MyCiti Survey

HAVE YOUR SAY!

The City of Cape Town would like to thank you for your participation and valid input at the Public Participation meeting for Camps Bay proposal on the MyCiTi routes and services held on the 23 November 2011.

To ensure that we have conducted an effective public participation process and to identify areas for improvement, we would like extend an invitation to you for comments on that process.

We will appreciate it, if you could complete the attached survey ‹‹here››  and indicate how you think the City of Cape Town can improve on its public participation processes, tools and mechanisms. This will include your opinion on where the City of Cape Town has exceeded your expectations and failed to achieve your desired expectations.

Your input is of great importance to the development and establishment of an effective public participation communication plan as well as the management thereof. It will be appreciated if you could submit your comments by or before the Monday, 2 July 2012.

For any enquiries please do not hesitate to contact us:

Public Participation Unit
CITY OF CAPE TOWN
Tel: (021) 400 1450
Fax: (021) 400 1465
E-mail: Surveys@capetown.gov.za

Scenic Drives EESP report 02-2012

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On the 2^nd November 2010, the then PEPCO resolved to establish a Task Team to review the Scenic Route Policy (specifically the Scenic Drive Network Management Plan (referred to here as the SDNMP) and approved by Council in 2003), with the following brief:

·      A review of the policy.

·      The re-evaluation of the Scenic Routes

·      Defining the envelope of each scenic route

·      The formulation of guidelines for evaluating development applications for properties within a scenic route envelope.

Refer to Annexure A for a copy of the report and resolution.

The establishment of the Task Team has not occurred to date.

An interdepartmental appraisal of the SDNMP has subsequently been undertaken. This appraisal produced a list of existing scenic routes that need policy review; a list of routes that were omitted from the SDNMP; as well as input regarding more general aspects of the SDNMP.

There is a need for clearer and defensible guidelines to manage development and other interventions within scenic route envelopes and corridors. 

Due to the magnitude of the review required, tasks have been prioritized into phases of work to be undertaken over an extended time frame, taking into consideration staff constraints and a limited consultant’s budget.   

This report proposes that a Task Team be set up; and that the review of the SDNMP is initiated with the Phase 1 work, detailed in the terms of reference, attached as Annexure B.  

Please find the full document on the Scenic Drives EESP report ‹‹here››

ANNEXURE B

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER

REVIEW OF THE SCENIC DRIVES NETWORK MANAGEMENT PLAN

1.  INTRODUCTION

Scenic routes are defined as public roads that traverse areas of outstanding scenic quality or that provide a view of scenic areas. Scenic routes facilitate appreciation of Cape Town’s natural, built and cultural heritage, and are attractions in their own right (eg. Baden Powell Drive) and / or provide connections between major tourist destinations (eg. between Cape point and Kirstenbosch Gardens). Scenic routes have a direct impact on Cape Town’s tourism industry of which the economic value was estimated to be R 17 bln in 2009.

Currently the City of Cape Town has three spatial planning documents for Scenic Routes:

·            Scenic Drive Network Analysis  Vol  1 ( October 1998)

·            Scenic Drive Network: Volume 2: Route Description and Analysis (October 1998)

·            Scenic Drive Network Management Plan: Volume 3 (May 2003). (referred to as the SDNMP)

Please find the full document Annexure B to EESP Report ‹‹here››


SCENIC DRIVE SPECIAL AREAS

92. The provision of this Chapter shall apply to all sites within the areas specified therein in addition to the general provisions of the Scheme set out elsewhere in these Scheme Regulations, and in the event of any provision of this Chapter and a general provision prescribing different requirements in respect of the same matter the more restrictive provision shall apply unless specifically otherwise provided in the section concerned.

Please find the full document Scenic Drive Special Areas ‹‹here››


REPORT TO ALL SCENIC DRIVE SKY BRIDGES POLICY

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Sky Bridges Policy to all Subcouncils for councillors to note the contents thereof and to comment thereon.

Please find the full Report to All Scenic Drive Sky Bridges Policy ‹‹here››


DRAFT SKY BRIDGE POLICY 


Please find the full Draft Sky Bridge Policy ‹‹here››

Comments on "Opening up the Democratic Space"

MEMORANDUM

         To :  The Executive Committee of the Greater Cape Town Civic alliancw

          From : The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Assocation (CBRRA)

          Date : 3 June 2012
                                                                    _________________________________________________________________


COMMENTS ON "OPENING UP THE DEMOCRATIC SPACE" BY  PHILIP BAM

The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association has  perused Philip Bam’s paper entitled “Opening Up The Democratic Space” and has the  following responses :

1.     The essence of  this discussion paper is whether the GCTCA should enter the political field  notwithstanding its constitution which clearly states as follows:

“Para 2.    The Alliance shall be a  voluntary association which represents residents, ratepayers, civics and other  interest groups within Cape Town, that are concerned with matters of  government and are not aligned to any political party or other party  political structure with a separate existence from their constituent  members.

Para.6      The members of The  Alliance shall be non party politically aligned associations comprising  ratepayers, tenants or residents, civics associations or other bodies  constituted for similar purposes, with aims or objects in line with those of  the Alliance (and which are not members of any other regional or national body  with aims or objects conflicting with those of The Alliance ...........)
   
Para. 10.10       Any public officer bearer shall not be eligible  for GCTCA office”


2.     In stark terms, for example, should at present a member  association wish to enter politics in any manner or should any member of the GCTCA Executive  Committee wish to stand for office as a City Councillor, it or they must  resign from the GCTCA before participating in a municipal election for any particular political party or standing as individual independent candidates.


3.      The imperfections of the current situations existing  in local government are well and eloquently stated in the discussion paper.  However, the recommendations on the final page cause concern because they are  not complete, have not been thought through to their logical conclusions and  leave various issues unaddressed.


4.       In simple terms, the document proposes to maintain the  GCTCA an an entity which  will remain unaltered from what it is at present.   This is correct and does not give any cause for concern.


5.       But then it is suggested that the GCTCA  encourages  “the formation of a civil society group that can easily  develop the stature and public branding to be an alternative voice – to be  named the “Independent Civil Alliance” (ICA).  So far so good.  But  what is it going to be doing and how is it going to easily develop and  acquire this stature and public branding  ?  In what manner is it proposed that the GCTCA “encourages” the formation of such a body without itself being seen to be actively entering into the political arena ?


6.      Without actually saying so, it  is suggested that members of this proposed ICA , separately and / or  together, put  themselves forward as “independent” candidates at the next municipal elections for election  as City Councillors.


7.       It is not clear how the ICA will be able to  select which of its candidates will be elected as specific constituency  Councillors or Councillors on a proportional list.   How will the  existing municipal parliamentary structures respond to or recognise this  entity of so-called non-party-political loosely associated candidates who will simultaneously somehow deny being a political party?!  Will they recognise the ICA as being  eligible for proportional Councillors ?   It seems that the ICA will want all the advantages of being a political  party in order to be able to act within the present political system, but, at the same  time , will want to have all its perceived advantages which it claims it will  have by actually not being a political party in terms of its own attitudes.    Simply, will the system buy into this concept ?   More  importantly, will the public buy this concept and support it ? CBRRA doubts this.


8.       A distinct difference between this proposed  entity and the present party system is that all the autonomous candidates will be  given free reign over what they say they are going to do or stand for in the  specific absence of a party caucus, which is being looked upon as an  advantage.  Each and every elected ICA Councillor can say exactly say  what he or she wishes during the election process and after election in  Council.  They may even be contradicting each other at times  !


9.      Whereas each candidate will  undoubtedly have a real sense of freedom and independence, all the trappings  of a political party will have to be incorporated if this group wishes to work  together for any particular reasons.  Ie. Meetings and mission statements  will have to be  organised, publicity and campaigning costs will be considerable, money raising  campaigns will have to be organised, public statements will have to be  arranged and co-ordinated and ongoing public relations will need to be organised  to keep the ICA in the public’s mind.  Unless the ICA Councillors consult with  each other from time to time to exchange views and  agree matters of common interest and policy  (how different is this from  a caucus ?), the proposed ICA  will surely  lose momentum and purpose.


10.     Other than  the proposed “free-conscience vote in Council”  and the proposed “recall  contract with the community”(which it is doubted any candidate will sign and  will be difficult to implement) all the other points included in paragraphs A  and B on the last page  of the discussion document are being done by the existing political parties anyhow to an admittedly  greater or lesser efficient degree.  How will  the public know whether the ICA will execute these actions any better ?


11.      Many years ago, there was no  political system upholding local municipal government, and certainly all  Councillors (mostly part - timers with their own  separate careers) had total autonomy as to how they acted and what they said.   In those days, the Council was a much smaller  business to run, and CBRRA is of the opinion that the proposed injection of  free-conscience Councillors will not necessarily have the assured effect of  or capacity to  transforming the present huge municipal government system into a more efficient entity.


12.      CBRRA  is rather of the opinion that better  candidates should be found to stand as Councillors, (there are still too many  relics of the old National Party system in office) and much more importantly, the regrettable  schism between Councillors and Council Officials must be eliminated completely,  because it considers that this is the main cause for inefficiencies and  malfunctions in the local government system at present.  Inefficient and  inconsistent Officials who cannot properly interpret their own regulations,  dominate and mislead the Politicians, the very people who employ them and to  whom they report are the real problems of the City Council and nothing will  improve until this problem is completely sorted out.


13,     If individual members of GCTCA wish to  stand as Councillors in the next municipal elections, they must feel free to  do so and finance and run their own election campaign and understand that they  will have to give up their own business / profession because being a  Councillor is a very busy full-time career which cannot carry part – timers  who cannot give their position their full attention. Councillors who are  so-called part timers will tell you that they are very pressurised in their  normal jobs by the time taken up by them to be Councillors in any capacity.


14.     Notwithstanding the above comments, CBRRA is of the opinion that, of course, any persons who wish to stand for public office must do so and resign from the GCTCA.  There is nothing to stop them spontaneously and independently organising and promoting a political entity such as the abovementioned ICA on their own, should they feel that it will be in their interests. However, CBRRA is strongly opposed to the present GCTCA encouraging, organising, assisting, financing  or publicising their efforts to do so in any manner.  By doing this, the GCTCA will be acting directly against the above clauses contained in its constitution, in terms of which it is specifically prevented from doing so.  By doing so it will be , in effect, surreptitiously participating in a political system without admitting that it is doing so, which act will be deceptive in the public’s and the authorities’ eyes.


15.     Accordingly, CBRRA does not consider  that the proposals contained in the discussion document will solve the well-stated  problems which it highlights in its first part leading up to its suggested  solution and strongly encourages the GCTCA to stay as it is presently  structured and abandon any participation in the formation of the suggested ICA.


Chris Willemse
Chairperson CBRRA

John Powell
Vice Chairperson CBRRA
Exco Member GCTCA

3 June 2012