Simakov got himself into deep trouble.

      Thus, in the opinion of the "Gray House" administration, he did not arouse suspicion toward the governor, since approval for KRT development is a priori coordinated with the regional government and the Ministry of Construction. And when on November 10 Alexander Sokolov spoke of the unsightly nature of Simakov’s deception — who had promised Kirov residents a park at the intersection of Mopra and Zashchitnikov Otechestva Streets but signed a permit to build a multi‑unit residential building — the "acting" official immediately assured that "everything has already been canceled."

      According to city administration employees, when Dmitry Pechenkin also revoked Simakov’s second decree on holding an auction to select a contractor for development of the land plot behind the mayor’s office, he likely saved the "chief city official" from criminal prosecution: "either for exceeding authority or for abuse of official powers and authority that infringe citizens’ rights." In addition, holding the tender in the foreseeable future would have led to multimillion‑ruble budget losses.

      And although two specialists — Galina Filippova, head of the Department of Municipal Property (DMS), and Elena Donskova, head of the architectural department — spent about half a year forming the "KRT territory" behind the city administration building and conducting an appraisal for the right to conclude a contract, responsibility for the KRT development permit would have fallen to Vyacheslav Nikolaevich — as the principal signatory of the "illegal decree."

      All the more so because both of the "Simakov ladies" would hardly have risked, without a separate directive from above, including a 20‑sotka (2,000‑square‑meter) plot owned by private owners in the "KRT territory." For both departments surely knew that the owners of the land plot under the house demolished at Orlovskaya 48/1 were its residents, as co‑owners under a common shared ownership right. And the land on which they intended to build independently was divided into shares proportional to the area of their former apartments.

      They didn’t let it go too far

      On November 24 the Pervomaysky District Court terminated proceedings in the case initiated by the residents of the house at Orlovskaya 48/1, who demanded that the auction for the right to residential development on their land plot be declared illegal. Vyacheslav Simakov was listed as the defendant in the complaint.

      Recall that back on October 27 — one day before the deadline for submitting applications — the DMS suspended the holding of the tender until, as stated in the protocol, the final judicial act entered into legal force. For the officials this was a forced measure, since the court had imposed interim measures on the "KRT territory" formed by the two departments. On that territory, by law, alienation (purchase) of private property is impossible.

      And by the next court hearing the defendant submitted two documents — signed by Pechenkin and bearing Donskova’s flourish — cancelling "certain decrees," on the basis of which the proceedings were terminated for lack of a subject of dispute.

      As one participant in the trial explained, Simakov probably expected that the landowners would not start "walking the corridors" to get from the seasoned officials "answers about nothing." Thus the administration failed to buy time so that the auction could take place and the developer could begin construction, spending in the first hours a pile of millions of rubles, which would have greatly complicated the court proceedings:

      "People hired a lawyer, went to court, and with that the scam to develop the most central land in Kirov happily fizzled out a few days before its expected realization. Bravo to the Kirov residents who did not believe in the 'good intentions' of the 'leading officials.'"

      The interlocutor believes this is perhaps the first case in the city’s history in which Kirov residents saved themselves from likely bureaucratic arbitrariness. He also thinks that "it would be good to appeal to City Duma deputies who may want to calculate the damage caused to the budget": a half‑year simulation of busy but, as it turned out, failed activity by two departments, plus costs for land appraisal and holding the auction — none of these actions were free.

      "I would also file a request for an investigation so that the prosecutor’s office would 'look for' signs of exceeding authority, which is not only not too late but exactly the right time, since the city leadership itself admitted and recorded in court the violation of citizens’ rights — I would call that a confession. But this is not the only violation of citizens’ rights in this story, because by concluding a KRT contract the city expected to receive 830 square meters of housing, part of which it promised to give to the residents of the other dilapidated house on Nikitskaya, which the developer was supposed to demolish."

      Recall that the disputed territory was a land plot which bordered on the west on the city administration, to the south adjoined the main and auxiliary buildings of the tax office. To the north it abutted the apartment building at Nikitskaya 145‑a. And to the east it adjoined three "inactive" land parcels, probably belonging to one of Kirov’s special developers, who, with a high degree of likelihood, is directly or affiliatively connected to Roman Golyshev (LLC SZ "Trans‑Holding").