Cape Town City and clique force through park developments while residents in the dark

 The City of Cape Town has approved in principle proposals to develop the recreational park in our quiet east Southern Suburbs neighbourhood. A neighbour and I recently became aware of it by accident after a city site meeting that reportedly included former controversial city politician Suzette Little.

 Last week at my request, a week later and only because I complained to mayco for community services Zahid Badroodien, city manager and mayor, ward councillor Magedien Davids sent me emailed discussions going back over a month about proposals that include:

 ·         Pathway/track around the perimeter for walking and cycling;

·        Gym equipment;

·        Basketball and similar courts;

·         Service road.

 Neither he nor city informed and consulted residents who would be affected most – those living opposite and surrounding area. Meaningful community participation is required by the Constitution and Municipal Systems Act before and during, not after, plans are approved.

 They don’t say who initiated the proposal but likely it included residents from another suburb and a residence group that claims to speak on behalf of local residents. The emails show they have influence and a direct channel to city and politicians we don’t.

 Except Little who I know only by reputation, these people are unknown. They have had no dealings with our local community and no mandate to act on our behalf. Their so-called residents' association had its inaugural AGM, election of representatives and adoption of constitution only on Monday September 14 by invitation only via Google Meets. Before this it was an ad hoc group and not a registered association; we never heard of them or their members before.  

Whatever, their presumed mandate is ultra vires and the city violated the law permitting and encouraging them to speak, act and consult on behalf of residents. Most of us on our street have been living here for 50 years each and have more rights to be heard than these interlopers and city combined.

 If a nearby park 600m away is the model for the proposal, congestion will be awful and crowd out its present users who come from all over, including dog walkers. It will lose its 40 year-old quiet, green character. Nearby residents – us – will be affected by congestion, noise and litter like a couple of years ago when a rugby club appropriated the park (I informed the city about that so they ought to know better).

 It makes no sense to construct a pathway/track – people must walk, cycle and motor here defeating the purpose of a built-in track. Even on workdays, surrounding roads have very little motor traffic so can be used for walking and cycling. And an underused city-owned sports field is 100m away for sporting activities.

 The city now rarely performs its core functions like cleaning gutters and drains and collecting litter, my frequent complaint to Davids and Cleansing Department, but wants to spend a lot of money (I requested its budget) on non-essential and wasteful developments the majority don’t want or need. This is not a priority.

 In an email to Zahid Badroodien, Mayor Dan Plato, Deputy Mayor Ian Neilson; city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo and the subcouncil manager Christa Liebenberg, I said it’s a city and DA fixation to concrete over every open green space they see. Is Rondebosch Common next? They wouldn’t do this in the upper class areas they live in.

I have asked Davids and officials numerous times for the official proposal documents including motivation, architectural plans and budget but have not received it. 

I demanded the city put the plan on hold and start community consultations and priority/needs and impact assessments for the surrounding area about what they propose.  Residents may decide to keep the status quo (do nothing), or agree to the proposal or aspects of it. This can be known only once participation as prescribed by law is done. But a few self-appointed representatives have no standing to make decisions for the entire community.

On Friday Christa Liebenberg emailed "we", who she didn't define, wanted to speak to me. She never contacted me but on Monday forwarded my confidential email to a prominent member of the association that claims to speak on behalf of all residents and who emailed the city in August specifying the proposals. I had not copied any resident my emails to the city. 

On Friday evening two men of this group came to see me unannounced. They wanted to chat having seen the letter I wrote to Davids and city. No one sent them, they said But like Liebenberg's request to talk, it appears it was more an information gathering exercise than a genuine desire for communication.They had information about the project that Davids and city had not shared, e.g. that a city engineer had attended the site meeting, indicating the project is at an advanced stage.

A friend who lives in another area says similar is happening there. The city is erecting a skateboard track despite residents of the suburb mostly being middle aged. They co-opted the local resident who is a skateboarding champion. But in a working class area 2km away in the same ward, reportedly residents have been requesting requesting an open field be developed into a park and repeatedly told there is no money. There are numerous other citizen requests where the decision-making process is long.

This proves my assertion city officials act for political agendas in a clique with certain parties and excluding the rest. It's the DA's version of the ANC's handing out food hampers before elections (municipal government elections are next year).

In an email on Monday the residents' group spokeswoman was offended I told the city they have no standing to represent all residents. I replied asking who their "leaders" she mentioned are; who elected them; what consensus, based on what principles and input, and when and where were these meetings. I asked if they canvassed the neighbourhood beyond your immediate circle, and what is the geographical boundary of their claimed oversight. She did not respond.

On Monday too from Davids, and later from her email, I learned about the Google Meets meeting that evening, five hours before it took place. A by invitation and limited virtual meeting does not meet the requirements of a public meeting for a representative community body.

Residents' associations are voluntary associations not governed by statute. So it's left to common law and the constitution to give guidance.  They have no common law or functional powers outside their listed members who really are their management members. Their rights, duties and obligations don't extend beyond their organisation and are limited to their mission - objectives - stated in their constitution. 

While they may work to further community interests, they have no powers over citizens including those living in their claimed geographical jurisdiction and have no standing to speak and act on behalf of citizens. The state, with whom citizens have a contract, has no legal or other jurisdiction to confer power onto such associations. It's only by informal social convention and expedience that citizens permit them, in certain and very limited circumstances, to represent us.

But in this groups's case it's worse: it wasn't even properly constituted at an open, public meeting so doesn't even meet the minimum for a residents' association. It remains a limited, largely self-appointed ad hoc block committee. Once again the city is abdicating its role to an clique of residents and city official who do not represent the community. 

Relevant information received is that a personal assistant of a mayco member, who lives nearby, requested the park upgrade in her personal capacity early August which was approved three weeks later. This is in the context of residents of a neighbouring working class suburb reportedly requesting the city that the field between it and Hanover Park be developed into a park and repeatedly being told there is no money and other citizen requests where the decision-making process is long.

On Monday Badroodien's liaison officer emailed they shall investigate my grievances. He has not put the project on hold as I requested. They are determined to follow and unlawful and irregular process. They and this group want to take shortcuts to proper community participation and are not learning from their mistakes. 

Therefore, I conclude they're deliberately following a political agenda in trying to force this through, the DA version of the ANC's handing out of food hampers before an election, the next municipal elections being next year.