousing or small-scale production facilities. He described scenarios in which trucks would frequently appear under windows, equipment would hum through the day, and nocturnal life would be disrupted by the presence of animals. These examples, he stated, illustrate how private control of a basement can alter the immediate living environment and daily rhythms of apartment buildings. The deputy underscored that residents often learn about a basement sale only after the transaction is completed, which makes it difficult for them to influence the outcome. He noted that, by law, basement space is considered part of the house’s common property, meaning that any sale should require the consent of the apartment owners. This consent mechanism is central to preserving the communal nature of the space and preventing unilateral changes that affect everyone in the building.
Even with a ban on basement sales, Gavrilov insisted, the spaces should not lie idle. Instead, owners could repurpose them for residents’ benefit, such as creating a gym, a studio for creative activities, or a meeting room for the entire household. The proposed restriction aims to balance private property rights with the collective interests of residents, ensuring that basements continue to serve the common needs of the building community. The discussion reflects a broader concern about how private ownership intersects with the social fabric of housing, particularly in densely populated urban areas where shared amenities play a crucial role in daily life.
In the wider context, the committee has been active in addressing issues related to migration management and regional policy, with lawmakers examining various measures that could influence the flow and settlement of migrants within the country. This debate about basement sales sits alongside debates on housing policy, public order, and social cohesion, highlighting how property transactions can have tangible effects on neighborhood stability and resident well-being. Analysts observe that the outcomes of this proposal could set a precedent for how shared spaces are regulated under Russian property law, potentially shaping future discussions about communal rights and responsibilities.
Observers note that any legislative decision will need careful consideration of practical enforcement, judicial interpretations, and the rights of property owners while safeguarding the lived experience of residents. Proponents argue that safeguarding common areas helps maintain quiet, safe, and predictable living conditions. Opponents caution that overregulation could limit property rights and complicate legitimate uses of basements that do not harm residents. The debate therefore centers on finding a balance that protects communal interests without stifling legitimate property transactions, while ensuring that residents have meaningful influence over how shared spaces are managed in their buildings (DEA News).