At 25 Chongarskaya Street, a heated dispute has erupted over a dilapidated building. While the city executive committee was weighing the technical condition of the structures and the cost of repairs, one local resident publicly called for the demolition to be stopped and came forward with an initiative to save the building. The man voiced his position. But, as often happens, behind the loud words about "preserving history" lies the question: is the defender of the old building prepared to invest his own funds in it?

Decaying walls, signs of age, and the need for major construction work. The building at 25 Chongarskaya Street is today difficult to call an ornament to the city. Its restoration will require significant investment. According to experts, demolition is the more rational solution. But not everyone agrees with such a pragmatic approach.

Bobruisk resident Vyacheslav Kravchenko says, "I paid attention to this house because it was in poor condition, and I made requests to sell it for further restoration. I planned to live in this house." The concerned citizen explains his position by a desire to preserve the building and its unique architecture. He is ready to buy the house for its base value. However, the law today does not allow the sale of rental housing, even if it is dilapidated. Removing the building from this category requires repairing it first. According to calculations by relevant organizations, this will cost at least 60,000 rubles, while demolition will cost 39.

Residents of neighboring buildings say that the building has simply turned into a toilet: "People walk in there. You know, we're tired of chasing these people. When it's ruined, it's a nuisance, but what they'll do with it, I don't even care. If they demolish it, that's fine, at least there won't be a toilet."

A month ago, Vyacheslav Kravchenko attended a personal reception of citizens with the chairman of the city executive committee. He expressed his opinion that this house has an unusual architectural element, a distinctive style that highlights the architectural appearance of the old part of the city. Then Maxim Gurin promised to reconsider the problem. And the issue has been revisited. The previously adopted decision remains unchanged based on expediency.