Chair answer questions re subs

Hi Dennis

Firstly, CBRRA's cost involvement with the Blinkwater case preceded your matter by at least 2 years. You were clearly informed at the time that CBRRA could offer no financial assistance to the case you wished to pursue. However, you received total support from CBRRA by way of technical assistance, affidavits and its agreement to lend its name as co-applicant in the matter. You also indemnified the CBRRA against any adverse cost orders that may have arisen from the case.

The Harrison (Blinkwater) case has been debated and reported upon at length, both by Manco and at public meetings. There has been total transparency and as the financial obligations arise, they are dealt with and reported to the members of CBRRA.

Insofar as your reference to "protecting CBRRA (sic)" is concerned, let me comment as follows:
CBRRA encourages home owners to get involved in protecting themselves and the greater community against the abuses of the City's planning department. To this end, it will offer whatever resources it has at its disposal to assist in such matters - to the point of lending its considerable "moral high ground" status as a co-applicant in High Court applications (provided suitable financial guarantees are put in place to protect it from adverse cost-orders). The CBRRA is simply not in funds to finance such applications on its own, or even assist.

In your particular case, it was sad but not unusual that neighbours were quick to encourage but unwilling to financially assist in the matter. However, that said, the Court's decision to interdict the building works (and the latest offer by the owner to reduce the height of the building, by means of a servitude in your favour), is certainly very much to your personal advantage. In other words, your financial outlay has given you a positive result - which is only fair and right.

Btw, our co-applicant in the Harrison matter has had to pay out more money than your case cost - and that for no benefit at all, given what CBRRA's legal team considered a very unfair judgement and adverse costs order. However, he continues to provide his considerable legal services to the CBRRA on a voluntary basis.

Personally, I cannot reconcile the funding of a successful case in which you were a direct beneficiary, with a reluctance to pay annual subscriptions to a civic association that has supported you in your matter and continues to operate to the benefit of the community. But that is your choice.

As things stand, the Harrison case will be discussed at the next CBRRA public meeting. If you are a paid-up member, it will not only be your right to attend but you will be more than welcome to raise any issues that you feel pertinent.

Cheers

Chris Willemse



On 17 Apr 2013, at 2:48 PM, Dennis vd Westhuizen wrote:

Hi Chris

Thanks for your reply.

Based on what you have said and the zero financial help I have received from the very same organisation that defended Blinkwater, I cannot find my way to paying any subscriptions to CBRRA. My feeling is that I have spent a large sum of money protecting the CBRP and I have therefore indeed paid my share.

I trust that you will pass this email onto all of the members of the CBRRA. My question is under whose authority was the money spent on the Harrison case. Has this case ever been discussed in detail with all members of the CBRRA? Is this case completely transparent?

Can we put this subject and the costs thereof onto the next meeting and be 100% transparent with it? We need a full presentation of why this was taken on and why it was driven so far.

Apologies for my questions, however I feel a little left out in the cold.

Regards

Dennis



From: Chris Willemse [mailto:cnwillemse@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 April 2013 02:23 PM
To: Dennis vd Westhuizen
Subject: Re: Annual subscriptions

Hi Dennis

The CBRRA had a dedicated legal "war chest" (from previous successful litigations) when it opposed Harrison. This was used up during the case and other concerned residents (whom I can't name at their request) put up any shortfall. Insofar as the SCA and Concourt appeals are concerned, our co-litigant was responsible for these costs by mutual arrangement. Currently, there is a pending outstanding cost from Harrison of R75000, for which CBRRA has cover.

Insofar as any costs from the City are concerned, they have remained untaxed to date and we would rather just leave it as such.

Hope this helps.

Chris
CHAIRMAN: CBRRA



From: "Dennis vd Westhuizen"
Date: 17 April 2013
To:
Subject: Annual subscriptions

A question I have for you, who has paid for the legal costs at Blinkwater (Harrisons house)??????

Kind regards
Dennis van der Westhuizen
Tel: +27 (0)21 551 0575