Battle Continues Over Part of Old Town Destroyed in 1944 (2)

Published: 12.03.2012 10:32

To be or not to be? Trepi Street.
( Photo: Postimees/Scanpix )

See Also

The recent anniversary of the Soviet air raids that destroyed several blocks in Tallinn's Old Town near St. Nicholas Church has been surrounded by a court battle that pits a private owner's interests against the city and preservationists.

In 2007, the city restored a former narrow street, Trepi tänav, and a gateway, called Nõelasilm (Needle's Eye), obliterated in the March 1944 bombing. 

Because the whole destroyed area was filled in with dirt after the war, the original Trepi tänav pavement was 2.7 meters lower than its surroundings, necessitating a retaining wall.

That wall, built on land owned by a company owned by Heino Viik, is at the center of the dispute. On February 9, finding for the plaintiff, Tallinn District Court ordered Tallinn to remove the retaining wall lining Trepi tänav.

The city has tried to buy the plot from Viik for 357,500 euros, but he turned down the offer.

On March 9, coincidentally the 68th anniversary of the bombings, Tallinn appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Tallinn says the Tallinn District Court should not only have considered property law but whether taking down the wall would be possible in light of heritage conservation laws and public interest.

"The disputed site is an archeological monument located on Old Town Tallinn's heritage conservation site that is on the UNESCO World Heritage list," wrote Raepress, the city government's press service.

The city maintains no new building was built on the plot, but that it only restored the original city street grid along with the auxiliary structures that this required.

Public opinion appears to be split: some feel the owner is being litigious. Others say the city's UNESCO claims are specious, noting that Trepi tänav was originally a much wider street, and that a park would have been preferable. 


Kristopher Rikken

Comments

For adding comments,enter the ERR website with your user name and password , or use the form below to comment without logging in.


Guidelines for commenting can be found here.

Comments (2)

  • Observer

    12.03.2012 19:08

    In most countries the state reserves the right to compulsorily acquire land for the purpose of road works, the only contestable issue for the land owner is that the state pay fair compensation. Is this not the case in Estonia?

  • Mardus

    14.03.2012 05:31

    @Observer It's not about the state, but the city. Because the place is a heritage site, and private property to boot (into which part of the wall was built without the plaintiff's permission), the city can't exercise eminent domain. I have a feeling that the city cannot exercise eminent domain anyway, but only the state, which wouldn't have had any problem leaving things as they were in the first place — which means leaving the unearthed ruins of the 1944 bombing intact. The city and the state are at loggerheads, because they're ruled by politically opposing parties. As far as I undertood it, the court basically ordered the city to undo everything.