Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook


Kalle Holmberg: P-fine extra skattekälla in Stockholm – regardless of the political majority

According to the municipal avgiftslagen from 1957 has municipalities the right to charge for parking on the streets as they want, provided that the measure will lead to improved order in the traffic. Söderström, who also is former head of Sweden's municipalities and county councils (SKL), section traffic and infrastructure, and deputy professor at the Royal technical university (KTH), institution for transport planning, noting in an article in DN Debate on Monday that municipalities may levy fees with how high the amount you want – but not in areas where there is a need of more orderly traffic is missing.

After the transport agency's treatment of the Söderström appeal, it turned out to 287 regulations on charging of the streets in Bromma had failed, because the municipality had not justified why the charges were needed on these streets. The conclusion is simple: the Stockholm's politicians – both the rödgrönrosa majority who ruled in the town Hall before the election in 2018, and the green & blue which is then taken over – lets both parking charges parking tickets constitute a source of revenue for the strengthening of a tight municipal budget.

fullmäktigesammanträdet, last Monday, came the question up about the sharp increases in p-fine in Stockholm. 505 million is estimated the city get out in 2019, if the increase becomes a reality, compared with 445 million in 2018.

with respect to the p-nes, the parliament contented itself with putting a cap on what municipalities can take out of the felparkerare: 700 sek for ten years ago, 1.300 sek today. The city of stockholm is now pressing to the roof of the new shall be raised.

Is this reasonable? And how justified in this case?

in Stockholm (both before and after the election), want to raise the more than what now looks to become a reality: 1.300 sek for the trafikfarligaste offences, 1.100 for trafikhindrande wrongdoing, 900 for unpaid p-charge.

" We had wanted to raise the maxavgiften even more, but we must not. But the proposal is fully in line with the framkomlighetsstrategin to get away felparkerade cars, " said Helldén during fullmäktigemötet.

the MP's bourgeois co-operation parties stand behind the proposal. Now, it is – oddly enough – the social democrats, the Left party and Feminist initiative as brakes and would like to see a more lenient treatment of drivers who park wrong or does not pay for itself. At least the two smaller of these three, we do not see in the common case that some lansbärare for drive-by citizens ' interests.

the opposition in city Hall – as well as the majority – with the right to fine the trafikfarlig parking with the maximum amount.

-charges shall be provided where there is parking problems. But, for the cost of 1.100 sek for something so bagatellartat like a deck been left out of the parking slot is completely unreasonable, says Jan Valeskog, committed to the oppositionsborgarråd.

Jan Söderström points out that the system that applies in Germany, where felparkeringsavgifterna is determined by the state and apply equally over the whole country, without the possibility for the municipalities to take charges and fines extra skattekälla. ”In contrast to that in Sweden is missing, i.e. where the incentives of individual cities to push up prices to increase their revenue,” writes Soderstrom.

the borders of our country marks in all simplicity how it should of course be: the same for everyone everywhere, based on the needs of the orderly the traffic is, whether it is about Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, Uppsala and Lycksele.

the DN Debate. ”The way to take out the p-charges must be reviewed”

the Swedish transport agency stops the Stockholm trafikbeslut

Increased p-fines can give Stockholm a half a billion

Kalle Holmberg: I let the car stand parked in the toll-free zones in the suburb of

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.