From: Chris Willemse
Subject: Re: Bowling Cub
Date: 03 September 2015 at 7:37:14 PM SAST
To: Adrian Funkey
Cc: ...
Hi Adrian
I think that you have missed the point here. The CBRRA has a civic responsibility to inform the community of pertinent matters affecting it.
The CBRRA Manco is not a reactionary group of "nimby's" but a diverse committee of mainly professional people and others who are successful in thier fields. This committee is in constant contact with other civic groupings (from the entire metropolitan area of CT) and professional practitioners who deal with local government. As such, the CBRRA Manco has built up an incredible and diverse institutional knowledge bank.
It is against this background that you must judge the CBRRA and its comments on the City. Although the report you refer to was specific to the CBBC/CBPS matter, the problems that ALL civic groupings (from Camps Bay to Lotus River and Constantia to Mitchells Plain) are struggling with in CT were again prevalent in this matter: The City is effectively run, insofar as property, land rights and development planning is concerned, as a private DA fiefdom - to be used as a cash cow to benefit the development industry, which in turn sponsors the DA party coffers. This is simply a cold, hard fact.
In the CBBC/CBPS matter, the Mayor, through her Mayco committee and caucus whip, forced the DA councillors to vote for a decision that was clearly ultra vires, in that she was attempting to change a prior decision which rendered it functus officio. The City legal advisors and planners use this legal doctrine on a daily basis to ward off attacks against flawed decsions which the City routinely make and therefore are very familiar with this legal principle. There were many other aspects of the City's decision that rendered it fatally flawed but this is contained in the judgement and it is totally unacceptable that the City wastes taxpayers money on such patent illegalities. So it is not really a case of a fair fight with a result with which we all live, as you suggest. This is a case of a City abusing its power to reach a conclusion that doesn't favour the school or the community - and certainly not the bowling club - but rather accelerates its true intention, which is to rezone the land to educational/business and then have no problem in disposing of the land for financial gain at the end of the school's non-renewable lease. Sandy and Michele were alert to this at the time of the City insisting on a non-renewable lease and I'm surprised that the school seems to have taken a more narrow view recently, if that is indeed the case.
I'm afraid that it is the policy of the DA (on its own version, if you listen to its senior members - although, predictably, never contained in the manifesto's before elections) to use any asset to boost the City's coffers and land is a great asset when your major backers are developers. Sadly, most of this is spent on a bloated salary bill so really doesn't assist with service delivery. It would be naive to expect that the soccer club, tennis courts etc are not next in line for expropriation. The CBRRA sees, and opposes, many development proposals that will simply destroy the very special fabric of Camps Bay - which can never be regained, once gone. The proposed Clifton development is a case in point, where the Mayor is riding roughshod over due process to achieve an outcome that will benefit a few rich developers and DA party funds - with incredible and irreparable damage to our environment and amenities.
Therefore the CBRRA has a major role to play in ensuring that short term political agendas do not destroy our heritage.
The CBRRA remains, as stated, committed to the shared option but is not in the position to be prescriptive. It will continue to encourage both parties to be realistic and flexible, as this is, in its opinion, the only way in which the City can be persuaded to see reason and offer a sustainable lease that allows both the CBBC and the CBPS to effectively exist and move forward. Insofar as the meeting with Minister Schafer is concerned, the embarrasment was more that it was her office that called the meeting based on the 2012 proposal, which was in the WCED's papers before the Court. This left everyone puzzled.
Personally, I will continue to strive for the goals of the CBRRA and as long as I'm its chair, will do so on as equitable basis as possible.
Given the important nature of this correspondence, I've taken the liberty of a wider distribution than your original e-mail.
Cheers
Chris
On 02 Sep 2015, at 10:49 AM, Adrian Funkey wrote:
Hi Chris
I hope you are well.
I have just seen the CBRA newsletter and was rather disappointed at the criticism of the City. I also think your comments on the pursuit of a shared solution do not accurately portray the true state of affairs. I believe it is essential as an association for the benefit of the rate payers living and working in Camps Bay that any comment by your organisation should be balanced and fair to all parties. You and I both know that there was a seriously embarrassing changing of the goal posts by the Bowling Club with the removal of Ken who managed to achieve what was not possible for many years before, namely to establish cordial fair and good faith relations with the school and a concerted bid to achieve a shared option. He presented plans in your presence which reflected this approach. The only problem areas were the one green and the issue around liquor which we both agree were manageable.
I was seriously hoping that you as a representative of the Camps Bay rate paying community of which I am one, would have been more balanced in your newsletter given the events over the past year and these great strides we made with Ken.
Criticising the City is also in my view counter productive. You and I both know that the PAJA is a very difficult obligation to fulfil and that sometimes with the best intentions mistakes get made. The City has a responsibility to balance the needs of the whole community and therefore should not in my view have been criticised in this way. On objective decision was made I believe fairly that Education is a constitutional priority for a country such as ours and while I would not wish to down play the importance of sports and recreation, a society such as ours does not have the luxury of unlimited resources. Choices have to be made and sometimes hard choices.
The City lost their case. It was a fair hearing. No complaining. The judge awarded costs. Fair game to everyone. It is in my view wholly unnecessary to add fuel to the fire through this criticism by the Camps Bay Rate Payers Association.
I want to find out from you Chris, having been directly involved in the negotiations with Ken, that you will going forward play a truly impartial and fair role. You of all people have the benefit of seeing the big picture and have a potentially hugely constructive role to play to achieve a good outcome for all concerned.
The newsletter was not in my view a good way of going about this.
On another important matter I wanted to find out whether you have responded to the Heritage Impact Assessment yet.
Yours sincerely
Adrian
No comments:
Post a Comment