In discussions about developments in the Latvian capital, an important question is often forgotten: namely, if Riga has and will have many plans and needs, and, as it seems, potentially many as-yet-unknown problems, how will the capital earn the money? We hear and read about experiments, strategies and ideas that require financial resources. Is any thought being given to where to get them?
Looking at the map of Riga and knowing the situation in Riga and the Pierīga region, one must ask – is the capital planning to expand?
We are doing that. If we are talking about the city's boundaries, we have no ambition to “conquer foreign territories”. In Riga, we are focused on cooperation and see very great benefits (for the residents) if we can achieve good synergy in the cooperation between Riga and the Pierīga municipalities. Therefore – not legally, but in practice – we have shifted the boundaries, of course, referring to the boundaries of cooperation.
Previously, there was almost a Chinese wall around Riga. During the term of the previous Riga City Council management, the capital was in almost a state of war with the neighbouring regional municipalities: they “fought” over tax rates, competed for registered residents, and spoke about introducing a toll for entering Riga and similar initiatives. One of my duties as Deputy Mayor was to create the Riga Metropolitan Cooperation Platform, which has been achieved; namely, both the Mayor of Riga and the leaders of the Pierīga municipalities are finally talking at the same table. For this purpose, together with the Pierīga municipalities, we have founded “Rīgas Metropole” (1), its spatial action and development plan has been created, providing for cooperation on many issues – mobility, education, social matters, etc. In fact, almost every issue we tackle reveals years of accumulated and unresolved problems. For example, the green belt surrounding Riga – forests – belongs to the Riga municipality (Rīgas Meži), and a large part of the forests owned by Riga are located outside the territory of Riga. Property management, administration and organisation are also issues that we are resolving within the framework of the Metropolis. The work is also coordinated with the Riga Planning Region. In short – we have shifted the boundaries, but in a way other than usually thought.
Has the administrative-territorial reform affected the cooperation with the Pierīga counties? The number of partners has decreased as a result of the reform...
As a result of the administrative-territorial reform, there are fewer members in the Metropolis. In the course of the reform, we, unfortunately, “lost” Ikšķile, which was “taken over” by the Ogre Municipality. In my opinion, Ikšķile, which met the reform criteria, could have remained a separate municipality, but... the decision was made, and it has remained so. In “Rīgas Metropole”, we have kept the Saulkrasti Municipality, which has, however, joined the Vidzeme Planning Region. One of the tasks for this year is to promote cooperation with Jūrmala as much as possible; we are working hard on that.
Ogre is not far from Riga.
The Ogre Municipality looks more towards Vidzeme, the situation there is not simple – the combined Ogre Municipality is large; Ikšķile and Ogre are closely linked to Riga, but if we look further – Ķegums and Lielvārde (former municipalities) are already in Vidzeme. The main criterion for “Rīgas Metropole” (if we ignore legal constructions) is territories from which at least 50% of the commuting occurs towards Riga. About 300,000 people enter and leave the capital every day. For example, I know that most Saulkrasti residents work in Riga; both Ādaži and Mārupe are closely linked to Riga; for instance, it is difficult to determine where Riga ends and Mārupe begins.
That is indicated by road signs
I agree, but what if they were not there? A similar situation is in Berģi, where residents of Riga live on one side of the street, and residents of the Ropaži Municipality on the other.
On social networks, when Riga City Council representatives complain about something, it is often said: “How long will the current council look over its shoulder: ‘Eugh, the old council already messed this up...’?” Looking at the big picture, is it now understood what kind of legacy has fallen into the hands of the current council?
... I think the legacy of the previous council is becoming visible to us not in the “big picture, but in small chunks”. Problems “surface” and appear; it happens that we only see them when they “come to light”. There is not much difference whether it is the recently uncovered construction cartel, which threatens us with millions in financial problems, or some development projects where their real problems are only now visible. I assume that during the whole term of our group of deputies, i.e., in five years – as I have already said – “in small chunks, not in the big picture” we will hear a signal from time to time and feel the consequences. The story of “Rīgas satiksme” is very painful, in which “over ten” million have been lost, which “combines” with government policy, as a result of which money is consistently taken away from municipalities. The long-standing mismanagement of the previous council is a serious blow to the current work. For example, the last approved budget is a survival budget – there are practically no large development projects focused on the distant future (the continuation of the Eastern Motorway construction was financially supported by the government).
Speaking of Riga and the current situation in 2021 – bike lanes and fewer cars, it is clear that the central part should be organised and relieved in terms of transport. But! It should have started by providing an opportunity to bypass the centre and fixing the bypass routes, not by rushing to create obstacles for entering the central part without offering an alternative. A good and necessary job was started backwards.
I clearly realise that Riga is a magnet that attracts. Riga (Latvia's capital) is a decisive factor in how successful our country will be. Investors look at Riga first; when planning work with us, they mentally ask: “Is there (will there be) an attractive environment for our employees in Riga (Latvia)?” Not just being comfortable to get on an Air Baltic plane and arrive on a direct flight, but having accessible housing, schools, kindergartens, and good transport and leisure opportunities. Humanising the urban environment is important; we must rapidly move away from an autocentric city centre towards a more appropriate and better direction.
But! I support both bike lanes and electric transport, but, for example, the A. Čaka Street experiment created problems. By the way, we in the council faction (NA/LRA) had calculated it and warned our colleagues – by creating two bike lanes on A. Čaka Street, the number of cars would not decrease, but the travel time for public transport would increase. The latter is unacceptable; that is, if there is a desire to encourage people to change their habits and motivate people to get into public transport, it must become faster and more comfortable, not standing in traffic jams. Changing people's habits is difficult to do by ultimatum; an alternative must be created at a reasonable price, this alternative must be comfortable and it must not increase, for example, the aforementioned travel time. Talking to colleagues about a low-emission zone in the centre of Riga, I am categorically against introducing a toll for entering the centre. Yes, it is elementary to do, but... if we do not yet have mobility hubs on the outskirts of the city, we must create an opportunity so that A. Čaka or Brīvības Street would not be transit routes. I will add that for mobility hubs there are both ideas and concepts: bike lanes are being built, funding has been found for smaller-level mobility hubs outside Riga – in Carnikava and Saulkrasti, there is the large infrastructure.
Speaking of the latter, the Northern Crossing is currently not financially feasible, I do not see such an opportunity in the next 5-7 years, it could require even billions of euros, which, unfortunately, we do not have. Finishing the Eastern Motorway and the 3rd and 4th stages of the Northern Crossing, which is related to the Babīte Municipality and where areas have already been reserved, that is a task to be solved! A four-lane motorway project is not needed there; one can think about something smaller in scale, but – it is clear – heavy lorries, which are currently driving in a steady stream past the National Library, must be diverted away from Pārdaugava.
It is also important to make life easier for the residents of Jaunciems, because there is also a large number of heavy lorries on Jaunciema gatve. We could be talking about a 10 km long Ataru road, which would end on the Tallinn highway at the Carnikava turn-off near Ādaži.
At the moment, I am talking about financially feasible things, which are also alternatives. Three pilot projects for expanding the route network outside Riga have been developed with “Rīgas satiksme” – in the directions of the Mārupe, Ķekava and Ropaži municipalities. I think we should try to turn “Rīgas satiksme” into “Rīgas Metropole” transport – similar to how it works in Stockholm. Such a service is directly in Riga's interests. I understand that I have named a lot to be accomplished, but exactly that will encourage (create) a change in habits. To close, to forbid, to make pay is simple, but it will not promote mutual trust in any way.
There is also the Riga bypass, the expansion of which would be useful.
The Riga bypass exists. As can be understood, after completing the Rail Baltica construction, there will be one more bridge over the Daugava. The long-term plan is to rebuild the Riga bypass into a high-speed motorway. I have spoken about this issue with the Minister of Transport; the plan is important and necessary, but financially very demanding and it is impossible to realise it within a few years. If we clearly see the problems with regional roads, it is difficult to imagine where the Ministry of Transport will find the money for such a large project. But there is already a known plan on how to “ease” the road to Bolderāja, where in the not-too-distant future transport will also be provided by trains.
In the near future, the section of the Eastern Motorway will be ready, where it will connect to the Southern Bridge. The motorway “completeness” will lack two sections – one – on Brīvības Street (an overpass or tunnel) and the second – after the Southern Bridge until the connection with the Jelgava highway. There is currently no money for both “missing sections” either. The internal ring of the motorway needs to be finished.
Council deputies talk a lot and willingly about expenses, but – how will Riga earn?
The council structures that are responsible for tourism development, attracting investment and foreign relations have been reorganised. My three main duties are the aforementioned “Rīgas Metropole” (cooperation with the Pierīga municipalities) and its development, foreign affairs and cooperation with foreign countries, and the guidelines and strategy for the development of city properties. In terms of foreign affairs, Riga must return to Latvia's foreign policy. For example, the capital is entitled to a foreign affairs advisor (such a position is also held by the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Saeima, so that the country's highest officials have a unified foreign policy course), which the council once refused. Then many cooperation agreements with countries in the eastern direction appeared. I am not saying that this is not needed, but one must think about cooperation in a broader direction, because we are an EU and NATO member state. The foreign affairs advisor will start work in June.
We also reorganised the Riga City Council Foreign Affairs Department, the Tourism Development Bureau and a number of other institutions. The Riga Investment and Tourism Agency (RITA) was created; a partial first achievement of it is the opening of the Swisscom office in Riga. We are trying to actively search for and invite investors; there is a clear method of how to cooperate with investors.
Kaunas (2022) already is and Tartu (2024) will be the European Capital of Culture (which Riga was in 2014). Both cities are not far away at all; is there any thought on how to “bring” tourists enjoying the opportunities of the Capital of Culture to Riga?
The story about Kaunas is very painful for me, because the Mayor of Kaunas invited me to participate in the opening event, a gift and words of speech were prepared, and... I “got” a virus and did not go to Kaunas. Of course, events of this level attract people and benefit our economy.
Important – the “Positivus” festival, which no longer had the opportunity to continue in Salacgrīva, will now take place in Riga.
It only remains to drive away Covid!
I very much hope that the festival will take place this summer! Very much! Edžus Arums also wants to organise a small song festival at the Mežaparks Great Stage (the performance “Dziesma dejo. Deja skan”). There are many sports-related events in Riga that we hope for; they attract people, but – as is known – when talking about tourism – Covid causes serious problems. It is sad to look at the empty shop windows in Old Riga; many entrepreneurs have not survived this time.
The next is the Song Festival year, it will celebrate its 150th anniversary, which will also be a significant event. Returning to earning, there is the capital company “Rīgas Meži”, which can earn excellently, even though the opposite can also be heard in recent public speeches...
In the previous decade, the capital companies of the Riga City Council were politicised. That is clear. The current group of deputies has changed this situation; the capital companies are subordinate to the council's commercial activities department and the executive director. Politicians are allowed to set strategic work tasks and guidelines on the directions in which the capital companies should work. I clearly see that “Rīgas Meži” is a great wealth of the people of Riga (61.7 thousand ha). Forests must serve economic interests, the people of Riga must derive benefit, dividends must be earned to renovate Riga's streets, maintain parks, etc. Of course, the recreational function of the forest must be strengthened. I myself saw well how happy people were about the illuminated Biķernieki forest. People of Riga (and not only) like the forest environment; they use it willingly. In recreation areas, there is a certain burden on the forest, our task is to create infrastructure to reduce it. Therefore – forests have and will have both a recreational and an economic component, which is the city's income.
What is the view on the discussions about Riga's “greenery”? Riga is a very green city, yet, for example, it has enough respectable age trees that need to be professionally cared for. Riga could use something similar to the National Forest Inventory...
It is clear that the properties of “Rīgas Meži” are recorded and known. As I mentioned, most of the forest properties are not located in the territory of Riga; that has historically evolved. The city is quite green both in the centre and in the micro-districts, but, of course, one can want more. Planting new trees in the centre is a huge problem, but... comparing K. Valdemāra and A. Čaka streets – their importance in the city is similar, the feelings are different. There are no trees on A. Čaka Street; in order to plant something there, we encounter the fact – there are many communications underground, which must either be moved or... The city's greenery is sometimes ruined by salting the streets. We have experimented with gritting pavements with a sand-salt mixture, where salt is 20% of the composition. It has been received with mixed feelings. This winter nature is lavishly spoiling us with snow – if my son is very happy and enthusiastic about the snow, at the council snowdrifts cause headaches – a lot of work, a lot of costs. Clearly, a balance is needed between human comfort and the use of materials (salt) so that they do not damage either footwear or cars, or cause harm to trees.
Communication during snowfall is still the old way – snow in Riga is an unexpected surprise. Moreover, in winter of all times!
I must explain: regarding street maintenance, Riga is divided into the right and left banks, there are no major objections regarding the streets. Of course, one can talk about the speed of street cleaning, etc. There are serious problems with pavements. We are a city where the duty to clear pavements of snow and ice lies with the owners or managers of the houses adjacent to the pavements. Many do it quickly and properly, many delay but do it, many do it poorly, and there are also “non-doers”. Of course, the council acts; there are mobile units that clean the pavement, after which we send the owner a bill. There are municipalities that act differently and clean pavements centrally.
For example, Jelgava.
Yes, for example, Jelgava! But! If we take into account the potential costs, for Riga this would cost about €10 million more. If the government, as I mentioned, did not take away about €100 million from municipalities every year (for Riga, that is 46% of personal income tax), the funds would be there. So that Riga could ensure fast and high-quality pavement maintenance, it must be done centrally. I will add that Riga property owners would see a direct and tangible benefit and sense in this from their real estate tax payment. We do not have these 10 million. To maintain Riga's streets in good quality, including snow clearing, pothole patching, etc., at least 36 million are needed in total. We have found additional funds, but they are not 36 million. We must work to change the government's attitude towards municipalities. The municipal financing system needs a political change of attitude.
The Saeima elections are approaching. What will be the most important issues that the parties will discuss? Will the virus still be relevant, or something else?
The most important issue at the moment is already “happening” – a bloody fight for power is underway. At present, it looks like – it is and will be about Latvia's freedom. If we understand what kind of demands V. Putin makes to the European Union and NATO, we see that the leadership of the neighbouring country has a desire to return to the time before NATO expansion to the East (in 1998). There is talk about zones of influence; it is considered that neighbouring countries are private property, where one can enter and seize foreign territories. It is mentioned that we are also in Russia's imagined zone of influence. It is clear that there are no plans to direct tanks our way, but in every Saeima election, political projects start that are created for power and influence, and for the construction of puppet governments. In these elections, this is already visible now, and clearly and methodically. Quietly supporting projects created in the Kremlin is cheaper than losing several tanks. I think our threat is “political and democratically elected”. In the last 2-3 years, due to both populists and the influence of the neighbouring country, and as a result of fundamental government mistakes, the trust of a large part of society in state power has been lost. It may happen that in such a situation, people end up in parliament who “turn their coats” and start acting against the interests of our country. That is the main problem I see.
It is unacceptable to me that today some politicians have no principles, values and understanding of protecting independence and national interests. It is not acceptable that a politician can openly say: “We, like some old m....., will cooperate with both the East and the West”. At the moment, by supporting Ukraine, we are also thinking about ourselves. What does not belong to you, also does not belong to you. Crimea does not belong to Russia, Donbas does not belong to Russia – Ukraine is an independent state and “thou shalt not seize foreign territories”. In Latvia, there are several visible politicians who openly talk about working “on both sides”.
The second important thing: our GDP (gross domestic product) is still at 70% of the EU average. Until we reach this EU average, we will continue to “bleed out”, people will leave. I link this to a lack of vision in the country's development. What has happened in recent years – a capital overhaul of the financial system and Covid. Neighbours think further ahead; with us, wandering in three pines continues. Raising the standard of living and income is important; it is finally necessary to think seriously about that.
The third – a huge challenge or risk, which some colleagues in the council are passionately “fanatical” about and I see similar fanatics also in the government – the European Green Deal. There is a palpable and audible enthusiastic obsession. It is clear to me that this is necessary for the future of the planet, but – how quickly, how much will it cost the residents of Latvia and what is realistically implementable from it with us. How much finance can we use for strengthening the economy and how much will we be forced to invest our resources, for example, by transforming heating systems and changing cars? The costs are huge. Furthermore, the implementation of the Green Deal requires very large, even huge, electricity capacities, which we do not produce in Latvia. In the Baltic states, in the current energy crisis, prices are “going to the cosmos”; we need to increase local capacities. A good salvation is Latvia's forest resources; we have woodchip stocks, but we also have unkempt and poorly managed forests. That, however, is not enough. One can be enthusiastic about ideas, but the most important thing is to clearly understand: what we need and will need for the implementation of the Green Deal and how.
1. In January 2021, the Riga and Pierīga municipality association “Rīgas Metropole” was established. The goal of the organisation is to promote mutual cooperation between Riga and the Pierīga municipalities, fostering economic and social development in the Riga metropolitan territory. (https://rigasmetropole.lv/)