Watching RTS's daily for the past week, the viewer was able to see at least two cases of the state's incomprehensibly unstable attitude towards its obligations (and we are talking about a public TV service, not some "opposition television") that evening alone.
The first is the data that as many as 95 percent of residential construction investors, even in Belgrade, have exceeded the "floor height" of their buildings, which was granted to them with building permits and for which they paid city fees, and supposedly the situation in other cities is similar or even worse in this regard. .
Another example is from agricultural policy, since one of the milk producers in Srem told a TV reporter that since August of last year, the state has not paid him a premium of seven dinars per liter that he delivered to dairies. As that farmer produces 4.000 liters of milk a day, calculate how much the state owes him for the past 150 days and try to imagine how he can financially cover the spring sowing that should provide him with food for his cattle.
Let's first see what the problem is in the aforementioned epidemic of "exceeding the number of floors" and other forms of "extending" the building permit? Allegedly, the problem is in the small number of construction inspectors and in the fact that these inspectors "run away" from their jobs on sick leave or on annual vacations right in the construction season, allegedly out of fear of investors who, by the way, "disappear" as businesses as soon as they sell off both legal and illegal parts of their investment, so in the new construction cycle they establish some new companies with the same way of working. Such an assessment was given by the representative of the municipality of Čajetina, which supervises construction on Zlatibor, where the abuse of building permits is (to say the least) very widespread.
I will not go deeper into the problem of massive ignoring of the content of construction permits and evading the payment of communal fees, which would entail describing the crisis in construction, analyzing the overpriced levies that municipalities cut the branch on which they sit, a look at our entire law that regulates the registration and closure of our shops and business companies, etc. I will only try to emphasize that when in one country even 95 percent of investors do not care about the content of the building permit, it means that there is no "state in the public interest", but that the institution of the building permit in our system is only an instrument for illegal enrichment and corruption. both government officials and investors.
Because it is not true that a serious state cannot provide a strict and impartial construction inspection if the price of construction permits and the propositions according to which they are issued - are not in themselves almost prohibitive, that is, if the "real" prices and conditions for obtaining those permits are not completely transparent and equal for all investors. In our case, it seems to me that there is a general disorder, which in a way suits everyone, both the majority among the investors, and the majority of those on the side of the license grantors, who are apparently "privatizing" their public powers.
Otherwise, does anyone need to be reminded that without sorting out the domain of "real rights", where all real estate belongs, no country can count on a big investment wave. So far, as far as we hear, the only focus is on increasing the speed of issuing building permits. And that's not much, if no one criticizes their content later.
The second case mentioned, that the state does not pay the farmers the premiums it promised, also belongs to the "old practice". For decades, in other words, little by little, some minister ran on television and triumphantly announced that farmers would receive huge premiums per hectare for fuel, milk and some other products, preferential loans for mechanization and the establishment of basic herds, for investments in new orchards and vineyards, etc., and then later it turns out that the state is late in paying its part of the "financial support" for more than a year, justifying it with budgetary problems. Ultimately, such a practice "teaches" the peasants that they do not have to fulfill their contractual obligations themselves - which again leads to a legal and financial mess on which no agrarian policy can be built.
(New magazine)
Bonus video:
