Hur mycket ska Trosa växa – How much growth in Trosa?

Hos den lokala nyhetstidningen kan ni läsa en insändare som jag skrivit. Tidningen har fått ett svar på insändaren. Vad tycker du om frågorna och svaren?
I got a text published in the net local newspaper and the newspaper got an answer from our leading politician. What do you think of the questions and the answer below, a google translation from the Swedish version at


The submitter presents the basis of which municipal council Daniel Portnoff comments.

“I have tried to get answers from Trosa’s leading politicians without success.

A decision in the City Council says that Trosa will grow by 150 people a year, which means a declining percentage increase per year. Municipal council Portnoff says that they expect an increase of the population around 1.5-2% per annum. The investment decision for Infart Västra Trosa indicates that 670 homes will be built in western and southern Trosa to cover the cost of the new road. The municipal council committee Tomas Landskog says that only 10% of the growth will be outside the urban areas.

How does that work?
If the decision in the City Council applies, Trosa only needs to grow by 52 people per year until 2021. Then it may seem unnecessary for taxpayers to pay over 150 million for a new road that neither needs nor meets the climate goals of reduced emissions. In that case, the new road would be built for only 5-15 additional people per year outside urban areas for 134 years.

Preparedness with current rate of increase
If the population increase instead is 1.5% per year, we get twice as many in 46 years. If the population increase is 2%, we are twice as many already in 35 years. Do we have prepared for an early doubling of 11 years? Are we prepared to even double in 46 years? During the fall of 2017 it was found that Trosa has grown by 4% during the year. If that rhythm persists, it would mean that we become twice as many already in 17 years. Do we have prepared for the rapid increase?

In order to further confuse the number exercises, I add to the task of Tomas Landskog that 10% of growth should be outside the urban areas. Based on the 670 housing decisions of the financing decision and 3 people per home, I come to the following results.

Long payment time
If Trosa is to grow by 150 people a year, it means that the 670 resettlement income of the financing decision takes 134 years to get in. It’s a long time for taxpayers to lend money for a road, which only 10% of a future population is said to need, but everyone has to pay for. Or, the growth rate outside the urban area means that today’s politicians have planned housing for 134 years in the future. Or, the 10% task entails that Trosa is expected to grow with 6700 homes in total, which would mean an increase of 20,100 people in total. Period unknown.

So my question remains: How much is Trosa to grow?

Quick exposure in the exponential effect: Begin with the number 70 (year) and share the growth rate figure. Growth of 10% means a doubling effect of 7 years. (70/10 = 7)

Learn more about the impact of the exponential effect here:

Anna Bohlin

We contacted Daniel Portnoff to comment on the sender. He responded as follows:

“In 1992, Trosa municipality had 9894 inhabitants. By the end of 2016 we were 12,447. Population growth has thus been around 110 people a year, though it has varied over time. Some years it has fallen slightly and in other years it has increased by more than 300 This is mainly due to the business cycle.

We live in a free country with extensive legislation in the housing sector. Overall, the Swedish housing market works poorly. We would need a comprehensive review of large parts of housing policy at national level to get a better functioning housing market.

As local politicians, we try to do our best to ensure a housing production where all forms of return are available and the entire municipality is part of balanced growth.

In a growing municipality, we get a growing economy and properly managed to improve our ability to have great ambitions in terms of quality and supply in our municipal service to citizens. Population growth also creates better conditions for other services and a well-functioning labor market.

Nobody knows how the future will look and how the economy will be in terms of housing construction. However, a reasonable assumption is that the whole of Trosa municipality will continue to grow somewhere between 150 to 200 inhabitants per year for the next 10 years. But it will vary over time.

One thing I know. It is as well not the city council that determines how many inhabitants we become. There are a lot of individual decisions that control the development of a free country to a very high extent. On the other hand, the municipal council in a municipality where more people want to live can take responsibility for housing and plan for future growth. We try to do that and are sure to ensure broad political agreement over the block limit on these issues. “

Daniel Portnoff, Municipal Council


Embarrassing- pinsamt SN!

In the middle of December you could all read a letter to editor at, a local newspaper on the net, written by one of my Save Trosa nature friends. You can read more about it in the post I made December 14, where you find a English translation of the text. The purpose of the text was to encourage people to leave their opinions on the new big road project before end of January 9.

I mitten av december kunde alla ni som ville läsa en insändare på, en lokal tidning på nätet. Insändaren var ifrån en av de som vill behålla Trosas natur och ifrågasätter bygget av en ny onödig väg som kostar skattebetalarna massor av miljoner i skuldsättning. I texten uppmanas folk att skicka in synpunkter till Trafikverket senast 9 januari. Ni kan läsa mer om insändaren och hitta länk till itrosa i inlägget jag skrev 14 december.

So far so good. Så långt allt väl.

But we have another local paper, calling themselves “a newspaper for the people”. Can you guess when they published the text?

Men, vi har en lokaltidning till, som gärna påskiner att de är en nyhetstidning för folket. Kan ni gissa när de publicerade insändaren?

I give you a hint. This so called newspaper runs errands for the local politicians.

Jag ger er en ledtråd. Den här så kallade nyhetstidningen springer ärenden åt våra lokala politiker.

Two days AFTER January 9, which was the last day for sending in opionions, they publish the text. Is that a newspaper for the people? I think not!

Två dagar EFTER 9 januari, som var sista inlämningsdag för synpunkter, publicerar den tidningen insändaren. Är det en tidning som bevakar folkets intressen? 

I have only one word for it – EMBARRASSING!

Jag har bara ett ord som kommentar – PINSAMT!


Sea Nature in Trosa is no longer protected!

At a text in Swedish is published.

My family wrote the text to tell the public that the nature is no longer protected by the authorities that should protect it. It’s sad when authority people forget their responsibility to the public and nature. Sweden often brag about how uncorrupt we are. That’s not true anymore, we are as bad as any other nation. Money talks here too. We also brag about how great we are at democracy. We are not any more and that scares me.

This is the text in a google translation. Sorry if it’s hard to read. It’s not easy to translate all Swedish law words correct.

Trosa Municipality and the County Administrative Board extinguish the grand nature protection in Trosa

The Swedish nature protection rules shall protect the animal and plant life and provide public access to beaches and water. Responsibility for maintaining this protection is the municipality and county administrative board’s work.

The nature protection rules are simple. No action is allowed, therefore, exemption from the rules is required when you want to take action. To receive the dispensation, strong reasons, as defined in the law, are required.

The municipality and county administrative board also have supervisory responsibility. In case of suspected unlawful actions and when the notifier is known, there is an obligation to notify the notifier of appealable decisions. There is no legal possibility for the Authority to waive.

With the presumption that the municipality and county administrative authority protects nature and public interests, neither public, neighboring property or rights holders, which may be negatively affected by dispensation decisions, may have judicial decisions. The legislators have missed that the municipality and county administrative board may abuse the rules. There is no opportunity for the public to have obviously wrong exemption decisions tried in court.

This gap in the law has the municipality of Trosa and the County Administrative Board utilized the last three years in a case we are aware of. On an unclear basis, a property in the Trosa Archipelago, of the municipality and the County Administrative Board, has received immunity from the protection of nature rules in terms of assessments of applied dispensers and supervisory rules. Notifiers have also been refused appeal decisions for a period of three years on repeated occasions, although regulatory authorities are not legally able to do so. How the municipality’s management of the nature protection rules benefits the public and nature’s interests in this case is unclear.

In the cases We know about the entries contain the reported dispensing measures reported and the municipality and the County Administrative Board’s alternative interpretation of the dispensation rules. As the law applies equally to all and no one can be subdivided, all beach properties should be able to invoke the immunity from the protection of the sea, which the municipality and the County Administrative Board now appear to offer selected property owners in Trosa. However, it is unclear how property owners achieve such status.

This alternative application of the beach protection rules means that the public in the future may see a significant reduction in access to beaches when the notifier is refused enforcement decisions. Nature no longer has any protection of the beach protection rules, which may have fatal consequences. Nature and the public can not defend themselves but have to rely on responsible authorities to do right.

Owners of beach property can either be fortunate if they receive immunity from the protection of the beach, or they may suffer from inequality and infinite attempts to achieve correction in costly multi-year legal proceedings when wrong decisions are refused independent review.

We estimate, so far we know, that the municipality has deprived the municipality’s inhabitants of approximately SEK 150,000 (18 000 USD, 16 000 EUR) in the absence of dispensation revenue due to lack of supervision. Then, any supervisory fees and test amounts are not included. If the municipality has applied alternative interpreting, even in other cases, the amount that has been detached from the municipality’s inhabitants may be even greater.

It’s not trucks that run into crowds that threaten democracy, it’s authorities that act out of rules and make public and residents lawless that is the real threat to democracy.

Here’s a drawing I made a couple of years ago. Nature protection laws should preserve nature and public access to beaches in Sweden. But our authorities use the rules to protect some private landowners instead.