Russian City Ever Watchful Against Being Sucked Into Earth 110
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Dmitry Rybolovlev bought the most expensive apartment ever sold in New York City — the $88 million penthouse at 15 Central Park West — and did much for local real estate values. But in Berezniki, the mining city where he made his fortune, properties have literally been plunging. 'Imagine putting a sugar cube in a cup of tea,' Mikhail A. Permyakov, the chief land surveyor for Uralkali, the company that owns the mine. 'That is what happened under Berezniki.' Berezniki is afflicted by sinkholes, hundreds of feet deep, that can open at a moment's notice. So grave is the danger that the entire city is under 24-hour video surveillance. In 2008 a government commission cleared Mr. Rybolovlev of wrongdoing, blaming past unsafe practices for the sinkholes. A senior official close to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin says that Mr. Rybolovlev bears some responsibility, even though he sold the mine after the occurrence of the first great openings."
Re:We have the same problems in this country (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporate profits always come first.
- Oh, so you are telling me that the corporate profits come out of thin air, that people are not participating in this bargain deal, getting this stuff cheaply?
Many towns had to be abandoned over industrial pollution and yet I constantly hear it's government regulations that cause the problems.
- yes, it is government that is causing the problem in nearly all cases where mining is involved. Whose land is it?
The gov't holds this so called 'public land', well then how come corporations can mine on it? So it's the government that allows the corporations to mine on land that is held public. Same with oil drilling and the 75 Million USD liability cap on deep water drilling.
This IS a government created problem, because government holds this land and allows companies to come and to mine on it without actually participating in a market of any kind. The gov't sells licenses to their preferred companies and takes away liability and responsibility.
What should be done instead, government shouldn't be allowed to own any property, and definitely government shouldn't be holding property where anybody is allowed to mine on it at all.
Whatever land that gov't holds in 'public' possession where somebody wants to mine or do any business, this land has to be auctioned off.
What do you think would happen then?
First of all the land would be sold in small chunks, because nobody could afford to buy it outright. So it would be sold in small pieces to separate buyers, and they would own that property. They could mine it themselves, but many would lease it to be mined.
So this would not be a public problem anymore, the gov't would collect huge amounts of revenue from these auctions. Selling piece by piece for example, not allowing any mining on gov't 'owned' land, this could control the mining industry much more effectively than whatever gov't is doing right now, and this would bring more revenue to the gov't as well, though that is a bad thing of-course, but if that money was actually immediately earmarked for purposes of controlling any pollution running off such lands and making sure that if pollution spreads from those private lands to the public lands, responsibility would be immediately assigned.
There is an entire slew of reasons why in fact these are government created problems, and most of them have to do with corruption and moral hazards of removing liability and reducing costs of mining by completely removing the real market prices from the market, because government cannot ever discover REAL value and pricing of anything, because it never has to compete with any private entity bidding for the rights of ownership.
Re:We have the same problems in this country (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a few places in Sweden where entire towns are in the process of being gradually moved due to the expansion of neighboring mines. The thing is, these towns were built _because_ of those mines in the first place, generations ago. The citizens don't mind, they actually support it, since they know their towns would become ghost towns without the mines.
That being said, from the sound of things this town should have undergone similar procedures a long time ago. But there is more than one side to this type of situation.
Re:We have the same problems in this country (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes? And why would that suddenly happen just because the govt didn't own the lands? The "holy hand of the free market" would touch their hearts and make them immune to corruption?
- can't you read? I didn't say that would just 'automatically happen', I proposed something - that government is supposed to take care of property it supposedly 'owns'.
So when somebody pollutes and this pollution crosses to the 'public property', government would be liable to protect it but also would have the resources to do so, because these resources would come from the auctions of those pieces of 'public land' that would be sold on the market.
How did you read it that it was going to happen 'automatically', I do not know.
Re:We have the same problems in this country (Score:2, Interesting)
If the town would not be on top of the mine, these sinkholes in town would not appear and this would be non-news.
Guess why the town is on top of the mine? Because it was originally a Soviet labor camp and built on walking distance from point of prime interest, the mine in this case. It's quite hard to blame "privatisation" for this decision. Also, if these sinkholes would appear on a mine in the middle of Siberia with no population above them, nobody would care. Those wouldn't be even environmental issue - just holes in the ground.
Re:2012 (Score:3, Interesting)
The potash mines employed many people for years before Mr Rybolovlev started skimming the profits off for his personal benefit (the mines opened in the 1930s as a Soviet work camp). Putting it another way, this stuff probably would have been mined whether or not Mr. Rybolovlev got involved, and it was mined for decades. He was just fortunate enough (*cough* corruption *cough*) to buy the mines for cheap when the government practically gave them away in the 1990s. This is a lucky opportunist, not a particularly skilled entrepreneur who cares about their employees. I'd be surprised if all the employees in his former potash business earn as much as he made from the deal (he sold it for billions). He's more concerned with whether he'll lose his $100 million yacht in his divorce.
Re:money talks (Score:3, Interesting)
I thinks its even worse than you think since the only reason this tycoon is being made an example of NOW is that he probably forgot to pay his dues and/or respects to soon-to-be-president-again Putin. At least that has been the narrative in the past when some wealthy Russian falls from grace.
In Soviet Russia, the corrupt decorrupt you.
Re:money talks (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is, it's the wealthy, influential people who are the problem.
No, the point is it's the sociopathic people who are the problem. It just so happens that many of the rich happen to be sociopathic, but they can be seen in all strata of a society. They care only about themselves, and will enrich themselves at the expense of others. But it is unfair to say it is the wealthy that are the problem. Look at Warren Buffet, who advocates for heavy taxes on the wealthy, or Bill and Melinda Gates, who donate much of their money to charity. There are plenty of wealthy people that, while they still try to further their wealth (which is what "pursuit of happiness" originally meant), still believe they have social responsibilities to those less fortunate than them, or to the government.