City of Cape Town and mayoral member for transport Brett Herron received another bloody nose in the Western Cape High Court yesterday. It lost its application, with costs, for leave to appeal the Court's ruling last month halting the eviction of 26 Wynberg families to make way for the MyCiTi bus route and Acting Judge Leslie Weinkove's order for the city to conduct "meaningful" public participation.
In papers filed with the application, Herron, who all along dismissed residents' appeals for a fair hearing, stated the constitution "imposed" public participation on the city. Tough Brett, if you don't like what the constitution says, get out of council and suck lemons!
Neither the Constitution Act s152.1 and Municipal Systems Act chapter 4 s16 refers to "meaningful" in the context of public participation that's required of municipalities. The constitution s152.1.a says, "To provide democratic and accountable government for local communities", and 152.2, "A municipality must strive ...to achieve the objectives in section 1".
The key phrase is "democratic and accountable". The field of community development has a specific definition for participation: project initiators - government, ngos, interested parties, etc - and the target, beneficiary communities interact and cooperate as EQUAL partners in ALL phases of the project, from design to completion. Unfortunately, politicians find this inconvenient. Perhaps the South Road case should go to the Supreme Court of Appeal to clarify what public participation means.
Based on news reports, the hubris of the city in general and Brett Herron in particular is breathtaking. Before it went to court residents repeatedly stated Herron and mayor Patricia de Lille ignored representations, demolished houses before the participation process was done but later said it was a mistake.
In papers filed with the application, Herron, who all along dismissed residents' appeals for a fair hearing, stated the constitution "imposed" public participation on the city. Tough Brett, if you don't like what the constitution says, get out of council and suck lemons!
Neither the Constitution Act s152.1 and Municipal Systems Act chapter 4 s16 refers to "meaningful" in the context of public participation that's required of municipalities. The constitution s152.1.a says, "To provide democratic and accountable government for local communities", and 152.2, "A municipality must strive ...to achieve the objectives in section 1".
The key phrase is "democratic and accountable". The field of community development has a specific definition for participation: project initiators - government, ngos, interested parties, etc - and the target, beneficiary communities interact and cooperate as EQUAL partners in ALL phases of the project, from design to completion. Unfortunately, politicians find this inconvenient. Perhaps the South Road case should go to the Supreme Court of Appeal to clarify what public participation means.
Based on news reports, the hubris of the city in general and Brett Herron in particular is breathtaking. Before it went to court residents repeatedly stated Herron and mayor Patricia de Lille ignored representations, demolished houses before the participation process was done but later said it was a mistake.
Also, Herron displayed amazing arrogance ignoring residents' suggestions of alternative routes by stating the city knew a priori alternative routes are not viable despite not having done any feasibility studies on them. When residents declared they were going to court, Herron offered to consider other routes, only after being forced to.
This is not public participation as envisaged by the constitution, but the hubristic and condescending DA displaying the traits they criticise in the ANC, a trait I believe that is displayed by numerous members of the party including mayor and premier.
Herron, a lawyer, claimed they don't like litigating against residents, but in this matter, and others usually concerning developments, they have been remarkably combative, insisting its their way or (excuse the pun) the highway.
Both ANC and DA, the only two parties that govern in South Africa, are indifferent to citizens. The ANC is viscerally sensitive to criticism. The DA perhaps less so but it's oddly aggressive toward citizens in the one province it governs, I think because it believes it knows everything, a priori.
I'm glad Weinkove put the DA and upstart Herron in their places. Way to go, judge.
This is not public participation as envisaged by the constitution, but the hubristic and condescending DA displaying the traits they criticise in the ANC, a trait I believe that is displayed by numerous members of the party including mayor and premier.
Herron, a lawyer, claimed they don't like litigating against residents, but in this matter, and others usually concerning developments, they have been remarkably combative, insisting its their way or (excuse the pun) the highway.
Both ANC and DA, the only two parties that govern in South Africa, are indifferent to citizens. The ANC is viscerally sensitive to criticism. The DA perhaps less so but it's oddly aggressive toward citizens in the one province it governs, I think because it believes it knows everything, a priori.
I'm glad Weinkove put the DA and upstart Herron in their places. Way to go, judge.
Comments
Post a Comment