This week I wrote how the City of Cape Town and a clique of
residents who don’t live nearby are pushing through unwanted and unneeded developments
– they call “upgrades” – to one of our neighbourhood’s recreational parks
that will forever vitiate its green, tranquil character. (See here.)
On Thursday I wrote again to mayco for community services
Zahid Badroodien because despite saying he will investigate the lack of
public participation and residents group – I'll refer to them by their initials BRRA – exceeding their authority and city permitting them to do so, that day the group sent a WhatApp
message on behalf of the city inviting recipients to a meeting yesterday. Either
he ignored me or doesn't know what staff and colleagues are
doing.
Yesterday in response to my latest email to him the senior
city official Christa Liebenberg involved in the proposal phoned. Peremptorily,
she said she was “instructed” to call, that I wanted “public participation”,
and "what do you want?"
Without waiting for my response, she said the ward councillor confirmed the park upgrade (their word) had been planned and discussed
at ward committee meetings for the past three years and the budget – note she meant but didn’t say for the entire ward – had been published
in community newspapers.
I was confused because BRRA, who also called themselves a “working
committee”, had taken charge in this process which the city facilitated. She reminded me since I had quoted the Municipal Systems Act before that ward
committees are established under the Municipal Structures Act. They act as
a “conduit” between city and citizens.
She said if the community doesn’t want the upgrade, the money won’t be
spent or it will go elsewhere.
But there was no sign of the ward committee in this proposal. Emails
I received a few weeks ago show
only city, BRRA and former city official Suzette
Little, whom the group say is only an advisor (but a
consultant who has an active part in developments), are involved. I don’t have
the inclination to check if ward committee members were involved.
It seems unlikely, though.
However, those emails and from two local residents who
support the project (they don’t use the park now and it’s unlikely they shall
in future even with upgrades) prove the project was requested (by one
of these residents and the spokeswoman of BRRA) and approved within a three week period in August 2020 to be included in the ward’s park upgrades for the 2020/21 financial year. The official said she’ll send the committee
minutes but I doubt they mention our park’s developments before
August this year; it's unlikely it was on the agenda at all.
The Friday meeting the group called for was at too short notice – twenty four hours only – and people are at work. This is not about what I want because neighbours too have problems with the developments. Also, public meetings cannot be advertised only via
WhatsApp, essentially a by-invitation platform. But she said that’s the way they do it proving they have little idea what
public participation means.
She suggested a meeting for Wednesday September 30
advertised in the community paper. We ended on that conciliatory note. I emailed confirming our discussion. I said it would be a waste of time and resources
to have a meeting only for our park. And since there are complaints
about parks in the community – a proposed skateboard reportedly forced upon
residents who are largely middle-aged and drug and alcohol trafficking and prostitution
in another the city is unable to do anything about – I proposed meeting be a
forum for issues and problems ward-wide.
I repeated my request, now the sixth time,
for project documents and plans I want before the meeting. These
plans are already available to BRRA and city officials. She replied
she will get back to me.
After the call, though, I looked at the city’s ward website.
It lists “current ward allocation projects” as “Upgrade parks: R250 000: In
progress”. Nothing about our park per se.
I take Liebenberg’s point ward committee/budget
information is advertised in local media (which I don't read), and her
implication we're responsible if we’re unaware of it. But it's valid too that for
developments that significantly and directly affect residents, communities must
be informed in a better and more effective way than turgid, nebulous and
uninformative entries in the minutes of run-of-the-mill meetings, i.e. “park upgrades”,
which few read.
Public participation is a direct and continuous process
that places an obligation on office bearers. After all, they ran for
office. If any ward committee representatives are from our community, they did
not keep most people informed about general and specific developments. They and
councillors must do their part. I acknowledge, though, the city as a whole
may not entirely be at fault if the message about local areas is not conveyed
to residents, and we could have done more personally to be informed about ward
developments.
The problem is most of these people – city and
residents’ groups and committees – see their responsibilities ending once they
attain office. They don’t or rarely effectively convey information to communities on whose behalf they’re acting. While communities are
responsible to keep themselves informed, the onus is on public representatives
to ensure the information they obtain first hand in various fora at all
levels of state are transmitted to citizens who elected them.
Liebenberg's, city/state's and most community representatives' misunderstanding of public participation and haughtiness is common. To them
community consultation is not two-way but only the minimum they feel like
sharing when they feel like it. Her remarks ward committee meetings are advertised, with
the barest information, though, is deemed enough for public consumption. But when, as
I’ve done about the park proposal and other times, ask for additional information and those not
in general circulation, we’re stonewalled.
In the park’s case, I want to know how general “park upgrades”
morphed into individual proposals: who proposed it and when;
motivation, based on what priority/needs, any impact study (unlikely) and
budget.
Yesterday afternoon at 3pm – four hours after our phone
conversation – a group of people and cars were congregated at the end of our
road at the park. There were about ten people including a curious neighbour on her way
out. This was the meeting BRRA sent the message
about that I refused to attend because it would acknowledge authority they
didn’t have.
I recognised Liebenberg talking at the centre, Davids on the
edge and one of the men associated with the group who visited me
last week.
So despite saying she and city want to hold a public
participation process, they went ahead with this ad hoc, private meeting called by an unrepresentative group who don't even live nearby.
They’re entitled to have as many meetings as they want, but it’s
not acceptable there’s a parallel process, one for public consumption and
the real one done in private by and for the
clique. I experienced this with the city before, ironically, with Liebenberg too.
Not for first time the community has been played, including
by Badroodien telling us what they think we want to hear. As I told Liebenberg
last week, I know they meet in private , discuss and resolve what is already agreed
upon and then present to the community the fait
accompli. They’ve been doing this from the start about the park but were caught out.
While the site meeting was happening, a neighbour called and
told me I had stirred a hornet’s nest. For now I’ll await their response. But I previously warned them I shall not be co-opted to an illegal and irregular process.
Motivation against park
upgrades (see my
post for the proposals)
In my family's and long-term neighbours' (50 years-plus) opinions,
the walking/cycle track and courts are excessive and unneeded and will spoil
the pleasant natural character of the park and why people like it. It
will also limit and impact on its use as an open recreational space for all
users including dog walkers. This is why we must see the architectural and
engineering site plans I requested before the meeting to assess its scope.
A modest number of equipment may be fine, but note the
existing "jungle gym" is not used and was rarely used since built 30
years ago and fell into disuse and was unmaintained for decades. Also, the park
is not maintained - in summer the grass shrivels and dies becoming sandy in
swathes - except for city-wide grass cutting. I don't foresee the city doing
better if it's upgraded, just a lot of money going to waste. And it may attract
the wrong element - drug use, vagrancy and prostitution the city is unable to
prevent - like the one in the area I heard complaints about last week.
Save Our Park!
Comments
Post a Comment