Dozens of posters have been taped to trees along Shinararner Street, bearing messages such as “The flower shop has moved 50 meters farther up the street” and “Call the barber at the number provided.” However, not everyone has been able to find a suitable location to continue their business following the large-scale demolitions carried out along Shinararneri Street on October 12.<\/p>\n
One woman who operated a clothing store in the area says her employees have been left without jobs. She is searching day and night for a new space where she can reopen her shop.<\/p>\n
Several months ago, the Ajapnyak Administrative District Office signed and renewed agreements related to the privatization of properties in the area. Demolishing people’s livelihoods just three months after extending these agreements defies common sense, says Manuk Sukiasyan, head of the opposition Mother Armenia faction in Yerevan’s Council of Elders.<\/p>\n
“Yes, perhaps the time has come to improve the area and review the status of the kiosks. But that raises a question: if you were signing and extending contracts just months ago, didn’t you consider your responsibilities? This simply shows that decisions are being made on an ad hoc basis,” Sukiasyan says.<\/p>\n
Activist Artur Chakhoyan explains the legal aspects of the process, noting that this is not the first time unauthorized structures in the city have been demolished after their owners or tenants were given just one day’s notice. According to him, the proper legal procedure should take years.<\/p>\n
“First, Yerevan Municipality must verify the legal grounds on which the properties were privatized, carry out measurements, and determine whether each structure corresponds to the coordinates specified in its cadastral certificate. Only after completing these steps should the municipality notify the property owner of the planned demolition. Any dispute over ownership rights must then be resolved in court.”<\/p>\n
This is a lengthy process that should take at least two years, the activist adds, arguing that Yerevan Municipality is unwilling to spend that much time on legal proceedings.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, some kiosk owners whose properties have not been demolished under court rulings are still afraid to stock their shops and resume trading. Their outlets are almost empty, with only one or two items visible on the shelves. The sellers say they are afraid to invest in new stock, arrange their goods, and reopen for business, only to have the municipality demolish their kiosks as well. They are left wondering how they would recover their losses.<\/p>\n
Passersby and residents of Ajapnyak have mixed reactions to the demolitions. Some welcome the changes, saying the sidewalks have become wider, while others wonder where they are now supposed to shop, given that supermarkets are more expensive. Some also express sympathy for the kiosk owners who have suddenly found themselves out of work.<\/p>\n
The kiosks were demolished on October 12, exactly two weeks ago. Yet 14 days later, construction debris had still not been properly cleared from the area.<\/p>\n
The municipality appears to have failed to plan the work in the proper sequence. Tenders for demolition-related work and landscaping should have been announced in advance so that the area could be cleared and landscaping could begin immediately after the kiosks were removed, rather than leaving construction waste scattered around for months. Yerevan has numerous examples of demolition sites where debris remains uncleared for extended periods.<\/p>\n
While Ajapnyak District Head Serob Sargsyan was promising compensation to those affected during the demolition work, an important question remains: how can compensation be assessed objectively when the properties have already been demolished? Once a structure has been removed, it becomes much more difficult to assess its condition and determine the appropriate amount of compensation.<\/p>\n
“First of all, they should not have renewed the agreements concerning the properties. Had they not done so, there would have been no need for compensation payments from the community budget. If they had such a plan, they should have said: ‘The agreement has expired, brother. Keep whatever money you have left, but return the property.’ Instead, they renewed the agreements, thereby creating a legal basis for compensation,” emphasizes the head of the Mother Armenia faction.<\/p>\n
Artur Chakhoyan also points to a 2023 court case involving a similar issue, in which the court ordered the community to pay 550 million drams in compensation from the municipal budget. The activist warns that the current situation could lead to further legal proceedings and additional compensation claims, potentially resulting in a significant loss of public funds. As he notes, the initial cost of addressing such issues is often many times lower than the eventual compensation payments.<\/p>\n