Epress.am News from Armenia
The Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia noticed many flaws in the work of Yerevan City Hall. This is stated in the section on the municipality in the Ombudsman's 2013 annual report.
Some of the shortcomings the Ombdusman mentioned in the report are as follows:
– Clear, transparent requirements for arbitrary construction were not established, as a result of which communities were given overly broad discretion in determining the legality of such constructions. In many cases, this discretion created corruption risks.
– In several kindergarten groups, the number of children exceeded 30, as a result of which the children did not receive the necessary care.
– Regarding raising the (public) transportation fare, the municipality did not hold public hearings and provided neither sufficient grounds for raising the fare nor possible alternative solutions, which led to justifiable public outrage.
– The (new) parking system was introduced in Yerevan with serious shortcomings, such as people parking for under an hour were forced to pay for the full hour; free, unpaid parking for people with disabilities was not envisioned; and public hearings were not properly organized.
– Instead of paving the dilapidated streets in the outskirts of the city, the municipality often repaved the main streets [in the city center], despite their being in good condition.
– Sufficient measures were not taken to prevent the illegal construction of the Pak Shuka ("Covered Market").
– Not taking into account urban planning regulations, as well as a number of negative consequences for the residents of Komitas 5 (for example, the significant reduction in light of nearby buildings, the cutting down of trees in the area, and so on), City Hall, nevertheless, permitted the construction.
– City Hall has not taken any measures to eliminate the "perversity" in Kom Aygi; in particular, it neither installed lighting nor fenced the perimeter of the park, and it did not lock the entrance to the park at night.
– The entry and exit to several buildings were inaccessible to people with disabilities. In several cases, (wheelchair) ramps were completely absent; and when they were, the gradient of their slope was extremely steep.
– Measures were not taken to adapt public transport to allow for the free movement of people with disabilities.