Increasing transparency in decision-making has been one of the key themes I’ve emphasized for quite some time. Political decision-making is fundamentally public, so one might naturally ask, what is the actual problem then? In my opinion, public is quite different from open. One significant challenge is that matters are prepared behind the scenes to a great extent before they become public. I believe that even ongoing matters should be communicated more openly, so that residents have better opportunities to participate in planning their living environment.
One of the most central processes in the city is the budget process, which is executed every year. The budget essentially defines the level and scope at which services are implemented in the city, making it a very crucial part of the entire decision-making machinery. During the preparation process, the city manager and their staff create the foundation for the next year’s budget, after which political groups begin their own negotiations.
In Kerava, a model has been adopted where residents are kept in the dark throughout the process. The city manager’s proposal is not published, so residents have no opportunity to participate in the discussion until all decisions have already been effectively made. There is also no possibility to assess how significantly politicians might override the officials’ proposals and change matters during political negotiations. Transparency should be increased (for example, following Vantaa’s model) by publishing the city manager’s budget proposal and making it available for residents to evaluate.
On the other hand, for example, zoning processes are public with their various stages, but they can last for years. It is quite difficult for residents to stay alert about when the real opportunities for influence arise. Too often, we end up in situations where residents only react to planned changes during the approval phase of the zoning. Communication must therefore continue to be developed to involve residents in planning as early as possible.
The city’s participation program is likely to proceed to approval this spring. It defines the methods and measures by which the city aims to promote dialogue with residents. This is a good document, which now needs to be concretized into action. The task of the councilors in the next council term is to ensure that the participation program is implemented and that sufficient financial resources are allocated to the work.
Under the umbrella of transparency, there is still at least one area where Kerava could improve. Although we are a good city to live in, not everything is always sunshine and rainbows. The city should be able to communicate things as they are. Celebrate successes and openly address failures—both areas could be improved.
I have written about this them in my blog (in Finnish):
The city exists for its residents. The city also reflects its residents. It is in all of our interest that Kerava remains a good place to live. It must provide services, opportunities for activities, and a safe living environment. Kerava should be a great place to raise children. Kerava should be a great place to thrive.
To make all this possible, we must ensure that all residents keep up with the times, regardless of their different starting points and life situations. The well-being of residents reduces disruptive behavior and, through that, enhances safety for us all. Let’s ensure that children and young people have opportunities to engage in hobbies and become active members of our community. Let’s care for those in weaker positions and create conditions for businesses to thrive.
It is inevitable that the demographic base of Kerava will diversify. People from various cultural backgrounds will move here—it is even predicted that around 30% of Uusimaa’s population will have an immigrant background by 2040. It is important that we create a city that all its residents can feel at home in. The city must also keep up with this change. Different language groups should be better taken into account—for example, by increasing the use of plain language.
The city should act as an enabler. Instead of retreating behind bureaucratic jungles, let’s foster a culture where the city acts as a platform for resident-driven activities. Third-sector actors, such as associations and sports clubs, are key resources, and their operational conditions must be secured. Let’s harness sports and culture as tools to promote integration.
We are not building the city just for ourselves, but also for future generations. Therefore, it is extremely important that the decisions we make are sustainable. It is our generation’s responsibility to address the challenges related to climate change and biodiversity, and this must also be reflected in the city’s operations. Resources must be used wisely, and the circular economy must be promoted. Conditions for walking and cycling should be improved, and a proper bike park should be established in connection with the station area’s commuter parking.
During the upcoming council term, Kerava’s master plan (zoning) will be updated. It outlines the city’s development far into the future and is therefore one of the most significant decisions in the coming years. In preparing the master plan, the role of the environment and local nature must be considered sustainably. It is also necessary to critically assess where the limits of growth enabled by our small land area lie.
The city’s decision-making is largely structured around a certain annual rhythm. Some matters are considered a couple of years ahead or at most for one council term at a time—with the exception of the aforementioned master plan. In my opinion, the time horizon should be extended. For the most significant themes and projects, political groups should seek consensus so that we can make more concrete plans beyond council terms: How do we develop the city center area? What are the most significant investments to which everyone commits? How do we advance the realization of our climate goals?
One of the key issues affecting our economy during the upcoming council term is the change in employment management that began at the start of the year. Responsibility for employment management has shifted from the state to municipalities, and this involves both opportunities and risks. If we succeed in employing people, it will have a positive economic impact on the city. On the flip side, there are significant financial risks if we fail to get employment services off to a good start. Particular attention must be paid to promoting the integration and employment of immigrants.
The city’s finances must be steered onto a more sustainable path. In recent years, we have sought efficiencies and savings without significant results. Most of the slack has already been removed. Adding to this is budgeting without any risk reserves, leaving us in a situation where the house of cards collapses with even the slightest breeze.
In my opinion, the city’s finances should be planned so that they can withstand minor economic fluctuations. It is also essential for sustainable urban development that our finances can support timely investments in important projects. A city that can offer its residents high-quality services remains attractive and, through that, economically healthy. Let’s create good conditions for entrepreneurship and success—it enhances the city’s vitality and creates well-being for all of us.
Blog posts around this theme (in Finnish):