An Explosion Could Be Costly for Riga Residents: Will They Be Forced to Insure and Buy Gas Detectors?

Photo: LETA

After the gas explosion in Riga's Torņakalns that claimed two lives, the Riga City Council faced the question—who should pay for the restoration of the building and the relocation of those left homeless. It seems that the capital's authorities are not eager to do so.

Is a House a Car Without Wheels?

On Monday, January 5, the head of the Riga City Council's Urban Development Committee, Edgars Bergholcs, discussed the incident with the construction management. Among other things, they pondered how to reduce the risks of such incidents in the future.

Here, the committee head clearly confused causes and effects, naming mandatory insurance for residential buildings as one of the ways to reduce the risks of gas explosions in apartment buildings. However, insurance does not decrease the likelihood of an accident; it only helps to find funds to address its consequences. It seems that this is what concerns the capital's authorities in the current situation—how to avoid paying from the city budget and shift the costs onto the residents.

Currently, residential buildings are rarely insured in their entirety—most often, only individual apartments are covered. According to Bergholcs, a principle similar to the mandatory insurance for vehicles in traffic should be implemented: not only each vehicle involved in road traffic should be insured, but also every building where people live.

When There Is a Smell of Gas...

And these are not the only levies that the city may thoughtfully impose on its residents.

Currently, apartment owners are only required to install smoke detectors; however, similar devices should also be introduced to detect gas leaks, the official believes. When such a system is triggered, the gas supply should automatically shut off.

For reference: these detectors cost significantly more than smoke detectors—ranging from 40 to 55 euros.

But Who Will Ask Us?

Interestingly, politicians who, in election years, use every opportunity to present themselves as advocates for voter interests have already spoken out against Bergholcs' idea. The head of the parliamentary faction of the Union of Greens and Farmers hastily stated that his party opposes it, as the innovation would hit residents with the lowest incomes, which is unacceptable.

In turn, a deputy from the New Unity party called this initiative an additional burden on residents, which is intended to be introduced regardless of their wishes.

So it seems that mandatory insurance for buildings is postponed indefinitely.