By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The primary opposition is aimed at the ministry or government that introduced the bill, specifically criticizing the procedural aspect of retroactive implementation and the lack of thorough analysis. While the ministry's efforts to amend the draft were recognized, the final proposal is resolutely rejected because, as they put it, "the numbers just don't quite add up."

Criticism is aimed at legislative procedures and government actions that disregard industry sector feedback during the drafting phase. There is opposition to empty, rehearsed talking points that fail to bring about progress, noting that their time is past.

The primary criticism is aimed at the actions of the state and the government, which are characterized as an unsystematic, unequal, and distant partnership with local municipalities and residents. Developers are criticized for opposing the bureaucracy that would otherwise guarantee residents a sense of security. The criticism is primarily procedural and political, accusing the state of abandoning communities to face large-scale developers alone.

There is no direct confrontation, but criticism is aimed at the potential inefficiency of the government’s planning and funding decisions. Specifically, questions are being raised about the sensibility of designing separate bridges in Pärnu and the use of the national defense fund for building shelters for cultural sites.