Cape Town's mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis presents as a sincere, energetic officer, like Patricia de Lille before ennui and cynicism got the better of her. But he is a politician and indulges in politicians' hyperbole.
In his Daily Maverick op-ed ”Budget comparison confirms Cape Town delivers the most for the poor while offering ratepayers value for money”, he responds to criticism of the ”narrative the city - and by extension the party that governs it - only looks after some (read affluent) communities and doesn't do enough for the poor. Variations of this narrative are often trotted out without any substantiation, as though it were self-evidently true".
Hill-Lewis compares the budgets of South Africa's metros to find "Cape Town manages to outspend the other cities on pro-poor support and infrastructure for basic services while affording ratepayers by far the biggest bang for their rates and tariffs buck".
I'm not going to debate whether his/city's numbers-laden interpretation of the data is factual or not. I suspect, though, that as with most things politicians say, fact and alt-fact are mixed to present the "narrative" they want us to hear.
The allegation the DA-run city spends more on middle class and affluent areas is not new. It comes from the left and ANC. But that was also the case when the ANC ran the city and before 1994. So to single the DA out is unfair. It must rankle, though. They're sensitive to it particularly around elections because it plays to the allegation the DA serves mainly white interests. (Arguably, in part they do, especially since moving to the right. But that's an argument for another day.)
Concentrating on spending is a mistake because it's only part of the story of public investment. But it's one politicians would make because that's all they understand.
Gross figures - budgeted and actual - do not indicate if financial resources are used properly and efficiently or the objective quality of services provided, which no South African municipality can claim it faultlessly does (a clean audit, which Cape Town is so proud of, is neither a true nor only measure of good governance, nor does it give an opinion of management decision-making, however bad those might be). Not listed or hidden in financial statements are waste, inefficient and ineffective use of resources, one notable example being the exorbitant true annual cost of Cape Town Stadium.
So we should not accept Hill-Lewis' entire argument at face value.
No-one can fail to see the difference in quality of visible services of most of Cape Town's poor areas compared to affluent - parks, roads, sidewalks, cleansing. To be fair, this disparity exists throughout South Africa, and in most parts of the world.
Note Cape Town has always had a good level of service no matter which party ran it, before 1994 too. Before 1994, non-white areas under City of Cape Town were markedly better than that of the Divisional Council (it goes without saying, then as now white areas were always good). But unfortunately, today still many poor and working class areas, informal settlements excluded, while receiving basic services, appear little changed from pre-1994.
Hill-Lewis lists investment on bulk infrastructure - water, sanitation, electricity, MyCiti, housing and security - as proof of being pro-poor. This is specious. Except housing which is a joint national and municipal remit, as he said, infrastructure is literally municipalities' legal responsibility. But he twists the "narrative" to present it as if Cape Town's poorer residents are getting improved infrastructure, not as an essential service and constitutional right, but a nice-to-have optional extra out of the goodness of their hearts.
MyCiti's expansion to the Cape Flats is also misrepresented. The rapid bus transit system in Cape Town and other cities is part of government's transport strategy. It's paid for by the national department of transport so MyCiti - the city's version of the system is an expensive, elaborate politically motivated project - is not the DA's to own.
Hill-Lewis must be careful about bragging about MyCiti on the Cape Flats, though. The project was first rolled out to affluent white suburbs over a decade ago. He should rather explain why it's taken this long to take it to the poor parts of Cape Town where decent public transport is desperately needed. So too with bulk infrastructure, one could turn the argument around and ask him why poor areas are only now receiving upgrades - why do they have not already have the same level of service as affluent areas?
And while building a costly Rolls Royce model with "sky bridges” on the Cape Flats (when a modest one will do), they've had to cancel some routes in city centre, Table View and airport because they're unviable - too little demand. This indicates a problem with their modeling that I ascribe to overreach and overconfidence - hubris, a typical DA fault. This was the same fault that saw them almost catastrophically (for residents) misjudge 2017's water crisis (this event is never spoken of and its lessons appear forgotten).
Hill-Lewis says of all metros Cape Town's residents get the most value for money - " bang for their buck". This is debatable. His perception is based on only one part of the investment story - expenditure. What about what residents are paying?
The city charges monthly levies - "fixed basic charges” - for electricity (R185), water and sanitation (R65) and bin hire and refuse collection (R142) on top of consumption charges and rates. Either or all these levies are not universally applied at other municipalities.
Residents in suburbs with city improvement districts must pay an additional amount for cleansing services that by law is the city's responsibility. As noted, refuse collection is already included in the city's monthly rates invoice so they're charged twice for essentially the same service. I suspect in time they will levy solar installations which is why residents who have them must register.
The water levy - a "drought charge" - was introduced February 2018 during the water crisis supposedly as a short-term measure to encourage residents to use less water and help pay for emergency water programme. It started at R35 a month. But they kept it even when the drought was broken. Since then it's now an easy source of money.
Residents are unhappy about increases in municipal charges in general and complain the levies on water and electricity are unacceptable. This comes at a time when property owners around the country are complaining about increasing rates, much of it to cover metros' large wage bills. (Typically municipal employees receive above inflation increases.) Extras - levies/fixed charges - tacked onto high property rates negate Cape Town's increased income limit for indigent households. And they're contributing to making Cape Town one of South Africa's most expensive cities to live in, ranking 178th in the world in the 27th Mecer Cost of Living Survey, 2020 (Johannesburg 184th).
Infrastructure must be upgraded and expanded constantly to meet the needs of growing cities and urbanisation. To not do so has adverse economic, health and social consequences. So it's facile and disingenuous for Hill-Lewis - in fact, politicians of any party - to boast about merely doing their jobs. What's happening here again is politicians using taxpayer money to blow their own horns. The DA complained when the ANC used welfare grants and housing as an election ploy, correctly pointing out it was provided from public funds, not the ANC's. Now they're doing it.
Residents of the various cities, whichever party or parties run them, don't care about the level of service in other cities. We care about what we receive at home. So Hill-Lewis’ is not a real debate but political one-upmanship and a deliberate misrepresentation, or worse, a fundamental misunderstanding of the story and theory of infrastructure investment. He makes it sound as if it exists solely to serve political and governing party ends. He and DA are little different to their detractors, and he's just another campaigning politician scoring points against the opposition.
Thomas Johnson
Cape Town Resident
Comments
Post a Comment