It is certainly welcome that Deputy Mayor Aleksei Jašin from our coalition partner Eesti 200 has initiated a debate on the necessity of Tallinn's districts. Indeed, any form of consolidation and centralization seemingly brings economies of scale, but only up to a certain point and the actual benefits of such cost savings may not necessarily materialize.

Tallinn was divided into districts about 30 years ago. At the time, various options were considered, but ultimately, a more or less logical division was reached, which remains in place today. While one could argue over the nuances of whether all the boundaries drawn on the map back then are entirely logical, in broad terms, residents have accepted this structure and a sense of connection and identity with their respective districts has developed.

City government must know local peculiarities

I agree that centralization, in certain cases, leads to cost savings, ensures uniform service quality, establishes consistent management principles and promotes more efficient resource use. However, it also erases the identity and distinct character of city districts.

Tallinn is Estonia's largest municipality, home to about a third of the country's population. In some districts, more people live than in entire cities elsewhere in Estonia. If the responsibilities of district governments were consolidated under a single administration, we could no longer talk about meaningful resident engagement. That would take a backseat.

To ensure the highest possible quality of life, city authorities must have a deep understanding of their citizens' needs. The strength of district governments lies precisely in their proximity to local residents, their familiarity with local conditions and their ability to address issues quickly. This also takes into account local characteristics, which differ significantly, for example, between Nõmme and Lasnamäe.

This is not a new idea — the same principle is outlined in the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which Estonia joined in 1995. The principle is formulated as follows: "Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibility to another authority should be based on the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy."

What is the problem we're trying to solve?

With the centralization of services, power inevitably moves further away from the citizen. This is why it is crucial to carefully analyze and weigh the consequences in advance — will the cost savings be significant enough to justify the potential decline in citizen satisfaction? And does standardizing service quality necessarily lead to an improvement in service quality?

A debate on the necessity of city districts should indeed be held from time to time and arguments for and against should be thoroughly considered. However, making hasty decisions is not an option, as there are so many underlying currents — both possible and impossible to predict — that to fully understand them, one must have firsthand experience at the grassroots level.

The last major debate about eliminating city districts took place during Edgar Savisaar's administration when a law increased the number of members in the Tallinn City Council. At the time, the Centre Party feared losing its monopoly on power, and the proposed elimination of districts was seen as a maneuver to maintain its political dominance in the capital.

Back then, the city districts fortunately remained, though regrettably, so did the Center Party's hold on city governance. What problem Eesti 200 is now trying to solve remains unclear to me. But I will certainly ask them to clarify their reasoning in more detail. As an alternative, I suggest that if district governments have the best understanding of what is happening in their respective areas, perhaps the discussion should instead be about granting them more authority.

--

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