A little known residents group is influencing the fast track development of a Cape Town neighbourhood recreational park that when complete will, I estimate, cost at minimum R3 million. The confirmed proposal for the 2020/21 financial year includes perimeter pathway, toddler track, exercise equipment and multipurpose courts. A service road was discussed as an option. (See here and here.)
What makes this project unusual is the park is next door to an unused city-owned multi-purpose sports complex and 600m away from another park that has the same facilities. The CSIR’s Guidelines for Provision of Social Facilities recommends neighbourhood parks be within a minimum 20 minute walk from each other.
The group calling itself a “residents’ association” was only formed on September 12 via a virtual annual general meeting with invited participants. It had previously been a neighbourhood block working committee. Emails I obtained show they had been in discussions with the city including the Parks and Recreation department, ward councillor and other senior officials since at least August.
My attempts to determine who their membership is beyond its two spokeswomen, which includes former controversial city politician Suzette Little, and what if any residential mandate they have were unsuccessful. They declined to elaborate except taking “offense” when I put it to them that they lack standing as representatives for the entire area. Residents including those adjacent to the park had never heard of them before.
It’s unclear and the city refused to say why they granted recognition to and consulted with members of a group that hadn’t even been formed and had no history of community involvement in that part of the suburb. Its core area of activity is about 2km away. Residents suspect in part it's due to the facilitation of the former mayco member Little. The group say she's only an advisor but she issued instructions to the city on behalf of the residents group about new park facilities.
I emailed these and other questions and concerns a number of times during September to community services mayco Zahid Badroodien, mayor Dan Plato and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo. There was no response.
Residents’ concerns about the proposed developments are it will significantly impact the immediate community and park’s existing users, greatly reduce its function and environmental, spatial and sustainability benefits. They, including households who lived there for decades, view it as unnecessary, wasteful and over-the-top, a vanity project especially given similar full facilities at nearby parks.
Another concern is the absence of public participation which is a constitutional requirement and explicitly mentioned in the Municipal Systems Act. A proper participation process includes: relevant, affected individuals and groups must be informed and given an opportunity to take part; participation must be engaging and meaningful, and feedback must be given afterwards to participants and community.
I repeatedly requested the city for information that shows how and from whom the proposal originated, assessments, engineering plans, budgets and council minutes. Despite senior official Christa Liebenberg on Friday September 18 promising, they were not produced. After having been “instructed” to do so, she also reluctantly undertook to initiate a public participation process and meeting for Wednesday September 30 but none of it happened.
But the residents group has access to the information. This proves residents’ complaints that the ward councillor “doesn’t care”, the process was opaque and absent and that there is an abdication of political and administrative functions to outside pressure and patronage just in time for the 2021 local elections. Residents say they don’t trust the city. The feelings were justified when a by invitation site meeting the group called on behalf of the city went ahead on the 18th attended by Liebenberg and ward councillor.
It’s unknown how the project started, but according to the ward councillor’s assistant in an email 28 August 2019, it was “identified for an upgrade”. It appears the city, councillor and ward committee made the decision but we don’t know if it was based on the city's assessment or community's request. This information would be in the documents I requested.
Apart from that there were two individual requests from local residents – one August 2019 and the other August 2020 – who live next to the park for “upgrades” that included bins. They, one of whom is a personal assistant to a mayco member, claimed they were unable or unwilling to use the park because it lacked facilities like a pathway, play equipment and were unsafe. Both moved to the area only recently.
However, the park is presently little used – almost never by them. The existing jungle gym and children’s slide are unused and were allowed to degrade. It's not maintained except for grass cutting which is not a specific area activity but city-wide contract. The upgrades make no sense.
It’s obvious no thought, study and planning – spatial, community needs, environmental and economic – went into the proposal. Part of it was arrived at via spontaneous, emotional, entitled and envious demands – the “we want one too” attitude – by a 1% minority including residents group, officials and councillor.
There is a misunderstanding or irrationality for the reasons for the so-called upgrades. One is that encouraging dozens of people and replicating a busy nearby park – the one 600m away which on a busy day resembles the Sea Point Promenade to scale – would mitigate the presently little litter, noise and alleged sexual acts they claim exists. They don’t say how this will happen because the city has never maintained the park and doesn’t have a management plan. More traffic means more of the things they complain about but they don’t see the causality.
In fact, in an email on August 14 Parks and Recreation’s Gerhard Lombard told the spokeswoman of the group there would be “possible overcrowding” after the facilities are constructed but “warning signs” can be erected, as if that deterred anyone.
Emails show during August the group stipulated “upgrade” instructions and requirements to Lombard about bins, benches, signs, removing thorns and the pathways, courts and equipment. He replied seeking their approval including for engineering designs, and requested their and the councillor's permission to install benches and bins. Liebenberg also asked the group for “feedback please” as if they are the clients and not city and local residents.
It’s extraordinary city officials are asking this group, who don't represent anyone except themselves, and a councillor for permission to proceed with a municipal task and not the city manager and his line managers. This violates the Municipal Finance Management Act and Public Finance Management Act.
Political interference in local government is a significant problem in the country. It's an offense and punishable by a fine or up to two years in prison (section 119 of the Municipal Systems Act).
Implicated officials have a lot to answer for but they’re not the only ones. The city manager, mayor and mayco for community services Zahid Badroodien were not unaware because for weeks I asked them to investigate. That they ignored the irregularities makes them negligent and liable too.
Or as always happens, did they look the other way thinking the problem would go away, or perhaps they didn't think it was irregular if not unlawful. Either way, their fitness for office is in question.
I notified the MEC for local government Anton Bredell, who ironically himself is no stranger to controversy and unlawfully pressurising a provincial government department, and auditor-general Kimi Makwetu to investigate within their remit.
I notified Independent Media's Community Newspapers when the story broke early September. Editor Chantel Erfort and a reporter Nabeelah Mohedeen said they'd take it up for the next issue but never did. The lead in one of their papers that week was about potholes.
What makes this project unusual is the park is next door to an unused city-owned multi-purpose sports complex and 600m away from another park that has the same facilities. The CSIR’s Guidelines for Provision of Social Facilities recommends neighbourhood parks be within a minimum 20 minute walk from each other.
The group calling itself a “residents’ association” was only formed on September 12 via a virtual annual general meeting with invited participants. It had previously been a neighbourhood block working committee. Emails I obtained show they had been in discussions with the city including the Parks and Recreation department, ward councillor and other senior officials since at least August.
My attempts to determine who their membership is beyond its two spokeswomen, which includes former controversial city politician Suzette Little, and what if any residential mandate they have were unsuccessful. They declined to elaborate except taking “offense” when I put it to them that they lack standing as representatives for the entire area. Residents including those adjacent to the park had never heard of them before.
It’s unclear and the city refused to say why they granted recognition to and consulted with members of a group that hadn’t even been formed and had no history of community involvement in that part of the suburb. Its core area of activity is about 2km away. Residents suspect in part it's due to the facilitation of the former mayco member Little. The group say she's only an advisor but she issued instructions to the city on behalf of the residents group about new park facilities.
I emailed these and other questions and concerns a number of times during September to community services mayco Zahid Badroodien, mayor Dan Plato and city manager Lungelo Mbandazayo. There was no response.
Residents’ concerns about the proposed developments are it will significantly impact the immediate community and park’s existing users, greatly reduce its function and environmental, spatial and sustainability benefits. They, including households who lived there for decades, view it as unnecessary, wasteful and over-the-top, a vanity project especially given similar full facilities at nearby parks.
Another concern is the absence of public participation which is a constitutional requirement and explicitly mentioned in the Municipal Systems Act. A proper participation process includes: relevant, affected individuals and groups must be informed and given an opportunity to take part; participation must be engaging and meaningful, and feedback must be given afterwards to participants and community.
I repeatedly requested the city for information that shows how and from whom the proposal originated, assessments, engineering plans, budgets and council minutes. Despite senior official Christa Liebenberg on Friday September 18 promising, they were not produced. After having been “instructed” to do so, she also reluctantly undertook to initiate a public participation process and meeting for Wednesday September 30 but none of it happened.
But the residents group has access to the information. This proves residents’ complaints that the ward councillor “doesn’t care”, the process was opaque and absent and that there is an abdication of political and administrative functions to outside pressure and patronage just in time for the 2021 local elections. Residents say they don’t trust the city. The feelings were justified when a by invitation site meeting the group called on behalf of the city went ahead on the 18th attended by Liebenberg and ward councillor.
It’s unknown how the project started, but according to the ward councillor’s assistant in an email 28 August 2019, it was “identified for an upgrade”. It appears the city, councillor and ward committee made the decision but we don’t know if it was based on the city's assessment or community's request. This information would be in the documents I requested.
Apart from that there were two individual requests from local residents – one August 2019 and the other August 2020 – who live next to the park for “upgrades” that included bins. They, one of whom is a personal assistant to a mayco member, claimed they were unable or unwilling to use the park because it lacked facilities like a pathway, play equipment and were unsafe. Both moved to the area only recently.
However, the park is presently little used – almost never by them. The existing jungle gym and children’s slide are unused and were allowed to degrade. It's not maintained except for grass cutting which is not a specific area activity but city-wide contract. The upgrades make no sense.
It’s obvious no thought, study and planning – spatial, community needs, environmental and economic – went into the proposal. Part of it was arrived at via spontaneous, emotional, entitled and envious demands – the “we want one too” attitude – by a 1% minority including residents group, officials and councillor.
There is a misunderstanding or irrationality for the reasons for the so-called upgrades. One is that encouraging dozens of people and replicating a busy nearby park – the one 600m away which on a busy day resembles the Sea Point Promenade to scale – would mitigate the presently little litter, noise and alleged sexual acts they claim exists. They don’t say how this will happen because the city has never maintained the park and doesn’t have a management plan. More traffic means more of the things they complain about but they don’t see the causality.
In fact, in an email on August 14 Parks and Recreation’s Gerhard Lombard told the spokeswoman of the group there would be “possible overcrowding” after the facilities are constructed but “warning signs” can be erected, as if that deterred anyone.
Emails show during August the group stipulated “upgrade” instructions and requirements to Lombard about bins, benches, signs, removing thorns and the pathways, courts and equipment. He replied seeking their approval including for engineering designs, and requested their and the councillor's permission to install benches and bins. Liebenberg also asked the group for “feedback please” as if they are the clients and not city and local residents.
It’s extraordinary city officials are asking this group, who don't represent anyone except themselves, and a councillor for permission to proceed with a municipal task and not the city manager and his line managers. This violates the Municipal Finance Management Act and Public Finance Management Act.
Political interference in local government is a significant problem in the country. It's an offense and punishable by a fine or up to two years in prison (section 119 of the Municipal Systems Act).
Implicated officials have a lot to answer for but they’re not the only ones. The city manager, mayor and mayco for community services Zahid Badroodien were not unaware because for weeks I asked them to investigate. That they ignored the irregularities makes them negligent and liable too.
Or as always happens, did they look the other way thinking the problem would go away, or perhaps they didn't think it was irregular if not unlawful. Either way, their fitness for office is in question.
I notified the MEC for local government Anton Bredell, who ironically himself is no stranger to controversy and unlawfully pressurising a provincial government department, and auditor-general Kimi Makwetu to investigate within their remit.
*
I notified Independent Media's Community Newspapers when the story broke early September. Editor Chantel Erfort and a reporter Nabeelah Mohedeen said they'd take it up for the next issue but never did. The lead in one of their papers that week was about potholes.
Comments
Post a Comment