If Järvenpää and Kerava still belonged to Tuusula, the municipality would have about 119,000 inhabitants and it would be the ninth largest in Finland. But why did the trio once parted ways?
Municipality of Tuusula has declined significantly over the last 100 years.
Kerava became independent of the municipality first in 1924 and then Järvenpää in 1951. If the municipalities still belonged to Tuusula, Tuusula would be the ninth largest municipality in Finland in terms of population.
Keravan chairman of the city board Samuli Isola (sd) says that the idea of fragmentation dates back to the 1910s. That is when Kerava began to consider seceding from Tuusula into its own independent municipality. The completion of the railway had increased the population of Kerava and brought more industry.
By the 1910s, the development of Kerava had become different from the rest of Tuusula, and at the same time its role had grown within Tuusula. In Emä-Tuusula, the aim was to keep the role of the municipality small and to direct the small amount of money to the more traditional areas of the municipality.
“The growing Kerava needed more road network, school and municipal technology. The large landowners of Tuusula were not necessarily willing to invest the municipality’s money in Kerava. In Kerava, on the other hand, it was felt that population growth brought with it pressure, living conditions were miserable, streets were bad, schools were full and that needed to be changed, ”Isola explains the background to the ideas of independence.
The civil war of 1918 stopped the idea of Kerava’s independence, but when conditions calmed down in the 1920s, the idea came to life intensified. Eventually Kyösti Kallion on June 15, 1923, the first government issued a government decree ordering the Kerava township to be established from the beginning of 1924.
Kerava’s independence went painlessly when Tuusula did not oppose the secession. The background was also that Tuusula and Kerava had been able to agree together on the expenditures and revenues that would be transferred to the new municipalities, on the basis of which the transition could be implemented. In this way, both Tuusula and Kerava had the financial opportunity to continue on their own roads.
“According to my information, Kerava’s separation from Tuusula was not very controversial, everyone was satisfied. Both municipalities developed after secession. One may ask whether Tuusula’s resources would have been sufficient if Kerava had not become independent, ”says Isola.
About the same time In the 1920s, also on the northern shore of Lake Tuusulanjärvi, in the area of Järvenpää village, the idea had arisen that the village could break away into its own municipality.
“The first proposals for Järvenpää’s secession from Tuusula were made in 1923, but the proposal did not progress. At that time, the population of Järvenpää village started to grow strongly when Bjarne Westermarck had plotted plots of land in the vicinity of Järvenpää railway station, ”says Järvenpää va. head of museum services Tuomas Ravea.
However, the idea of independence sprouted, and in 1927 Westermarck submitted a proposal to the Government to establish the Järvenpää business, but the Government rejected the proposal.
Järvenpää’s independence did not progress at that time because the economic cycle weakened.
“The general recession that began after Westermarck’s performance had collapsed the economy of Järvenpää village. The 1930s advanced well before the village’s economy returned to pre-recession levels. ”
Lama after recovery, the population of Järvenpää village grew rapidly. When the village had 2,000 inhabitants in the 1920s, the population was already 4,000 in the 1940s. The settlement of Terijoki residents from extradited Karelia in Järvenpää after the war increased the population even more, and in the early 1950s Järvenpää already had 8,000 inhabitants.
As the population grew, the idea of independence resurfaced at the turn of the 1940s and 1950s.
“The situation at Järvenpää was similar to Kerava’s before. Järvenpää had become the largest village in Tuusula thanks to the railway and industry. New infrastructure should have been built in Järvenpää, but the hosts of Tuusula did not want to invest in construction. When Järvenpää made a report in 1949 about resigning from Tuusula, the biggest question when preparing the report was how Järvenpää will remain viable, ”Ravea says.
Ravean according to Tuusula did not oppose Järvenpää’s independence because Tuusula did not have the money to develop the growing Järvenpää. Instead, the dispute arose over how the border between Tuusula and Järvenpää was drawn. Among other things, Tuusula suggested that the border should have reached Tervanoka in the south. At that time, for example Jean Sibelius the artist’s home Ainola would have remained on the Tuusula side.
Eventually KA Fagerholm on 17 February 1950, the government decided that the Järvenpää township would be formed not only from Järvenpää village but also from Kellokoski and parts of Vanhastakylä and Tuomala village. However, Tuusula appealed the decision.
After the change of government Urho Kekkonen on 30 June of the same year, another government made a new decision that Kellokoski and part of Nummenkylä would remain in the municipality of Tuusula.
There was also a discrepancy between the name of the new town. The name of the town was initially Tuusula, as it was thought that the areas of the remaining Tuusula might be divided at some point among the neighboring municipalities. However, the idea was abandoned when it was stated that even Tuusula, which had shrunk, would remain viable.
The new township was named Järvenpää, and it started in early 1951.
It was From Tuusula’s point of view, does the mistake allow Järvenpää and Kerava to become independent of the municipality? Mayor of Tuusula Arto Lindbergin (sd) felt that secession was inevitable at the time.
“In the world of that time, when Kerava and Järvenpää separated from Tuusula, there were no other options. Tuusula’s resources would not have been sufficient if Kerava and Järvenpää had not become independent. In addition, strong centers had emerged at the time that had inflamed decision-making. ”
If Järvenpää and Kerava would still belong to Tuusula, according to preliminary data at the end of September 2020, 119925 inhabitants would have lived in Suur-Tuusula. Suur-Tuusula would be the ninth largest municipality in Finland in terms of population.
The idea of Suur-Tuusula formed by Järvenpää and Kerava emerged in the early 2010s, when Hyvinkää, Järvenpää, Kerava, Mäntsälä, Nurmijärvi, Pornainen, Sipoo and Tuusula explored the possibility of forming municipalities into the city of Central Uusimaa.
At that time, the council initiative presented in Tuusula suggested that if the union of eight municipalities is not possible, Tuusula would start negotiations with Kerava and Järvenpää on the municipal association.
Tuusula withdrew from the preparation of the draft association agreement, and invited the camers of Järvenpää and Kerava to the meeting. The municipalities negotiated in late 2015.
It then became clear that Kerava wanted to continue as an independent municipality. Järvenpää also did not see municipal associations as realistic for at least 5-10 years.
What kind would be the position of Suur-Tuusula among Finnish municipalities? It would have a regional and demographic researcher Timo Aron believes that there would be a lot of attraction that would bring visibility and publicity to the area.
“There are few growing areas in Finland, but Suur-Tuusula would meet the characteristics of a growing area well. The location of Suur-Tuusula would be good when the area is close to the Helsinki metropolitan area and along the railway, ”Aro estimates.
“Suur-Tuusula would be a hard bone in the competition between the regions, as Järvenpää, Kerava and Tuusula are already among the best fifths of the municipalities in most growth indicators, the municipalities have done well for a long time.”
In Aro’s opinion, the good reputation of the area would also increase the attractiveness of Suur-Tuusula.
“The reputation of Suur-Tuusula would be as good as, for example, Espoo. The area would have both densely populated urban and sparsely populated rural areas. Like Espoo or Vantaa, Suur-Tuusula would be a network-like municipality with many sub-centers. One could characterize that Suur-Tuusula would not be a hard city core, but rather a large residential area. ”