City implicated in forged petition signature.
This is an update on the controversial park development that will, if completed, cost at least R3 million. Cape Town City is forcing through “upgrades” despite not having followed a public participation process and appears to be enthralled by a previously unknown residents' group.
However, for months the city and ward councillor had discussions and joined forces with this unrepresentative group that was only “officially” formed on September 18 at a by-invitation only inaugural AGM on Google Meets. They are affiliated with former controversial city politician Suzettte Little (she was investigated for misconduct) who they say is an “advisor” but in reality has taken an active role in developments.
Neither of the group’s members lives nearby. It’s a mystery why they're taking an interest in and concerned with what’s happening here when parks in their own area have problems of alleged drug taking, prostitution and vagrancy which ours doesn’t. They complained the city ignored or are unable to do anything about it (the city doesn’t police parks and parks are generally neglected). It seems to us they want to export their problems here. (See here, here and here for the story.)
On the afternoon of Friday October 9 a contractor moved on site for the reportedly (since this broke the city has placed an embargo information to me but the group has full access to plans) first phase – a section of pathway. When that day I asked among others Mayor Dan Plato for an explanation, his executive assistant Jennifer Geduld replied that a public meeting was held the previous week where the project had been “overwhelmingly approved”. I also requested information about the developments I’d been asking for throughout September. She referred my questions to the ward councillor (DA) who again didn't respond.
On the afternoon of Friday October 9 a contractor moved on site for the reportedly (since this broke the city has placed an embargo information to me but the group has full access to plans) first phase – a section of pathway. When that day I asked among others Mayor Dan Plato for an explanation, his executive assistant Jennifer Geduld replied that a public meeting was held the previous week where the project had been “overwhelmingly approved”. I also requested information about the developments I’d been asking for throughout September. She referred my questions to the ward councillor (DA) who again didn't respond.
(The contractor worked the weekend and until 10pm Monday the 12th. We couldn't understand what the rush was when a pathway at another park in the neighbouring suburb took weeks and months. I speculated it was because I told the city I was going to get legal advice and they wanted to get the pathway done before they were perhaps interdicted.)
I was not informed of the meeting despite the city's Christa Liebenberg telling me on September 18 they will “revert” to me soon about a hopefully genuine public participation process and information I had requested – the record of decision. The city never contacted me again except for Geduld's too late response, and in turn, I never heard from her again.
I asked neighbours if they were aware of the meeting. One hadn't. She also said a woman, who I identified as a leader and spokeswoman of the residents' group, had the previous week brought a petition in favour of the developments. Our neighbour wrote she was against it because of its potential negative impact (no impact and needs assessment were done).
She said my name was on the petition too, against. Another neighbour who had seen the petition confirmed this. This was surprise because no one had approached me and my family or with it or a meeting. Coincidentally, as we spoke the residents' group's putative leader drove past. She was hailed, and when I asked about the events, she gave me the fingers and drove off, muttering “there was a petition”.
The city’s executive – Plato, mayco for community services Zahid Badroodien and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo – did not heed my appeals despite saying they would investigate my “grievances”, if proven allegations of irregularities can be called that. They co-opted an unknown community group as their shock troops (or the group co-opted them) to a decision that was made a year ago, probably for political benefit in time for 2021’s local government elections. Probably the quid pro quo is this group endorsement for the DA's ward candidate. Little's involvement is no coincidence.
A petition is really lobbying, forum shopping. It's a plea to those in power and authority for a course of action including maintaining the status quo. Generally, though, it's against something, rarely for it. It doesn’t explore all sides objectively and rarely fully. It records the opinions of people who have already made up their minds, who might lack full information or are given false or incomplete information by the organisers. Alone without the process of full consultation, it’s unreliable and doesn’t meaningfully explore the issue.
It’s unheard of for a councillor and municipality, of all things, to sponsor a petition to perform or not perform municipal work or a project. They have other ways of dealing with opposition like ignoring it as they’ve done us about this matter. This alone raises questions about the motives of its organisers and sponsors.
While useful to gauge a community’s attitudes and feelings, a petition has little weight with and in the proper public participation process and policy. It’s not mentioned in legislation per se. I don’t expect the residents’ group knows anything about the practice and legal framework of community consultation but the city ought to know better.
From the outset only certain residents, specifically the group, ward councillor and city officials have been involved. They have a vested political interest in pushing the agenda. The public approached on spec were fed a one-sided account – the alleged bells and whistles and benefit to community – and went along without hearing the other side and objectively applying their minds to the issues. The meeting was likely filled with the same people. Proof is those who opposed the agenda were not informed of the meeting where they could speak and argue against.
Last week I had to take the wasteful but necessary step of hiring an attorney to represent our interests and to challenge cynical, bad and corrupt governance, which the DA often are also guilty of. I informed Makwetu and Premier Alan Winde of my blog post “On clean audits and good governance” and why DA administrations including WC and Cape Town are not well-run in all aspects. I referred to this controversy.
I’d like to say they appreciate what good governance is and what is needed to ensure it but I know they wouldclaim, as Makwetu did to me about a previous city matter (Cape Town Stadium) and WC Health Department, it’s “beyond my scope”.
I was not informed of the meeting despite the city's Christa Liebenberg telling me on September 18 they will “revert” to me soon about a hopefully genuine public participation process and information I had requested – the record of decision. The city never contacted me again except for Geduld's too late response, and in turn, I never heard from her again.
I asked neighbours if they were aware of the meeting. One hadn't. She also said a woman, who I identified as a leader and spokeswoman of the residents' group, had the previous week brought a petition in favour of the developments. Our neighbour wrote she was against it because of its potential negative impact (no impact and needs assessment were done).
She said my name was on the petition too, against. Another neighbour who had seen the petition confirmed this. This was surprise because no one had approached me and my family or with it or a meeting. Coincidentally, as we spoke the residents' group's putative leader drove past. She was hailed, and when I asked about the events, she gave me the fingers and drove off, muttering “there was a petition”.
Another neighbour had not seen the petition, which indicates it wasn't taken to everyone, just as only a small number were informed of the meeting (there were no notices in community papers or flyers in public places about it).
Further enquiries among neighbours indicate of the numerous households in the immediate area, never mind in a wider radius, only four were informed and attended the meeting. Notices were put in their letterboxes. They all happened to approve the developments, although two are on record as being unhappy with the lack of participation and that unknown people are making decisions for us who are directly affected. Apparently only those who supported the “upgrades” were informed.
Further enquiries among neighbours indicate of the numerous households in the immediate area, never mind in a wider radius, only four were informed and attended the meeting. Notices were put in their letterboxes. They all happened to approve the developments, although two are on record as being unhappy with the lack of participation and that unknown people are making decisions for us who are directly affected. Apparently only those who supported the “upgrades” were informed.
I've said all along the process must take into account the community’s requirements, needs and priorities based on the city’s Integrated Development Plan. If they still decide they want the project, or none or part of what is proposed, then that is what it shall be subject to available resources. This is a rational exercise not emotional and political as this and many citys-driven developments are.
Clearly this is a vanity project for the ward councillor and his hangers on while the city's core duties are being neglected and other areas in the ward are going without or have problems the city ignores.
The city’s executive – Plato, mayco for community services Zahid Badroodien and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo – did not heed my appeals despite saying they would investigate my “grievances”, if proven allegations of irregularities can be called that. They co-opted an unknown community group as their shock troops (or the group co-opted them) to a decision that was made a year ago, probably for political benefit in time for 2021’s local government elections. Probably the quid pro quo is this group endorsement for the DA's ward candidate. Little's involvement is no coincidence.
The city approved the project before the meeting in consultation only with the residents' group. The by-invitation only public meeting attended by a small number of people rubber stamped the fait accompli decision to give it the pretence of legality. The group was either the tool, or as evidence shows, part of the clique with ward councillor and various city officials. And because the mayor and other executives ignored the problems when I informed them, they too are culpable.
As with many city (and government) projects, participation is not valid when decisions are made a long time before in private, decision-makers withholding information and excluding the public. But as I told the city, I would not be part of and thereby give legitimacy to an unlawful process. They don't care. It’s expedient for the DA to ignore good governance, which they claim they always follow.
About the petition, I suspect it was created in response to my two flyers, the last on September 26. In them I motivate why the developments are unwise and unneeded. Nevertheless I appealed to the city for a proper public participation process as required by the Constitution and Municipal System Act, neither of which they, councillor and resident group obeyed. It’s unlikely, though, the group are even aware of the law on community consultation.
The petition was presented to the city and councillor as the purported decision of the community. It was the alleged basis, with the alleged overwhelming public support at the meeting, for the city to proceed with the development's first phase. However, the contractor started work one week after the meeting. Anyone familiar with how contracts and especially government contracts work know it went out to tender and was awarded months ago (I've asked for details. No response.)
The petition was presented to the city and councillor as the purported decision of the community. It was the alleged basis, with the alleged overwhelming public support at the meeting, for the city to proceed with the development's first phase. However, the contractor started work one week after the meeting. Anyone familiar with how contracts and especially government contracts work know it went out to tender and was awarded months ago (I've asked for details. No response.)
We don’t know why the residents’ group, ward councillor and city initiated the petition for the project except to counter our vocal concerns about the irregular process that excluded public participation and valid concerns about the development's impact, which a city technician noted is very possible, or likely given other parks' experiences which ours has so far escaped.
A petition is really lobbying, forum shopping. It's a plea to those in power and authority for a course of action including maintaining the status quo. Generally, though, it's against something, rarely for it. It doesn’t explore all sides objectively and rarely fully. It records the opinions of people who have already made up their minds, who might lack full information or are given false or incomplete information by the organisers. Alone without the process of full consultation, it’s unreliable and doesn’t meaningfully explore the issue.
It’s unheard of for a councillor and municipality, of all things, to sponsor a petition to perform or not perform municipal work or a project. They have other ways of dealing with opposition like ignoring it as they’ve done us about this matter. This alone raises questions about the motives of its organisers and sponsors.
While useful to gauge a community’s attitudes and feelings, a petition has little weight with and in the proper public participation process and policy. It’s not mentioned in legislation per se. I don’t expect the residents’ group knows anything about the practice and legal framework of community consultation but the city ought to know better.
The majority – 99% – of our neighbourhood never got the chance to add our names to the petition, even if it was against. Neither were we informed of the meeting where the project was allegedly “approved” and given an opportunity to gather and present an opposing view.
It is likely the organisers went to their friends and family and a few others and rallied them, in effect, a form of bussing in numbers. I asked Geduld of the mayor's office how many people were approached in the neighbourhood of 1 000 households. Note the park is a neighbourhood park not for the exclusive use of local residents so all households within a 20 minute walking distance ought to have been informed about the developments and given an opportunity to participate in the process. (The CSIR’s Guidelines for the Provision of Social Facilities recommends neighbourhood parks with similar facilities should be not less than 20 minute walk away.)
It is likely the organisers went to their friends and family and a few others and rallied them, in effect, a form of bussing in numbers. I asked Geduld of the mayor's office how many people were approached in the neighbourhood of 1 000 households. Note the park is a neighbourhood park not for the exclusive use of local residents so all households within a 20 minute walking distance ought to have been informed about the developments and given an opportunity to participate in the process. (The CSIR’s Guidelines for the Provision of Social Facilities recommends neighbourhood parks with similar facilities should be not less than 20 minute walk away.)
For reasons described a petition is not representative of the community; it’s not a statistically representative survey of a population’s attitudes. Most residents don’t care about the park, or any community event for that matter, a common feature of urban life. Most local residents presently don't use the park, including those who live adjacent to it (my household does, everyday). Even if completed as proposed, most people won’t use it. The first phase – a section of pathway – that was completed over a week ago is hardly used, including by those who wanted it.
From the outset only certain residents, specifically the group, ward councillor and city officials have been involved. They have a vested political interest in pushing the agenda. The public approached on spec were fed a one-sided account – the alleged bells and whistles and benefit to community – and went along without hearing the other side and objectively applying their minds to the issues. The meeting was likely filled with the same people. Proof is those who opposed the agenda were not informed of the meeting where they could speak and argue against.
Further, since contractors had already been appointed, the outcome was always going to the same: the project proceeds. The petition and meeting and process were a sham. There was no public participation.
It’s unlawful that the city and its officers, who are supposed to be nominally objective and represent the entire community, whatever the issue, went along with the farce and accepted the falsely obtained outcome. They abandoned legality and are captive to the group for political patronage.
Geduld referred my questions to the ward councillor. He must have been aware I was not informed of the meeting and not presented with the petition; he and the group, which even irregularly issued instructions to the city to perform work, have been in close communication about the park.
It's worrying and an indication of how low the city and their puppets (or puppet masters as the case may be) were prepared to go that my name was put on a petition without my knowledge. Signing another’s name without that person’s power of attorney or consent is fraud especially if used for official purposes or to gain material advantage. A petition must be completed by the petitioner himself.
In representations to the city I stated my motivation against the plans but said I wanted a proper public participation process whatever the eventual outcome. My name fraudulently inserted on a document that has official weight and absence from the meeting where it was accepted tells the unaware I was against both the proposal and participation. The latter is defamatory.
Whoever put my name on the petition committed fraud, forgery or misrepresentation. And city officials and councillors who accepted it knowing I did not or could not have entered my name are culpable too, perhaps for criminal defamation. The petition is a public document. I asked Geduld for it and other documents but haven’t received them.
A month ago I copied auditor-general Kimi Makwetu and MEC for local government Anton Bredell my letter to the city in which I asked them to investigate. There was no reply. The city’s response, though, was defiantly to go ahead with a rubber stamped petition and meeting of which I and 99% of residents were not aware, their modus operandi in these things.
It’s unlawful that the city and its officers, who are supposed to be nominally objective and represent the entire community, whatever the issue, went along with the farce and accepted the falsely obtained outcome. They abandoned legality and are captive to the group for political patronage.
Geduld referred my questions to the ward councillor. He must have been aware I was not informed of the meeting and not presented with the petition; he and the group, which even irregularly issued instructions to the city to perform work, have been in close communication about the park.
It's worrying and an indication of how low the city and their puppets (or puppet masters as the case may be) were prepared to go that my name was put on a petition without my knowledge. Signing another’s name without that person’s power of attorney or consent is fraud especially if used for official purposes or to gain material advantage. A petition must be completed by the petitioner himself.
In representations to the city I stated my motivation against the plans but said I wanted a proper public participation process whatever the eventual outcome. My name fraudulently inserted on a document that has official weight and absence from the meeting where it was accepted tells the unaware I was against both the proposal and participation. The latter is defamatory.
Whoever put my name on the petition committed fraud, forgery or misrepresentation. And city officials and councillors who accepted it knowing I did not or could not have entered my name are culpable too, perhaps for criminal defamation. The petition is a public document. I asked Geduld for it and other documents but haven’t received them.
A month ago I copied auditor-general Kimi Makwetu and MEC for local government Anton Bredell my letter to the city in which I asked them to investigate. There was no reply. The city’s response, though, was defiantly to go ahead with a rubber stamped petition and meeting of which I and 99% of residents were not aware, their modus operandi in these things.
Last week I had to take the wasteful but necessary step of hiring an attorney to represent our interests and to challenge cynical, bad and corrupt governance, which the DA often are also guilty of. I informed Makwetu and Premier Alan Winde of my blog post “On clean audits and good governance” and why DA administrations including WC and Cape Town are not well-run in all aspects. I referred to this controversy.
I’d like to say they appreciate what good governance is and what is needed to ensure it but I know they wouldclaim, as Makwetu did to me about a previous city matter (Cape Town Stadium) and WC Health Department, it’s “beyond my scope”.
Comments
Post a Comment