Petar Petrov from “Vazrazhdane“ commented on the bTV air of the case with the so-called illegal “city“ near Varna and the actions of the institutions on the reports filed about him.
He explained that “the shortest story is in one sentence - the conquered country“, adding that in his opinion we are talking about a country in which “neither at the local level nor at the state level the control bodies have obviously not fulfilled their obligations for years“.
In his words, despite repeated reports “including from us from “Vazrazhdane”, filed in the fall of last year through MP Kosta Stoyanov to the National Security Agency, the Prosecutor General, the National Security Agency and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, there has been no reaction for a long time. He stated: “There was silence until last Thursday, when Kosta Stoyanov held a meeting with the Minister of Internal Affairs Ivan Demerdzhiev“.
Petrov claims that this is a much broader problem than illegal construction: “We believe that the activity is extremely large-scale, it is not limited to illegal construction, probably also to money laundering and other activities“.
According to him, “documents with false content“ were used, which allowed transactions and subsequent construction. He also commented on the possible consequences: “it obviously could not have been in person“, speaking of a tolerance procedure and subsequent attempts at legalization.
When asked what should follow, Petrov expressed doubt that there would be quick action to demolish the illegal sites: “I strongly doubt it“. He said that state control bodies were acting slowly and pointed out that “the law says that these constructions, which are illegal, are subject to demolition“.
According to him, the problem is exacerbated by institutional inaction and dependence: “The problem is precisely the conquered state, which cannot be freed from the status quo with a magic wand or with a single click“. He added that the process cannot be resolved in a short time and expressed concern that “in one or two years we will be having a conversation about why they have not been demolished yet“.