Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The representative expresses strong opposition to the rapid implementation of the draft bill and the imposition of an 80-euro parking fine. He stresses that the new regulatory framework and the requirement for specific markings will make the urban environment more burdensome for local municipalities and could increase the supervisory load. He recommends slowing down the adoption process and granting a transition period so that both society and local governments have time to adapt, ensuring that prevention remains the priority. Ultimately, his rhetoric is aimed not at excessive haste, but at achieving a measured and sensible solution.

He addresses the technical aspects of the draft bill: the fine amount of 80 euros, the entry into force on July 1st; new rules, for instance, parking is prohibited if a marking is missing; a parking limit of 0.2 meters for small vehicles (micro-mopeds, bicycles, motorcycles); and a 1.5-meter clearance when overtaking. He highlights the role of the Municipal Police (Mupo) and the necessity of granting law enforcement officers additional powers; he emphasizes the importance of municipal signage and the burden posed by the planned enforcement measures.

A critical and argumentative tone that incorporates both emotional and logical appeals. It uses irony (e.g., “A really good opportunity to collect money for the budget!”) and poses questions, highlighting practical drawbacks and the danger posed by rapidly implemented changes. The text is fact-based, but heavily driven by values and concerns.

Active participation in parliamentary debates within the context of the 2024 sessions; references previous discussions concerning the second draft bill and consultation with local law enforcement (Mupo). Presents ideas and criticism during one session; there are no mentions of global foreign travel or more frequent public events.

The core argument opposes the draft bill: rushing the introduction of fines and new parking regulations is detrimental and is aimed at securing funding for budget periods. The criticism is powerful and telling, emphasizing the need to slow down the implementation and focus on adaptation and preventative measures.

The statement demonstrates a readiness to cooperate with local authorities and municipalities (Mupo and local governments) and stresses the need to raise public awareness. Although critical, the desire for improved cooperation and a slower transition takes precedence; it does not explicitly reveal comprehensive bipartisan negotiations, but rather points toward a collaborative solution.

It emphasizes the context specific to Tallinn and the need for local designations/signage. It mentions the Tallinn Municipal Police (Mupo) and local authorities, and the resulting burden of managing their signage and enforcement within the city.

He dismisses the draft bill as merely a means of budget fulfillment, generating sufficient rubles or cash flow through the increase of fines. He adopts a sarcastic tone, yet simultaneously stresses that this is a potential financial motive, rather than one based on social or security objectives.

Social impacts are highlighted: increased power for law enforcement may overshadow surveillance and attention dedicated to prevention aimed at the safety of children and youth; concern remains regarding domestic violence and juvenile delinquency, and the greatest need for prevention and public awareness is emphasized.

The main topic is the speed of the entry into force of the draft parking rules and fines; he/she advocates for transition periods and opposes immediate implementation, emphasizing that the standard practice for tax amendments is a six-month preparation period before entry into force. It is mentioned that one section was removed, and the state's desire for rapid enforcement is viewed as problematic; the primary wish is to implement the draft step-by-step before consequences arise.