Author: Emi Baruch
Years ago, in one of the most prestigious neighborhoods of Mexico City, the former Bulgarian Cultural Center was located - an elegant three-story building with hundreds of square meters of floor space and a wonderful courtyard around it. This was one of the many Bulgarian properties there. For years, this architectural jewel, located in the center of the metropolis, has been falling apart before the eyes of others, turning into a ruin dangerous to the neighbors. When I visited the place, trees had sprouted on the flat roof, and a den of exotic specimens thrived inside.
At that time, the picture was the same in Luxembourg, where the property of the Bulgarian diplomatic mission in the shiny baroque capital resembled the water tower in Vukovar after the battle in 1991.
These are just two examples from the recent past that can illustrate the negligence with which state institutions treat their "golden hens". Due to the inability to raise them, the state is most often inclined to slaughter them, eat the meat and end this burden.
The Bulgarian state is a very bad manager
The Bulgarian state is a bad manager, even a very bad manager. It does not care about its property and does not know how to manage it in the interest of society. The State - the collective governing body, no matter how inaccurate this collective may be - is something like a generalized image of the evil stepmother from Charles Perrault's fairy tales, who has raised a corrupt offspring in her bosom and does not care about the other "children".
The property of the state outside Bulgaria is a big topic, worthy of a separate investigation. However, the same approach is also embedded in the recent decision of the government to part with 4,400 properties inside the country.
New program, new chaos
A little over a month ago, the Council of Ministers adopted the "Program for exercising rights over properties - state property and properties - property of state public enterprises". It states that "unusable assets that generate expenses but have investment potential should be sold."
It is planned that the money received from these sales will be deposited in a "Public Works" fund, which will be created at the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works. At first glance, this sounds great. But if you look at the topic, you realize that it has been approached chaotically, or as they say - from the feet to the head.
There is no "Public Works" fund. The Parliament should adopt the relevant legal changes in order to create such a structure. And besides the fact that it needs to be thought out very carefully about how it will function, which is not a task for a week or two, it is not at all clear whether this will happen at all and if it does, when can we expect the members of parliament to vote on the necessary legal changes. In a year? In two? And where will the money from these proceeds be until then, who will be responsible for them, who will monitor them…
Why all this rush?
One of the possible hypotheses is the assumption that the answer to this question is related to the adoption of the euro. The property market is a great place for money laundering. After January 1, 2026, it becomes difficult to clarify unclear cash flows and it is urgent to "clever" them to be deposited somewhere. Whether it is speculative or not, such a thesis is in the air. But even if the rush is not related to any corrupt intent, it is clear to everyone that the approach is quite wrong.
A statement prepared by "The Sofia Team" indicates problem areas and risks of abuse in the management of state and municipal property. They should mobilize professional guilds and control bodies to monitor the process to ensure that it is transparent and in the interest of society.
If something like an inventory of public property is currently being done, the first of many questions that remains unanswered is who these properties are, by what criteria they were included in the list, what is their assessment, do the municipalities on whose territories they are located need them? On these issues, the State Gazette spoke with the head of the "Sofia Team" arch. Lyubo Georgiev:
"There is no systematic work"
arch. Lyubo Georgiev: The state has been working for years on a project related to the creation of a unified register of state and municipal property, which would describe not only that such property exists - we now have a cadastral map, but also what this property is used for, how it is used, is it rented, is it leased, is it fulfilling the set goals in accordance with the strategies adopted by the state. This should be the first step, and from there, when this picture is fully clarified, a dialogue with the municipalities should begin. The ministries were given a month's time in which not only to collect information about their properties, but also to categorize them - how they are used, what functions they perform. And accordingly, to determine which ones they want to get rid of. Which, if there is systematic work on property management, could be done. But there is none. Individual individuals in the relevant ministry had to assess which asset is no longer necessary. Without any criteria for this.
There is no dialogue in which the state can see what it owns, how it classifies it, why it classifies it as unnecessary or very valuable? And if it has decided that for some reason this is no longer necessary, it should first ask the municipality "Do you want it, do you intend to do something?" Because by law, the state can transfer property to municipalities free of charge.
There is also no process in which municipalities say: "We need this for these and these purposes". And this is a wonderful opportunity for agreements, for services, in which some municipalities are given more, others less, and this lack of publicity creates an opportunity for speculation and favoritism.
DV: What is the right way for this dialogue between the state and municipalities to take place?
arch. Lyubo Georgiev: If the state is sincere in its desire to assist municipalities that need water treatment plants, parks, kindergartens, infrastructure, etc., the first thing it should do is ask them if they have state-owned properties that they need. This is the first conversation, not just let us sell.
Such properties exist. I will give an example with the idea of implementing the green ring in Sofia. It is about creating a circular park in the capital, part of the route of which passes along former railway lines that are state-owned and have not been used for 40, 50, 60 years. In order for the green park to be built, the state must transfer them to the municipality or lease them with the right to use them for a certain period of time. I know from experience that this process continues for years, and for some mini, mini properties, in order for the municipality to be able to do something. That is, if the state is sincere in its intention to assist the municipalities, it will not put them in such a situation, but will make the process faster.
For this purpose, however, it is necessary to create the register in question, which every person - even without being an expert - can read: to "scroll" on the online map, to "click" on the property and see if it is state-owned, which ministry manages it, what it is currently used for, since when it has been empty, and if it is rented out or on concession, what the proceeds are. This will provide information not only to the public, but also to the state, about what it has and how it is being exploited. And assets that are not managed properly or have the potential for greater profitability should not be sold, but managed. This is how it should be done. And not to get rid of the property and lose the opportunity to "milk this cow". End. You slaughtered it. You ate it and that's it.
There are many examples of irresponsible behavior. But there are also the opposite examples. In the opinion of "Team Sofia" we cited what they do in Sweden and Singapore. We are talking about companies created by the state, which manage state resources, work on a market principle and the profit goes to social activities.
In Singapore, the state company created for such a purpose is called TEMASEK. They started small and have become a conglomerate. TEMASEK is the largest landowner, owns Singapore Airlines, etc. The money from the profits goes to building social housing and kindergartens. That's how it's done.
DV: Why is the Bulgarian state such a bad manager?
arch. Lyubo Georgiev: Because often the people who govern it have goals that are different from the public good. The state can be a good manager with the right structure and the right motivation of those in power. I don't think we are Martians - if it can be done in other places in the world, it can be done here too. It depends on us.
DV: How do you imagine public control? We are talking about 4,400 properties. This is a huge resource. How can society monitor the process to be transparent, and not be a method for backstage payments, corruption schemes and other speculations.
arch. Lyubo Georgiev: The only way is through publicity, through comments in the media, writing on social networks, sharing articles, links, analyses - like what we have written from "Sofia Team". Through making noise. Only when something starts to become uncomfortable and reflect badly on the image of the superiors, only then is there an option for the process to be stopped, for someone to intervene to change it and change it so that the result is in the public interest.