You presented Tallinn's 2025 budget on Friday, which seems more optimistic and ambitious than one would perhaps expect. How did you manage to put together a surplus budget in an economic crisis in the first place?

There are two aspects here. Firstly, compared to many other local governments, Tallinn has the advantage of a growing population. And more residents means more taxpayers. Tallinn also has a more robust labor market than some other areas. Unemployment is low, while salaries are growing, which takes much of the pressure off the budget.

Secondly, we have made a remarkable effort. We have exceeded expectations in terms of new savings, less squandering and structural reforms, which has allowed us to prioritize certain things.

Governments are in the habit of naming budgets. How might we refer to Tallinn's 2025 budget?

The budget of happy children. Of course, Tallinn will build roads, playgrounds, sports facilities etc. and there's good news in many different areas, but if we were to concentrate on a single focus, I would say it's children and families with children for whom education is key and where we will be investing in new projects or initiatives, in addition to major things, such as hiking teachers' salaries.

We have also prioritized children's health, as concerns sporting opportunities, mental health. We also want to improve the subsistence of families with children. Lower kindergarten fees, free porridge in the morning and more income-dependent benefits – to offer all children a better childhood.

Aren't all citizens kind of like politicians' children? And because citizens are also voters, could we perhaps refer to the budget as being geared toward happy voters?

I cannot agree with such allusions to populism. If we look at priorities in education, having fewer children per class, or no more than 24 starting from September 1, it is a substantive and real problem in Tallinn's education system we're fixing. It is bad for the children and leads to teachers burning out. Not to mention teachers' salaries, which is self-explanatory.

In light of all this positivity, which investments have been deferred in Tallinn?

Our investments budget is €250 million, which is very near capacity. /.../ So, I would not say anything will be left undone.

Some projects may end up being postponed until 2026. In terms of what will be moved up, we are talking about investments in education, based on our focus on education and children. But there is also the realization that we need more school and kindergarten places, that on top of reconstructing kindergartens, we also need new ones to make sure children could attend school close to home.

I would expand on this and say that if Tallinn has fallen short somewhere, it's strategic planning. Tallinn had 400,000 residents when I graduated from school 20 years ago. It has 460,000 people today and will gain another 50,000 at least in the next decade. While this means more taxpayers, it also means more pressure on services, especially education and social welfare. Also roads and public transport etc. That is how we see things, and we have many forward-looking investments in this vein.

Does this mean forecasts suggest Tallinn will have over half a million residents in a decade's time?

Forecasts differ based on certain preconditions. Tallinn is mostly growing as a result of foreign migration today, as opposed to its domestic counterpart. The former depends, to some extent, on national migration policies, while it mainly has to do with how attractive the city is, primarily in terms of high-tech and high value added jobs where we've seen solid growth, with tech companies driving job creation. The range [of anticipated population growth] is 50,000-100,000. So we are counting on 50,000 new residents at least in Tallinn, while the city will likely have 550,000 resident 15-20 years from now. Looking at Põhja-Tallinn alone, building rights have been issued for enough people to fill the city of Pärnu – 40,000.

This puts pressure on the city for new transport links, especially to Põhja-Tallinn with its narrow streets, difficult traffic situation and lack of diverse public transport options in the northern part. What are the city's plans?

That is an excellent observation. While there are attempts to paint an ideological conflict between drivers and cyclists in Tallinn, that is not how I see it at all. It is a matter of simple fact that if we get another 100,000 residents, we won't all fit in the city at recent mobility patterns. Because we want both existing and new residents to be able to get around, we will have to use personal cars less and alternative modes of transport more often. We'll be out of room.

Of course, looking at the development of city districts and transport, Põhja-Tallinn is a good example of bad planning. Building rights have been granted with no heed to education and transport. We're trying to fix that problem today.

One high-priority project is the Pelguranna tram, which we want to have by 2029 to create a high-capacity transport link to the Pelguranna urban region. But other important decisions will need to be taken in the next decade. For example, we have initial designs for a tram route down Kalaranna tänav and toward Noblessner. There are complexities involved, and we cannot include it in our priorities today, but the project remains a theoretical possibility.

How satisfied are you with progress toward creating the Tallinn Hospital? The city wants to construct a new hospital campus, while the prime minister is suggesting we should not pour all our hopes in concrete.

I completely agree with the prime minister. It has never been about erecting a new building for me. While my predecessor had such an idea, I have taken a conceptual view from the first. For the first time in history, Tallinn has proposed a major overhaul of the healthcare system. Specialist medical and hospital care are not local government tasks. It is only sensible if the central government, which provides the funding through the Health Insurance Fund, is the one responsible for the field.

I'm glad that we now see eye to eye with the Ministry of Social Affairs and the latter point is reflected in the draft hospital network plan that will soon land in the government. Tallinn could have a single organizational model, albeit with several campuses. It would help cut costs and ensure the quality and availability of services if we succeed.

Infrastructure is the final piece in the reform puzzle. There are different ways to go about it, and while we could renovate our existing [hospital] buildings, our calculations suggest it would cost almost as much as a new campus, while not offering the same level of improvement.

Let's talk about traffic signs, which have become the most visible calling card of Tallinn lately, both ironically and realistically speaking. It was recently reported that Tallinn has added thousands of traffic signs in recent years, going from 30,000 to 50,000. That sounds crazy. Do we need that many or have things been taken too far?

Things have definitely gone too far. It's evident in what was done on that stretch of Kaarli puiestee recently. If we give specialists, in whose head everything has to be made 100 percent clear at all times, free reign, they will have traffic signs everywhere. Instead, we could use common sense. Of course, adding traffic signage is necessary in some places as traffic loads fluctuate, while it goes beyond traffic signs.

Let us also look at traffic lights. Some intersections can have five or six duplicate traffic lights. This is not necessary in places where the speed limit is 30 kilometers per hour. We should dial back this visual pollution, consider whether it's necessary to have an arrow sign for every turning lane on small roads. People are rational for the most part and can navigate traffic situations without overregulation.

This proliferation of traffic signage is a longer process. Looking only at the "racing gates" all along Pirita tee. It's harebrained. A stretch of road clad all in metal in a situation where a single speed limit sign would suffice. Yes, it has gotten out of hand.

What will be done about it?

Well... We'll try to dial it back. But it's true that there is no single plan for this today. It would require analysis, going by roads or urban regions. The city's Transport Department has ordered traffic schemes for some urban regions, such as the Old Town, which could, among other things, answer the question of how many traffic signs do we need.

How to avoid absurdities like the sea of pedestrian crossing signs on Kaarli puiestee in the future? Better communication between departments and deputy mayors?

It is clear that Tallinn has thousands of ongoing projects at any given time. It is unthinkable for politicians to start checking every traffic sign. A systematic solution would be to agree that we will refrain from overregulation where it is not necessary. Secondly, while mistakes will continue to be made, we will have to sit down and agree on how to fix them, instead of publicly arguing for weeks on end.

During your administration's time in office, public attention has mainly focused on two deputy mayors who are often at odds with one another and tend to engage in heated debates on social media and elsewhere. While they both claim to have no conflict with the other, I dare say the media did not just make it up.

Has the confrontation between deputy mayors Pärtel-Peeter Pere (Reform) and Kristjan Järvan (Isamaa) disturbed the city government's work or impacted its reputation?

There are personality-related aspects at play here. The city government is comprised of people and personal preferences affect both mutual cooperation and public communication. There are also more objective differences, and I do not subscribe to Mr. Järvan's view in many matters myself. At times, he can say things that I find to be downright incorrect.

What I hold important is resolving these differences in a way that leaves the city government looking professional. What I have tried to tell my colleagues is that I didn't know what the Transport Department or the Urban Environment and Public Works Department were doing when I first joined the city government three years ago. Residents do not have to know the names of designers and contractors. These are details that should remain in-house after relevant debates are held in house, with the public told only that this is what the city will do.

This has not always been the case, and debates have spilled over into the media, including social media, which I believe has not helped matters. The two departments and the deputy mayors responsible for them must be able to work together.

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps you would have been better off staying with your previous coalition partner, the Center Party? You were the junior partner but still had plenty of influence.

No. Firstly, because that coalition virtually ceased to exist. And it ceased to exist because the Center Party collapsed. But it also ended in terms of effective cooperation, whereas this city government has been more dynamic and energetic than the last. /.../ It was impossible to reform the city system in terms of merging smaller agencies and trimming that fat with the Center Party. We wanted to, but there was always a centrist in a key position or... I don't know... it was necessary to secure secret funding for Kalle Klandorf's basketball club etc.

These things have become possible because we have a new city government, which I believe serves the interests of Tallinners and the city's future. The complexities we've seen were to be expected. A coalition made up of four sides has its peculiarities, while its predecessor had different ones. I believe the Social Democrats will be able to take pride in having achieved most things we were after by time of the next local elections.

Center Party leader Mihhail Kõlvart is critical of Tallinn's plans to centralize services. According to him, it is the wrong path to take, the city lacks a plan for what it's doing and why, while running the risk of losing contact and falling out of touch with local peculiarities.

I read about it. But what are we talking about? There are several structural reforms in the works. Talking about the consolidation of sports, which the city council approved yesterday (Friday – ed.), where we have dozens of different organizations, each with its own model, investment capacity, quality of equipment and price list. /.../ It is sensible to have a universal system with a single manager, the same quality requirements, single booking system and everything else that goes with it. We can also save money like that, but the aim is to improve overall quality.

Now, what I believe Mr. Kõlvart was referring to was centralization of child protection work, currently in the planning stages. But it is based on observations and analysis by the city's internal audit department over many years. I firmly believe that in a highly sensitive field like child protection, where we are dealing with very complicated matters that may affect people for life, we cannot allow a situation where children don't get help because a city district fails to hire a specialist in time. We know that some districts have employees who do not meet qualification requirements.

Comparing it to other fields, while it is one thing if districts fail to empty public trash cans on time, the effects of them failing to offer high-quality child protection services are not something we can allow.

That is why, and based on the central government's understanding of how child protection cases need to be handled, we will have a consolidated child protection unit. Of course, some employees do not like it, while others have questions and fears. It is undoubtedly a major reform. We will try to do it systematically and involve people, while I do believe it is the right direction.

Yes, work with local communities must continue, but we also need citywide specialization. In more complicated cases, whether we're talking about domestic violence, custody or child protection, things can be very complicated and we also need to represent the city in court etc. There have been shortcomings in the latter as well.

How will Center perform at the next local elections?

It will depend on both them and us. But it also depends on a third thing – the Riigikogu. It is clear that the matter of voting rights will have the biggest single effect on the election result in Tallinn. It will mainly concern Isamaa and Center, benefiting one and hurting the other. /.../ Center will try to bring back the good old Center Party so to speak, while we will have to prove that we can handle running the city.

How will it affect SDE should Russian citizens lose the right to vote?

Generally, it will affect parties whose voters include mostly Estonians or mostly Russians. Isamaa doesn't have a single Russian-speaking voter, while Center has virtually no Estonian-speaking ones. One stands to win and the other lose big. The effect will actually be smallest for the Social Democrats, as we have about the same number of Estonian and Russian-speaking supporters. Based on past ratings at least.

At the same time, those same ratings suggest you are losing ground among Russian-speakers. Why do you believe that is, and have SDE's tactics paid off in the voting rights matter ?

For me, the matter of voting rights boils down to amending the Constitution. I find it would be obscene and cynical to do it in search of ratings points. I do not support the plan to amend the Constitution for reasons that have already been widely discussed. But if the party has been saying for years that it shouldn't be done only to eventually run out of steam and give in, it is only natural a part of our voters are disappointed.

Could a party chairman consistently singling out one group in society, suggesting it should register to be able to vote in Estonia, come off demeaning and discriminatory? Is that why SDE's rating has suffered?

The last week's ratings drop is a direct reaction to the decision made by the party's board to agree to the constitutional amendment under certain conditions. As concerns what could be perceived as discriminatory, I believe it is the most dangerous aspect of the whole process and one not initiated by [SDE leader] Lauri Läänemets or the Social Democrats. It is what President Alar Karis has suggested when he asked what do we have to gain by casting the shadow of doubt over an entire social group. These are people who have lived here from before 1990, many have been born here. And when the papers write about a semi- or fully Putinist element that needs to be kept isolated from important matters, it naturally affects attitudes. That is one reason I have found that moving forward with a constitutional amendment would do more harm than good.

Still, that is where we seem to be headed. Are the Social Democrats united in their support of the coalition's bill?

We are not. I voted against it in the board, while I know of at least one SDE MP who will be voting against a constitutional amendment. There were other board members who did not support the chairman's proposal. There are differences of opinion in this matter. Where we are united is that amending the Constitution in this case is a bad idea and shouldn't be done. But the party finally agreed to the compromise under considerable public pressure. /.../

Where do you stands on talks between Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets and the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate? The church has claimed persecution.

That the state wants the church to distance itself from the Moscow Patriarchate I find entirely clear and justified. What worries me is that the process has not been concluded. /.../ I believe the topic is important and sensitive enough to warrant clear demands and action. That would decide the matter and allow the sides to move on. The important thing is for congregations to be able to continue their activities, which pledge I believe they have been given. Legal and organizational matters should be resolved as quickly as possible. Because unfriendly forces are taking advantage, painting the state as persecuting the church and preparing for its closure. Therefore, the solution should be clear and arrive sooner rather than later.

The other side of this matter is a little more philosophical. Estonia is a secular country where the Constitution provides full religious freedom. I become cautious whenever representatives of public authority start to express opinions on how congregations should communicate with their deity. It is not a public task in a secular country, and it could affect many other congregations as a matter of precedent.

Former ISS Director Arnold Sinisalu has suggested that a situation where a country's rules do not apply to a church cannot exist.

Naturally. The rule of law means that churches are not exempt from it. Of course, they cannot just say that secular matters do not concern them. But there are two aspects here. One is the state providing a framework for [church] statutes in terms of... I don't know... economic relations and the like. The other is politicians trying to interpret how the church communes with God. This perhaps no longer falls in the jurisdiction of secular authorities.

Could this matter also be taking a toll on the Social Democrats' rating?

No, I don't think so. I've always believed that in addition to independent defensive capacity and strong allied relations, the temperature of national relationships is a key component in Estonia's security. That is why our actions need to be carefully considered. It definitely does not pay to manufacture points of contention, provocations and skirmishes between national groups. Many of the relevant topics are sensitive by nature, and sensitive topics need delicate handling. But, in terms of my contacts with Russian-speaking people, they aren't much less secular than Estonians. While the church has many members, those who live and breathe in the same rhythm are few enough.

On the other hand, I haven't met a single person who supports the nonsense [Patriarch] Kirill is spewing. People understand the problem, and for as long as we allow congregations to continue operating and people to attend church, I don't think we have fundamental issues.

Let us come back to local elections. One might speculate that Center will put in a strong showing this time, even if it fails to secure an absolute majority. Might we then also speculate that they will try to marry a strong partner?

I believe that Center, much like every other party, will want to be part of the ruling coalition after the locals, and that they're busy looking for potential partners. How many partners will be needed and whether they'll be strong or weak going in will depend on the results. There is too much uncertainty here in terms of what Center will do, as well as how convincing potential partners will appear to citizens. It is difficult to forecast as of right now.

But is it safe to say everyone will try to avoid having another four-way coalition?

It is clear that coalitions aim to make do with as few sides as possible. If a three-way is possible, that is what will be done, while having just two sides is better yet. We will have Riigikogu elections 18 months after the locals, and I'm sure parties will consider this fact when negotiating a coalition for Tallinn. In other words, while some combinations may make sense otherwise, parties could already be thinking about the implications of bringing EKRE to power, for example. Such aspects will play a role. But I also think that parties first want to put in the best possible result to have a maximally strong negotiating position.

Would you like to be the Social Democrats' candidate for Tallinn mayor?

Yes, that has been the thinking so far.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!