District chief and city officials at odds over future of Kalamaja street 'shortcut'
The city of Tallinn disagrees with a district governor, who has called for street a redesign process to be scrapped and started over again.
The street is in the fashionable Kalamaja district of town, within the Põhja-Tallinn district. At issue is changed priorities with the change in city government last year, with the incoming Põhja-Tallinn District Elder Manuela Pihlap (Center) saying the redesign as agreed under the last administration both coercively cuts a property owner's rights while at the same time limiting parking in the vicinity of that property.
Kalamaja, critics of the design say, sees great parking pressure on its streets, while the redesign would include landscaped portions which could no longer be parked on.
The short stretch of road in question runs between Valgevase and Linda streets. It is mostly taken up by old garages, and local residents often use it as a pedestrian shortcut.
Pihlap said pedestrians should still be permitted to pass through the street section, adding city authorities want to limit the landowner's parking rights on his own land: Which paradoxically would lead to him parking in the place used as a shortcut, rendering it impassable.
A preparatory process initiated under the previous Isamaa-SDE-Eesti 200 city administration to upgrade the street section was completed last month, after that administration had left office and been replaced by the current Isamaa-Center one.
The City of Tallinn's Environment and Public Works Department issued the design conditions for the street then, which stipulate that sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, street furniture and a traffic solution will be installed. The Põhja-Tallinn district government, a subdivision of the main city government, rejects the plan, however, and is seeking to have the design conditions annulled.
Pihlap told ERR that these design conditions unfairly restrict property rights. The owner of the property in question has been very accommodating and has expressed a desire to preserve public access across the street for residents, but at the same time expects the city to show consideration toward the owners as well, Pihlap said.
"A situation has arisen right now in which the city is forcefully restricting the property rights of the landowner, yet at the same time diminishing the owner's use of city land — so the restriction has come from both sides," Pihlap said. "For both parties to feel that the process is fair, the design conditions should now be withdrawn and the procedure carried out in a fair manner," she went on.
The procedure has been deficient primarily in terms of public involvement — while residents were theoretically involved, none of the proposals made during the process were taken into account, Pihlap said.
As a result, while the property owner said they may take the matter to court, Pihlap is seeking a solution and has appealed to the Environment and Public Works Department along those lines.
However, the department's response has been that since the design conditions were submitted by the [previous] district government itself last February, the process has been conducted properly, with the public display taking place last September and a public town hall in November.
"During the processing of the application, the applicant did not submit a request to withdraw the application for design conditions," said Merilin Laur, building rights proceedings specialist at the Public Works Department – the applicant here being the Põhja-Tallinn district government.
The environment department also said grounds for annulling the design conditions are absent.
"We find that within the framework of these design conditions, and considering the level of detail and scope appropriate to this stage, a sufficient public involvement process has been carried out. Everyone who wished to do so had the opportunity to express their opinion," Laur said.
Pihlap noted that there had been a change in district administration following the October local elections, and the incoming administration views the situation differently from its predecessor.
Pihlap also said she had raised the issue even ahead of those elections. "Even before the elections, I said that I do not consider it fair in any way that the city forcefully reduces the property owner's rights while at the same time limiting the right to park on city land."
This has been little short of an abuse of power, Pihlap noted, while stressing her aim of avoiding things going to court.
"If a resident can no longer park on their own land, then the city should offer, as a counterbalance, the right to park on city land," Pihlap said. "The property owner has expressed a desire to find a solution so that the road can be improved, people can pass through, and everyone who needs to can also park," she went on.
In a letter to the Põhja-Tallinn district government, the Environment and Public Works Department said an agreement with the owner of the Valgevase 8b property is required to secure public sidewalk use before a building permit is sought. The solution has to be developed by the district government in cooperation with city institutions and the property owners.
The department clarified that design conditions do not grant building rights; they only define location, restrictions, needed studies, and project preparation requirements.
"Therefore, the design conditions do not impair the use of the immovable property by the owners," Laur said.
The Põhja-Tallinn district government is nevertheless not satisfied with this response and will, Pihlap said, reiterate their line more thoroughly to the department, explaining why the design conditions should be scrapped and the process started anew.
"There is a legal basis arising from the law for their withdrawal," Pihlap added.
The landowner, Andero Ermel, had last September told Vikerhommik that if the city government turns its own land, where cars have so far been parked, into a green area, he will be forced to park his own vehicle on his own plot. This would mean the public would no longer be able to use the strip of land as a thoroughfare.
As to why he does not park his car in one of the garages, Ermel said this was beside the point since it is his private property in any case.
"For me, acting toward the owner in this way, without seeking a compromise, is not a solution," Ermel said.
--
Editor: Andrew Whyte
