Session Profile: Andres Metsoja

The political position focuses on the rapid elimination of the legal loophole related to the alienation of national defense lands, emphasizing that the current situation is "the height of absurdity" and contradicts the legislator's original intent. The position is strongly policy- and value-based, demanding proportionality from the state: if the state takes the land for national defense, it must also relinquish the designated purpose when the object is no longer required. The aim is to ensure that the primary national defense designation automatically ceases upon the execution of the state property alienation transaction.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in planning law, the alienation of state property, and the regulation of national defense objects, referencing comprehensive legal due diligence and advisory work. Specific legal terminology is employed (*detailed plan*, *comprehensive plan*, *primary function*, *building volume*), and reference is made to the government's classified list and the role of the Technical Regulatory Authority.

The style is serious, businesslike, and at times urgent, emphasizing the severity of the problem and the need to "immediately liquidate" it. Logical appeals are used to demonstrate the inconsistency and "paranormality" of the legal situation, citing examples (Pärnu, Nursipalu) in support of the legal arguments. The speaker apologizes if the introduction of the topic in the committee remained unclear, but confirms that it was "explained quite simply and straightforwardly" in the main hall.

The speaker is an active legislative initiator, presenting a draft bill on behalf of the Isamaa faction and noting its thorough preparation, which involved engaging legal counsel and conducting an in-depth analysis. The speaker has spent "a significant number of hours of their life" working on this topic.

The criticism is directed at the deficiencies of the legal framework and the procedural handling by the Economic Affairs Committee, which failed to involve the National Defence Committee and the Environment Committee. The speaker suggests that the bill may have gone unnoticed "in the wake of obstructionist bills" and that the committee did not fully grasp the substance of the draft legislation.

The speaker requests that the draft bill proceed to deliberation and calls for the involvement of other committees (the National Defence Committee and the Environment Committee) to ensure an expert approach. Openness is expressed regarding amendments to the draft bill, such as the inclusion of other methods of alienation, should this prove necessary during the deliberation process.

The regional focus is on local municipalities and their limited role in the planning process concerning national defense facilities. A specific example highlighted is a case that occurred in the city of Pärnu, where a private developer took advantage of a national defense detailed plan in an attractive riverside location.

Economic positions emphasize fairness and proportionality in land valuation, contrasting with the practice where the state utilizes national defense zoning plans to artificially inflate the land's value before selling it at auction. The objective is to prevent private entities from purchasing development rights that have been created under the national defense zoning plan.

Insufficient data.

The legislative focus is on amending the State Assets Act and the Land Cadastre Act to ensure the automatic cessation of the national defense designation upon the alienation of state assets. The objective is to eliminate a flaw in the legal framework that allows private individuals to construct national defense objects that the state no longer requires.