A DA Member of Parliament, Denis Joseph, has added his weight to the swell of objections against plans to build a shopping mall at Princess Vlei.

A significant voice has been added to the tsunami of objections from organisations, communities and individuals against the proposed building of a shopping mall on the banks of the Princess Vlei.

Retreat resident Denis Joseph, a Democratic Alliance (DA) Member of Parliament (MP) in the National Council of Provinces and an ex-councillor, said: “As a resident I do not support the proposed development at the vlei because it is a very a sensitive environmental area that must be protected for cultural, religious and community recreation.”
“I am convinced the officials in the City will not recommend that the vlei ground be re-zoned. And as a Member of Parliament I will write to them to express the opinion of the community.”
“It is important the developer understands my role as a political and community leader, conveying a message of strong objection on behalf of the broader community. And I am prepared to invite the developer and the mayor to a site meeting where I will introduce them to the history of the vlei.”
Stressing that civics and environmental organisations, as well as other organisations, strongly object to the proposed development, Mr Joseph said: “It is clear their objections were not taken into account. The authorities underestimate the historical value of the vlei land to the people.
“The vlei should be developed into an environmental park, similar to the one in Green Point where the community, educational sectors such as schools and NGOs benefit from the environment.

‘The environment is too sensitive to allow the building of a shopping mall. And I hope, as a resident of over 21 years in that area, City officials and political leadership will strongly consider not to rezone the vlei area. The relationship between business, community and government will be damaged, possibly beyond recovery if this shopping mall is allowed,” said Mr Joseph.

He said the history of religious practices such as baptisms, as well as cultural practices, was important to the community and should not be ignored.

He expressed support for Khoisan organisations in their pursuit of protecting the vlei for historical and cultural reasons.
Acknowledging there had been incidents of crime, and even murders at the Princess Vlei in the past, Mr Joseph said that did not mean the vlei should be turned into a shopping mall.
Pointing out that Blue Route Mall had undergone a R2 billion upgrade, with Pick n Pay being further south on Prince George Drive at Capricorn Park and Kenilworth Centre not too far in the north, he said: “This shopping mall will kill small businesses, particularly your Busy Corners in Grassy Park and the Retreat Main Road business area which is already struggling to survive.
“I have a proposal, if there is a need for a business centre that (part of) the scouts’ ground on the opposite site of Prince George Drive be used to build it.
“Economic growth and job creation is important, however, my proposal to switch the site from the vlei to the scouts’ property is a practical solution to support economic growth and job creation.”

By Bridget Pitt and Therese Boulle

Kelvin Cochrane walks us around the fynbos garden he is creating at Princess Vlei, as part of the rehabilitation project to “dress the Princess”.

As he shows us the restios and ericas tentatively reclaiming the soil, he speaks of “the Princess” with the same tenderness and respect he would show his child or his grandmother.

For Princess Vlei encapsulates a fundamental element of Cochrane’s history, and of the history of all Capetonians. It also holds an equally critical key to our future.

The future of the vlei hangs in the balance as the rezoning of the site to allow commercial development on a portion awaits final approval. The proposed development by Insight Property Developers would include a 9 090m2 shopping mall and 100m2 taxi rank.

Councillor for the ward Jan Burger has defended the project, saying it would offer “much needed economic development”. But protests by residents indicate this kind of development is the last thing they need. And the controversial development seems set to violate a number of cultural, historical and environmental sensibilities.

The story of Princess Vlei is a quintessentially South African story. According to tales told by Khoi herders and passed on by slaves – and recounted by Jose Burman in Safe to the Sea (Human and Rousseau, 1962) – the vlei was named after a powerful Khoisan princess. Her stronghold was a cave in the Constantiaberg, now known as the Elephant’s Eye Cave.

The Prinses Kasteel River ran from above the cave to feed the vlei, a favourite spot of the princess. While bathing there, she was abducted and killed by a passing band of Portuguese sailors – believed to be from the party of Francisco d’Almeida who died in a skirmish with the Khoisan in 1510.

It was her tears that created the small vlei beside the larger one. According to local superstition, Princess Vlei claims one life every year to pay for this violation.

In the 500 years that followed, the princess’s descendants were enslaved, raped, exiled and killed. Under the Nationalist government they were forcibly removed from their homes and driven out to bleak council tenements on the Cape Flats.

For those removed to Lavender Hill, Grassy Park, Lotus River, Steenberg and Retreat, Princess Vlei provided a welcome respite from the desolate wasteland in which they found themselves.

It offered a refuge from the growing gangsterism and crime, a meeting point for scattered families, and a welcome breath of tranquillity.

Deprived of access to most of Cape Town’s recreational beaches and scenic areas, coloured people from kilometres around adopted Princess Vlei as their own, and the place acquired a special place in their hearts. Residents today have cherished memories of watching birds skimming over the water, fishing, picnics and rites of passage such as weddings and baptisms.

It was nicknamed “Claremont Beach”, and the area around the small vlei was called “Galaland”. A well-loved landmark was the vegetable stall that was granted to a Mr Jacobs in compensation for losing an eye during service in World War II.

But under apartheid, the site suffered the same neglect as other “coloured amenities” and gradually became degraded, particularly when it was used for dumping sand and rubble during roadworks on Prince George Drive.

But the people never lost their love for the place, and when the application for its rezoning was first tabled, the community launched appeals that have delayed the process.

One of the most passionate objectors to the development was Cochrane, who approached the SA National Biodiversity Institute (Sanbi) with a proposal in July 2008 to rehabilitate the vlei.

A partnership was formed with Sanbi, Biowatch and the City of Cape Town Parks, with Cochrane as the project manager.

This initiative set out to remove alien vegetation, plant indigenous fynbos and trees, create pathways and boardwalks and construct bomas and other appropriate structures. Long-term proposals include an environmental education centre, a memorial commemorating the place’s history, and trails linking the vlei to Tokai Manor House, and up to the Elephant’s Eye Cave.

Cochrane sees the restoration of Princess Vlei as a critical part of a process to liberate the Cape Flats from its status as “the poor step-child” of the Mother City. Before becoming degraded by subeconomic urban development and widespread alien vegetation, the Cape Flats was an ecological wonderland, commanding an extraordinary diversity of fynbos and animal life.

It is not only an ecological imperative that much of this as possible be restored and preserved, it is also a social and cultural one – to redress the injustices of the past and restore the dignity and self-worth of the communities forcibly removed to these areas.

Cochrane believes the vlei can demonstrate that, instead of relying on the government, the community can take their future into their hands and transform their surroundings into something aesthetic and wholesome. To promote community participation, he has involved six schools in the Princess Vlei restoration project.

The children come at weekends to plant fynbos, often with their parents. They learn valuable environmental lessons about fynbos and, more important, discover how the efforts of ordinary citizens can transform a degraded landscape into a thing of beauty. These efforts have had a huge impact on surrounding communities, and when signatures were invited at the vlei recently for a petition, people came from all over to sign expressing their opposition to the development proposal. The petition had 1 588 signatures.

The development has also been opposed by the nearby Sassmeer community, and by the Lotus River, Ottery and Grassy Park Ratepayers and Residents’ Association.

The rezoning of the vlei was provisionally approved by the then-MEC for environmental affairs and development planning, Tasneem Essop, in 2004, allegedly on the strength of an EIA that claimed the area had little environmental value.

The area may be degraded and lacking a coherent ecosystem, but this assessment overlooks three crucial points.

The first is that as a wetland, the vlei has irreplaceable value for our city. Research has shown that wetlands play a critical role in flood management, as well as in cleaning and purifying water. Cape Town’s water situation is serious. Stormwater drains are crumbling and overloaded, our rivers are dangerously polluted, and the likelihood of extreme weather associated with global warming can only make us more vulnerable to flooding. Every wetland we have should be fiercely protected.

Second, none of our urban conservation areas are pristine environmental sites. Rondevlei Bird Sanctuary, now considered a treasure house of bird and aquatic life, is not even a natural vlei – it was created to divert flooding from the building of surrounding houses. Zeekoevlei was degraded, but is now being restored by the city in partnership with Cochrane and other residents.

Princess Vlei is a natural vlei, and a key feeder for the chain of wetlands in the Rondevlei and Zeekoevlei system. Surely the rational response to the degradation of a precious natural asset is not to degrade it further, but to restore it?

The third point lies in the potential of the vlei to give birth to new environmentalists. Cape Town is blessed by many passionate environmentalists like Cochrane from the Cape Flats. They come from all walks of life and from all cultures and language groups. But the one thing common to all of them is that their love of nature began with some encounter when they were young. And for most this encounter occurred not on Table Mountain or Kirstenbosch, but close to their doorsteps – in the last remnants of open space that are fast being swallowed by the city.

One such person is environmental scientist Ismail Sonday from Grassy Park, whose passion for the subject began on family visits to Princess Vlei.

The vlei represents a unique opportunity to create a space where more passionate conservators can be born. And without these passionate conservators, the future of all our natural heritage sites is doomed.

The arguments against the development of Princess Vlei are overwhelming. The arguments for it are spurious. Shopping centres bring limited value to an area, and there are many other sites for such centres. A restored Princess Vlei promises a tourist attraction, a recreational area, eco-trails, a place where future generations may enjoy nature in an urban jungle, a refuge for birds, plants and aquatic life, an educational focus for children, a venue for sunset concerts, and more.

Most significantly, it is a cultural and historical jewel cherished by all who live around it. It was the “Galaland” of the Cape Flats.

It has a resonance for this community that Kirstenbosch, Cape Point and other less accessible natural sites do not have. Trashing the vlei is like trashing the sensibilities of these communities, and has no place in a city committed to treasuring all its citizens and all its natural assets.

If you have not visited it, do yourself a favour and go there. Take in the peaceful stretch of blue water overlooked by the Constantiaberg and the Elephant’s Eye Cave, the birds skimming the reeds, the burgeoning fynbos. When one stands there, one can only wonder at the lack of imagination that allowed someone to look at this place and think “shopping centre”.

As Cochrane said, building on Princess Vlei is like cutting out its heart. Arguing that it would not have much effect on it is like arguing that removing a heart would not kill its owner.

Next year is the 500th anniversary of the Khoisan princess’s abduction. Let us hope it will not be the year where once again the Princess is irreparably violated.

Pitt and Boulle are researching and writing a handbook for urban conservationists on behalf of Cape Flats Nature. This article is written in their personal capacity. Published on the web by Cape Times on August 16, 2009.

“Please be advised that since I have discharged my decision-making powers with respect to this appeal decision, I am Functus officio in this regard. Under the circumstances I cannot reconsider the decision taken in this matter and neither myself, nor my Department, can entertain any further meetings regarding the application. Your only recourse, should you still be aggrieved by my decision, is to apply to the High Court to review my decision.”

 MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 

Minister Bredell response letter (655.5 KB)

[Show as slideshow]

Duty to vlei

Give more facts

MP's no to vlei mall

Email response from Mayor
to GCTCA request for meeting

Princess Vlei Forum mail to Premier

malling-the-vlei

malled-up

vlei-sell-out

another-mall-the-final-nail

vlei-has-ecological-value

A FORUM has been set up to oppose the proposed development of a shopping mall at Princess Vlei and wants to meet MEC for Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Anton Bredell.

Two weeks ago Bredell gave the green light for the shopping complex to be built on the shores of the vlei.

The development has encountered strong opposition from environmental lobby groups and residents of the neighbouring working-class suburbs, who use the green area for picnics, baptisms and recreation.

It has also been stalled by the city council’s refusal to rezone the land.

The Princess Vlei Forum, formed on May 2 by civil society organisations and individuals from Grassy Park, Steenberg and Lotus River, has vowed to halt plans to build the 9 000m2 mall in the area. The forum has been endorsed by the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance.’

Speaking for the forum, Mea Lashbrooke said it had drawn up a plan for the use of the area that would include walkways, cycle paths, recreational fishing, concerts and environmental education.

“This is a community on the move. And they have every right to be this way, for they are living adjacent to a natural resource situated along a tourist route to the coast, one that provides locals with recreation, is a lung for the Cape Peninsula, has historic significance, and is the gateway to an important wetland,” Lash-brooke said.

“There are five malls close to the Vlei and numerous commercial corridors that have traditionally served the people, maintaining a desirable village spirit.

“It was agreed that efforts would be better spent uplifting these local areas, rather than building a new complex on a delicate ecosystem. Furthermore, local traders would be disempowered by a mall, rentals being notoriously high.”

At a meeting on Wednesday last week, residents expressed their anger about Bredell’s granting of permission for the construction of the mall, Lashbrooke said.

“One gentleman who has lived in the area for more than 60 years… he is prepared to lie in front of a bulldozer to preserve this natural environment,” she said.

The development of the land, which is of historical significance to the Khoisan and is part of the Cape Flats fynbos biome – one of the most critically endangered fynbos biomes – has been mooted since Insight Property Developers tried to buy it from the city in 1998.

The Princess Vlei Forum is indeed a forum in the correct sense of the word – a public meeting place and opportunity for experts and citizens to discuss a matter of importance; in this case the future of Princess Vlei and its environs.

What was clear to all who attended the inaugural meeting (mobilised by Mr Philip Bam, Chair of The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance) was the people’s sense of betrayal at not being consulted by the MEC for Environment Western Cape, Mr Anton Bredell, about a recent application for rezoning in the area. Anger was in the air but most of all there was strength in unity. One gentleman who has lived in the area for more than 60 years is prepared to lie in front of a bulldozer to preserve this natural environment.

Educationalists, entertainers, youth, journalists, religious leaders, lawyers and conservationists offered their services.

Ideas for mass meetings, demands to see the Minister, music and theatre and a call on local schools to participate in high profile clean-ups of the area were amongst the ideas thrown out for discussion. This is a community on the move. And they have every right to be this way for they are living adjacent to a natural resource situated along a tourist route to the coast, one that provides locals with recreation, is a lung for the Cape Peninsula, has historic significance, and is the gateway to an important wetland.

In fact situated as it is, the people point out that Princess Vlei is a jewel in the centre of the crown that is the Cape Peninsula. And as such should be treated as precious.

There seems to be some confusion around the 2010 regulations enacted by the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). According to Anton Bredell, the minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and development Planning, and sole ‘competent’ authority, environmental authorisation is not deemed necessary for the proposed development. This is an affront to the environment, the heritage of the area, our children’s future and to the people of the Cape Peninsula. There are some who go so far as to say this is a crime. The Princess Vlei Forum disputes Bredell’s interpretation of the NEMA regulations.

However, what was most noticeable at the meeting, attended by about 50 people, was the enthusiasm and creativity around the discussions for the future, with excellent ideas put forward as alternatives to the Western Cape Government’s consideration of a shopping mall. Already there is a detailed plan for the sustainable use of the area that includes walkways, cyclepaths, recreational fishing, concerts and enviro-education.

The people speak about a Kirstenbosch or a Green Point Park of the Southern Peninsula. And when you hear them speak it does not sound like a dream, rather it is a determined strategy.

PVF formed in response to the Western Cape Government’s consideration of an application for rezoning to part of ERF 82176, Retreat, Western Cape, from Single Dwelling Use Zone and Public Open Space to General Business Use Zone to permit a proposed development of a shopping centre which could be situated as close as 32 metres from the edge of Princess Vlei itself, and occupying 3.7 hectare.

It was noted that within a few kilometres there are five malls and that close to the Vlei numerous commercial corridors have traditionally served the people, maintaining a desirable village spirit. It was agreed that efforts would be better spent uplifting these local areas, rather than building a new complex on a delicate ecosystem. Furthermore local traders would be disempowered by a mall, rentals being notoriously high.

The application to the Western Cape Government for rezoning is an appeal against a previous application that was turned down by the City of Cape Town in September 2011. At that time there was a loose affiliation of organisations and concerned citizens who had the healthy future of Princess Vlei on their agenda. But now they have consolidated into a force to be reckoned with – the Princess Vlei Forum

“Dressing the Princess” is a local project that has been underway for some years. Driven by Mr Kelvin Cochrane of Cape Flats Wetland Forum (soon to be known as CAMPS-Caring and Managing Public Spaces), its aim is to safeguard the area near the Vlei for recreational and educational use and rehabilitation of the delicate sand fynbos. In August 2011 Mr Cochrane received an award from Western Cape WESSA (Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa) for this work. (The website www.bottomroadsanctuary.co.za is informative about the conservation work at Princess Vlei and surrounding areas).

The people have every intention of ensuring this jewel of the Peninsula functions for locals and tourists as a place of natural beauty.

It was brought to the attention of the meeting that the Minister of Environment Western Cape, Mr Anton Bredell, is under the impression that the “Sasmeer Ratepayer’s Association, the Princess Vlei Civic Association and a Ward Councillor all supported the proposed development of the shopping centre with some seeing it as a definite improvement of the derelict current state of the property in question.” This is a quote from Minister Bredell’s correspondence to The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance, Reference 3/6/2(2011/67) dated 12/4/2012.

As those mentioned in this letter did not attend the meeting it was not possible to validate the statement but the PVF is keen to discern the extent of their commitment.

With reference to crime in the area the PVF does not see that a shopping centre is a way to reduce crime.

Apart from the numerous private citizens (both local to the area and from further afield) who attended the inaugural meeting of PVF on Wednesday 2nd May to voice their concern about possible inappropriate and unsustainable development near the Vlei, there were representatives from a number of organisations:

Lotus River Grassy Park Residents Association (LOGRA); COSATU (Local); Southern Suburbs Legal Advice Centre (SLAC); Cape Flats Wetland Forum; Heal the Hood; Black Noise; Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance; Retreat/Steenberg Civic Association; Kenwyn Civic Association; Langevlei Civic Association; Grassy Park Traders Association; ANC ( Local); Schaapkraal Civic Association; Grassy Park Community Police Forum.

A decision was taken to address several concerns simultaneously. To this end a number of portfolios were allocated:

• research – facts and history of application
• legal recourse – should it be necessary in the future
• media campaign
• community action
• ascertaining the needs of local traders (Grassy Park, Busy Corner, Lotus River, Sasmeer, Retreat)
• publicising alternative sustainable plans www.bottomroadsanctuary.co.za
• liaise with those who find favour with the proposal

The area is ripe for mindful best practice development, perhaps even a model of sustainability for the future – where local is more important, where the heart of the community is not lost, where “small is beautiful” (Economist Dr EF Schumacher 1911 – 1977). But for this to happen a holistic approach is necessary and all stakeholders need to be consulted – that is traders, homeowners, schools.

David Hockney RA, contemporary British artist well-known for his Nature paintings said, “When there is any threat to our landscape, we should all stop being so polite; stand up and speak out more.”

Mea Lashbrooke
The Princess Vlei Forum
Tel 0741011927
9th May 2012

HIDDEN charges in Cape Town’s draft budget would lead to the average ratepayer paying a 10 percent surcharge on electricity, says the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance – which has accused the city council of excessive profit-taking, to the detriment of ratepayers.

A draft budget of R24 billion in operating expenditure and R5bn in capital expenditure was tabled by the city council last month for public comment before its adoption, probably at the end of this month.

In its submission, the alliance says that these “concealed surcharges” and high costs could force people off their properties.

The city says this is nothing new and residents have always paid a 10 percent surcharge on electricity.

The opposition ANC has also expressed its unhappiness with the draft budget, saying it is “not a people’s budget”.

Henri Wolfaardt, the alliance treasurer, showed the Cape Times an extract from published budget data that notes the item “surcharge”, which is a 10 percent “tax” included in the selling price of electricity.

“This is not disclosed to the public anywhere. The bigger the increase charged by Eskom, the bigger the surcharge becomes,” he said.

“A close study of the budget revealed that for some unexplained reason, the citizens of Cape Town are not fully informed of the implications of the budget. The ever-increasing municipal charges and cost to the household will force people to sell their properties in order to just survive and make a living in these difficult economic times.

“Profit on power sales averaged at 38 percent over the past six years.

“It would appear that the citizens of Cape Town will be asked to pay a mark-up of at least 77 percent on Eskom electricity costs. We would have expected the city to limit the mark-up on Eskom power, especially in view of the financial hardships this will exacerbate.

“The alliance realises that responsible fiscal management requires drastic steps, but we believe that the time has come, for the City of Cape Town to consider some austerity measures, which should not always be a burden on the ratepayer and consumer.

“Some savings can be brought about by cutting down on the number of sub-councils, for instance.”

Wolfaardt said “enormous” salaries were paid to sub-council chairpersons, which seem to be a “job for pals”.

Ian Neilson, deputy mayor and mayoral committee member for finance, said the Cape Town city council had for many years had a 10 percent surcharge on electricity sales.

The constitution allowed for surcharges to be levied on municipal services.

“There is no change on this practise in the current budget,” Neilson added.

“This income makes a contribution to services that are funded mainly from rates.

“That allows the city to provide much-needed services that are not tariff-funded, such as libraries, health services, community halls and street lighting.”

ANC chief whip Xolani Sotashe, who is also a sub-council chairman, said that at a meeting of subcouncils it was “unanimously” agreed that residents’ views had not been taken into account.

“We said this (public participation) was a waste of time…

“They were just consulting for the sake of compliance,” said Sotashe.

Treasure Karoo Action Group
May 9 2012

Global shale gas moratoriums increase while SA Minister procrastinates

“While our government is scrambling to produce a secret document on which this country may make a potentially irreversible decision on shale gas mining ‘fracking’, international sentiment is increasing against the technology. Fracking is banned, or under some form of moratorium or restriction in more than 140 places around the world.” These were the words of TKAG chair, Jonathan Deal who was reacting to a report published May 8 in Moneyweb. According to Moneyweb, the Minister has stated that she intends to submit the report on shale gas mining to Cabinet in July.

“It appears to TKAG, that the Minister has misunderstood the instructions of Cabinet in August 2011, when Cabinet in an unequivocal statement instructed the Minister to [L]ead a multi disciplinary team including the Departments of Trade & Industry , Science and Technology, amongst others, to fully research the full implications of the proposed fracking.”  The original team chosen by the Minister does not give effect to the expectation of a ‘multi-disciplinary team’ as it excluded Ministries whose input is critical to a thorough investigation into the costs and benefits of shale gas mining. Departments such as Health, Transport, Agriculture, Tourism, Rural Development, and initially, even Environmental Affairs were excluded. We also have grave reservations about the time period in which Minister Shabangu purports to have completed the investigation, the scientific expertise of the team, the amount of research conducted and the areas of research and scientific data applied,” said Deal.

“America, is taking four years to complete a similar investigation, the second time around. We are puzzled as to how SA can accomplish this in much less than a year, sans essential input from directly affected departments, and from the other side of the Atlantic. The manner in which this process is being managed and the fact that TKAG had to sue the Minister for information to which any citizen was entitled, is causing our apprehension of the Shell – ANC link to increase.”

During 2012 Shell released various reports to the public which made claims regarding alleged public opinion, and of claimed vast benefits to SA from shale gas mining. Commenting on the reports Deal said “The Minister must surely be aware that her department must issue or decline exploration licences on the facts contained within the written applications of Shell, Bundu and Falcon – these reports are not only biased and inaccurate, they are premature and should be ignored. TKAG has repeatedly requested a thorough cost-benefit analysis of shale gas mining for SA. This process cannot ignore knock-on costs to roads, health, tourism and other revenue centres as well as the sustainable value of our agricultural sector and the rand value and scarcity of drinking water. We deplore the lack of transparency and the narrow focus of Minister Shabangu in managing a process of such import to present and future South Africans”

“PROTECT CHAPMAN’S PEAK”

2nd PUBLIC PROTEST MARCH

WHERE: Hout Bay, Main Rd

WHEN: Sunday 20 May 2012       TIME: 11am

March from: – Hout Bay Beach Car Park via Beach Road
March to: – Entilini Hout Bay Office situated on Main Road M6 (between 7/11 store & FNB)

WHY?: We object to the continued construction of “Entilini” 4 Lane Toll Plaza + 1000 m2 Office site on our UNESCO World Heritage Site & Table Mountain National Park land, at an unnecessary cost of R54 million – mostly paid for by WC Province from our Tax Payers funds.

This public march on Sunday 20th May will lead up to the Interdict Application set down for Cape High Court Monday 28th May 2012, 09h00 in Keerom Street, Cape Town.

Constructing a toll plaza in a protected National Park is totally inappropriate. Only the people of South Africa, through Parliament, are entitled to decide if part of a National Park may be removed for that purpose. We believe that the planned construction has not been properly authorised.

WE ARE DEMANDING A HALT TO CONSTRUCTION & ANSWERS to questions (STILL unanswered by the W Cape Premier & the CEO of Murray & Roberts):

• Why is OVER R38 Million public tax payers money being wasted on this construction when the Toll Roads act of 1999 stipulates that the costs of construction is for the expense of the concessionaire (Entilini)?
• How much is Provincial Government Western Cape paying Entilini to cover their costs for rented office next to the 7/11 in Hout Bay (+ for past 8 years)? Is it R1.2 Million per annum as stated by Enzo Menegaldo on 567 Talk Radio? Or is it R120000 pa, as confirmed by the building supervisors? Entilini have a rent free building for the 30 years of their Toll Concession, even if they don’t build a Toll Control building.
• Is Entilini a sustainable business if they “wrongfully claimed R59 Million from PGWC for “lower than expected toll figures”? Why are Entilini’s financial reports for the last 8 years not being released to prove its viability?
• The projected traffic figures have never been achieved so why is PGWC allowing Entilini to build a wasteful R54 Million Toll Plaza on a minor road with low traffic volumes?
• If the construction is stopped and the plans changed, what are the details of the penalty costs?

THIS ABUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY & DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATURAL HERITAGE CANNOT CONTINUE!

OTHER WAYS YOU CAN HELP to “Protect Chapman’s Peak” during the month of May 2012

Come to the Fundraising Auction: Thurs 17th May 18h00 to 19h30 La Cuccina Restaurant, Hout Bay. Ph: 021790 8008, Victoria Mall, Cnr Victoria & Empire Rd, Hout Bay.

Come to the Public March: Sunday 20th May 2012 at 11h00 from Hout Bay beach to Entilini Offices next to 7/11 shop on Main Road.

Come to the Cape High Court: Monday 28th May 2012 at 09h00 – Keerom Street, Cape Town – Application for Building Interdict by HBRRA & Habitat Council vs WCPG & Entilini & SAN Parks

Donate toward the legal costs: The Hout Bay Ratepayers & Residents Association asks you to make a R500 donation (or as much as you can afford), to the Legal Fund to pay for representation in the Cape High Court Interdict application on Monday 28 May 2012.

· Contributions should be sent to Cullinan & Associates trust fund: Standard Bank – Branch Code: 020 009 Branch: Cape Town · Account Name: Cullinan & Associates Inc. Trust Account No: 070 223 149 · Reference: Chapman’s Peak (Very important to insert this Reference)

- Please send e-mail confirmation of payment: hbrra@houtbay.org.za

Please contribute to the legal trust fund: All money raised is guaranteed to be used exclusively to pay experts who are qualified to persuade the Court into forbidding the construction. Sufficient funds are essential to our being able to win this case. None of us wishes to hand over to future generations a toll plaza and luxury office block on Chapman’s Peak situated in our magnificent National Park – a World Heritage site. This is your way of doing something to halt this construction.

LET YOUR CONTRIBUTION BE YOUR LEGACY TO PROTECT CHAPMAN’S PEAK!

Please make your contribution now – It’s urgent!

Go to Facebook “Protect Chapman’s Peak movement” page & press “LIKE” · www.facebook.com/ProtectChappies

Go to Avaaz Petition and sign to Protect Chapman’s Peak on petition form · www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Protect_Chapmans_Peak_Movement/?fsfIjab&pv=5

Watch the Documentary “SITE SEEING” by Andrea Bennett – UCT Honours Film Production student, on You Tube: · http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmZuyCI0WW8&feature=youtu.be

PLEASE PASS ON THIS INFORMATION TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY MEMBERS & YOUR CO-WORKERS.
PLEASE REPOST THE ABOVE LINKS ON YOUR FACEBOOK PAGE, TWITTER & INSTAGRAM ACCOUNTS.
HELP SPREAD THE WORD!

Thanks for your support!!

“Protect Chapman’s Peak Movement”
c/o pcpm@houtbay.org.za

The actual architectural drawing of the of the planned Chapman’s Peak Drive two storey LUXURY offices next to the toll plaza can be seen below. The plan shows in detail what the controversial office block to be built within the Table Mountain National Park actually includes.

While debate rages around whether the project is necessary or appropriate, this image is presented to the public in order for them to see through the spin doctoring of the proponents. The proponents have published “pretty” conceptual diagrams of what the office block will look like. With regard to these published diagrams, the phrase “Fifa in their most desperate spin cycle would have baulked at this” comes to mind. After viewing the actual plans shown below, you can witness the real reason for the project and judge for yourself. We are sure that you will come to the same conclusion that the project is neither necessary nor appropriate within the Table Mountain National Park.

These actual plans, on which the present construction is based, include the following:

GROUND LEVEL – 22-off Offices/Areas

FIRST FLOOR – 15-odd Offices/Areas

Click on the image to <<ENLARGE>>

Bryan Gillbee’s alternative proposal 

In the continuing effort to bring some sobriety to this lunacy (the option of electronic tolling already having been tabled, which would do away with the need for any human service facilities altogether), we further include below yet another alternative option which was supplied by Bryan Gillbee of ‘Bryan j. Gillbee & Associates’. Bryan states “I do not agree that the operation requires any more than a single storey, unobtrusive building in order to accommodate the toll booth staff in the form of: a rest room, a small kitchen, a small store room for cleaning equipment etc., a toilet block and change room catering for males and females, a small office for a supervisor.

Below is a +- 100m² suggestion which incorporates public toilet facilities for the picnickers – the ones that have been so kindly catered for in the ‘Official’ drawings but omitted to give them parking spaces or toilets.

On the 28 March 2012, the City of Cape Town tabled a draft budget amounting to just over R24 billion in operating expenditure and over R5 billion in capital expenditure.

The draft budget now follows the processes of public participation as laid out in legislation, especially the Municipal Finance Management Act. As per the MFMA, this budget is available to the public at large for everyone to have a say and input before the budget is put before the Council for debate in May.

As part of the communicated public engagement and participation process the GCTCA submitted questions and requests to the City. These questions and requests were addressed to: The Executive Mayor, Ms Patricia de Lille; The Executive Deputy Mayor and Mayco member for Finance, Mr Ian Neilson; The City Manager, Mr Achmat Ebrahim and The Executive Director : Finance, Mr Kevin Jacoby.

The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance has to date received limited responses to our request for information (see: GCTCA interrogates the City budget) and has subsequently tabled the following objection to the City of Cape Town’s draft budget for 2012/2013.

21^st April 2012

The City Manager,
City of Cape Town
Achmat Ebrahim
5th Floor, Podium,
Civic Centre, Cape Town, 8001
E-mail: city.manager@capetown.gov.za

Copies to:
idp@capetown.gov.za

Mayor: Patricia de Lille, mayor.mayor@capetown.gov.za

Executive Deputy Mayor: Ian Neilson, ian.neilson@capetown.gov.za

MEC for Local Government: Anton Bredell, abredell@pgwc.gov.za

Objection to the City of Cape Town Draft Budget for 2012/13

The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance (GCTCA), a voluntary association of residents’, ratepayers’, civic and other interest groups within the City of Cape Town municipal area, submitted a request for information relating to the above budget on Thursday 4 April 2012.

To date we have received limited responses to this request. It appears unlikely that sufficient information will be received soon enough to enable detailed study of the budget content before the closing date for public comment.

Based on information gleaned from the published Draft Budget for 2012/13,and the Annual Report for 2010/11, the GCTCA wishes to record its concern and dismay with the unbridled, unhealthy, exorbitant growth of revenue and expenditure proposed for the next three years commencing on 1 July 2012. Affordability has now become a real and major concern.

In light of the aforementioned the GCTCA formally objects to:

1. The proposed increases in utility tariffs which exceed the inflation rate by a huge margin. It is accepted that actual price increases from bulk suppliers of electricity and water have to be recovered, but the cost of distribution and administration should not exceed inflation.
   Optimization and savings measures should be instituted to contain costs. The composition of cost and of tariff increases should be made available to the public;

2. The exorbitant surplus of R1.5bn (19.5%) budgeted on the sale of electricity, in addition to the surcharge in (3) below, is completely unacceptable.
   Together this amounts to a surplus of R2.4bn, effectively a 35% mark-up. Tariffs have to be revised downward drastically to more reasonable and affordable levels;

3. A surcharge concealed within the electricity tariffs charged to users.
   Residents are not provided with any information regarding the huge amount so charged, i.e. approx. R845 million in 2011/12, R925 million in 2012/13, R1,140 million in 2013/14 and R1,386 million in 2014/15. Because the surcharge is reflected as part of the tariffs, users are subject to VAT. The surcharge, if justifiable, should be reflected separately and clearly stated on monthly accounts to users, and should be free of VAT;

4. The tax (surcharge) so raised is currently used for unknown purposes not disclosed in budget documents. This is totally unacceptable. It must be ring fenced and used only within the Electricity Department for the expansion, upgrading and maintenance of the electricity supply infrastructure and distribution network within the city. The rate (percentage) at which the tax is calculated should be revised downwards to generate only that much revenue as can be sensibly and usefully applied within the electricity department;

5. The electricity loss projected at 9.3% (para. 2.3.1.6) for 2012/13 at an estimated cost of R860 million (100% = R9,256 million). This is totally unacceptable;

6. The Environment Levy currently collected on behalf of central government is also concealed within the electricity tariffs, subject to VAT, and not disclosed to users. This is unacceptable. It must be reflected separately and clearly stated on monthly accounts to users, free of VAT;

7. No clear indication given how the substantial surpluses for water and sanitation will be applied. These should be ring fenced for improvement and maintenance of infrastructure, especially in view of the huge loss of water -20% at a cost of R500 million in 2010/11;

8. In addition to the exorbitant surpluses derived from utility services, the lack of clear definition(s) of the purposes for which the surpluses are used is unacceptable;

9. Until convincing proof is made available that the 2009 GVR is on par with market values as at the date thereof, and that extensive research has been done to verify the market value aspect beyond any reasonable doubt, the proposed increase in property rates is unacceptable.

   The GCTCA has done considerable research regarding values and has made a number of attempts to engage the City of Cape Town in this regard, to no avail due to council disinterest. The current rates should remain in force in the meantime;

10. The lavish subsidies currently available, expressed as a revenue forfeited cost, is about double the Equitable Share received from the National Treasury. This is unaffordable to the paying public and should be scaled down to more reasonable levels. The necessary steps should be taken to ensure that only the destitute, very poor and certain defined worthy causes are subsidized. Many small volume users, well able to afford normal prices, currently share in subsidized and free services because the city has neglected to find innovative ways to exclude the well-off;

11. Any increase in the total remuneration cost of R7.125bn contemplated for 2011/12, including councilors and political employees, is unacceptable. The proposed increase of R688 million in remuneration expenses for 2012/13, followed by further increases of R839 million and R856 million each in the two outer years, is unacceptable.

    Official statistics released by the National Department of Statistics on a quarterly basis, indicate that Local Authority employees are paid 22% more than private sector employees for similar jobs, on average. City council employees should therefore perform well above average to justify their existing remuneration.

    Any increases in the cost of remuneration can only be considered once:

    1. Convincing evidence has been disclosed to prove that concerted, meaningful steps are being taken to improve efficiencies, effectiveness and levels of output commensurate with the already high remuneration;
    2. Proven measures are in place to ensure only competent staff are employed and that laggards, under performers and stragglers are suitably brought into line or dismissed;
    3. Suitable measures are in place to ensure optimum organizational structures and procedures. Business Process Re-engineering should be seriously considered. It could hold substantial rewards;
    4. The huge number of so-called contract workers (temporary staff), other than councilors, are reduced to zero. These contracts, which should be of limited duration, should not be renewed upon expiry. Temporary absences of permanent employees should be covered by the existing huge staff complement.

12. The huge extent of risk involved (R2bn) in non-conformance with laws, rules and prescribed procedures, within the Centralized Procurement department, as reported by the Auditor General for the 2010/11 book-year, is cause for grave concern. The measures / steps taken to prevent more such cavalier use of public funds should be disclosed. Control measures must be improved and more strictly applied. Severe corrective actions should be applied to discourage such reckless behavior.

The GCTCA reserves the right to further comments and submissions once the City of Cape Town has responded to this communication, or has provided responses to the GCTCA request for information.

Please direct all enquiries or correspondence to:
Henri Wolfaardt
ExCo member: Public Finance
E-mail: jhwollie@gmail.com
082 407 8046

Signed:
Henri Wolfaardt
ExCo member: Public Finance