SPEECH BY THE CITY’S EXECUTIVE MAYOR, PATRICIA DE LILLE, AT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON 19 AUGUST 2015

19 AUGUST 2015
SPEECH BY THE CITY’S EXECUTIVE MAYOR, PATRICIA DE LILLE, AT THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON 19 AUGUST 2015

I would like to ask for a moment’s silence for the people who lost their lives in the plane crash this past Sunday.

Thank you.

Good morning, goeie môre, molweni, as-salaam alaikum, shalom.

Mr Speaker, as you know, we have placed a great emphasis on building communities that are fully integrated into the city.

Like every other South African city, we have a difficult spatial legacy to overcome, including the legacy of apartheid housing projects, such as our housing rental stock.

We have reconsidered the future of housing rental stock and the role that people can play in our society as property owners who are fully empowered with assets at their disposal.

At the same time, we must consider our own role in the provision of housing rental stock and how best we can serve the need for rental space in Cape Town.

Even amidst all of these considerations, we undertook the upgrade of many housing rental units in the city – a first for the country.

It is thus with much pride that the City of Cape Town has been lauded by the National Department of Human Settlements for its continual efforts to improve the lives of its vulnerable residents.

The City’s Community Residential Unit Refurbishment Project in Kewtown, in the Athlone area, has received a Govan Mbeki Award in the category for the Best Community Residential Unit Project in the country.

The Kewtown project forms part of the City’s Community Residential Unit (CRU) Refurbishment Programme which has been implemented across the city in an effort to improve the living conditions of residents.

This programme has been the first in South Africa to be implemented on such a large scale and has comprised the upgrade of more than 7 500 CRUs which are situated in some of the most volatile areas in the city.

The Kewtown project itself has entailed the upgrade of 320 units.

I think that this is cause for celebration.

I must especially commend the National Minister for Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu.

Last year, she accused the City of not spending our Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) funds sufficiently.

We ended up spending nearly 90% of our USDG funds.

She accused us of not being ready for assignment.

We have adopted an Integrated Human Settlements Framework that will reshape the way we deliver housing opportunities.

And she accused us of not delivering effectively.

Moreover, she has placed every obstacle in our path.

She has conspired with MECs to delay housing assignment. She has exceeded her authority in withholding municipal grants.

And she has ignored the need to shift housing opportunities away from replicating apartheid-era spatial planning with mass settlements at the edge of urban spaces.

It takes a big person, and a brave politician, to admit when they are wrong, especially as an election looms.

As such, this award from the National Department is deeply gratifying.

I look forward to Lindiwe Sisulu congratulating us in the National Assembly when she gets the chance.

Mr Speaker, I would also like to draw this Council’s attention to the good work we are doing in the realm of social development.

As you know, the cause of social development is close to my heart.

When I served as the Minister of Social Development, I made it a priority to forge strong links between the metro and the province in the quest to achieve meaningful change in people’s lives – especially for our city’s children.

The Constitution, of which I am so proud, provides for access to certain socio-economic rights within the context of relevant limitations that are normally tested judicially.

Exceptions for access are contained in the Children’s Act of 2005.

It sought to enshrine the rights of the child and express these within the Constitutional framework in ways that afforded children a new rights regime that protected them as individuals.

I think it is one of the signature legislative achievements of the past decade.

My drive as the Minister was to see the rights of the child defended and promoted.

Since signing a protocol agreement with the City in 2010 as the Minister, I can truly say, as the Executive Mayor, that we are living up to our side of the bargain.

The City of Cape Town’s Social Development and Early Childhood Development Directorate is spending just over R13 million on early childhood development (ECD) in this financial year.

The funds will be split between infrastructure projects, training for ECD practitioners on national norms and standards, as well as resources and support for ECD centres that have yet to become registered facilities.

Currently, the Directorate owns 24 fully operational ECD facilities that are leased to ECD non-profit organisations, including one in Fisantekraal built in partnership with private funders.

A total of R10,5 million has been set aside for the construction of three more Centres of Excellence in Delft, Golden Gate in Netreg, and the Nantes in Athlone.

In addition, a partnership with private donors will see the construction of two Centres of Excellence in Masiphumelele.

There is a dire need for quality infrastructure that conforms with the standards set out in the Children’s Act. In fact, this is one of the reasons why so many ECDs struggle to become registered – they simply cannot meet the health, fire safety and planning requirements.

It is for this reason that we have stepped in to close the gap through the construction of ECD facilities that we then lease to private operators.

The Directorate is also spending R2,5 million on capacity building programmes for ECDs and their staff.

This includes training for 120 ECD practitioners on aspects like child care, first-aid and outcomes-based education.

These are real-world outcomes that will have real-world positive effects on the lives of our children.

It is just one of the ways in which we are becoming a more caring and inclusive city.

Considerations such as these have a special resonance in August, which is Women’s Month.

Since the start of this month, we have engaged in numerous activities to celebrate women in our city and to draw attention to gender-related issues.

While it has almost become a cliché, it is worth saying again: we shouldn’t just focus on these issues in August.

We shouldn’t just convince ourselves that a few exhibitions and a few speeches is enough to tackle gender inequality.

I think we are all aware of this imperative but it is our commitment to make the fight for women’s rights meaningful and daily.

And you don’t have to be a woman to be concerned with these issues.

All of us should be concerned with salary discrepancies between genders when a woman and a man earn differently for similar work.

We should all be concerned about the way our girls grow up in society and the kind of opportunities they are exposed to.

And gender-based violence should not be hidden in our communities.

We shouldn’t keep quiet because we think that domestic abuse is a private matter best swept under the carpet, waiting to resolve itself.

In an age of slogans, we should beware of action by gimmick.

Tweeting about something doesn’t equate to activism.

All of us in this chamber are part of a small selection of community leaders.

There are others like us in our communities.

But the question we should ask ourselves is what we can do to make fighting against gender discrimination part of our daily lives.

This is a challenge I would like you all to think about with your ward committees and with your community structures.

In conclusion, this Council also has before it an Adjustments Budget.

In terms of the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA), councils may approve adjustment budgets during the financial year.

The August Adjustments Budget has only one purpose and that is in terms of Section 28(e) of the MFMA, which stipulates that Council may authorise the carrying over of unspent capital project funds.

This is part of the overall system of financial management and controls in the City.

Indeed, budgets are instruments of planning and are separate instruments from financial statements.

Of course, Mr Speaker, as this Council knows, we will finalise the financial statements with the annual report, at which time we will ensure that rolled-over balances that were brought forward during budgeting are correct.

The finalisation of the annual financial statements is a process covered by Section 126 and Section 127 of the MFMA and will be included in the annual report as a separate section.

The cycle of financial controls for a fiscal period, including the variety of mechanisms we use to release funds and track organisational finances, will be complete with the adoption of the annual report and once our statements are properly audited and considered by Council.

As the Council considers the Adjustments Budget, it should do so in the knowledge that our financial management system is transparent, legally compliant, and indeed praised as demonstrated by our clean audits from the Auditor-General.

As councillors, as we debate these matters, let us take our legislative roles seriously, having applied our minds to our duties and responsibilities as custodians of the public’s trust and finances.

Thank you, baie dankie, enkosi.


End

Issued by: City of Cape Town

Media enquiries: Pierrinne Leukes, Spokesperson for the Executive Mayor – Patricia de Lille, City of Cape Town, Tel: 021 400 1382 or Cell: 084 272 7614, E-mail: Pierrinne.leukes@capetown.gov.za

AGM 2015

Our AGM will be held on 7 September 2015. Please attend this very important meeting where the Clifton Precint Proposal will be discussed. AGM 2015

DATE: 7 September 2015 TIME: 18H30 VENUE: The Rotunda, The Bay Hotel, Camps Bay

BOA website: Precinct Development

City Council Property Division recently presented a proposal for a precinct development incorporating parts of The Ridge and Glen Country Club and Clifton Tennis Club. The proposal was in its very early stages. We requested that they come back with a more definite proposal that can be presented to all Bungalow owners for comment and discussion.

Below is a letter from our Chair to City Council referring to this issue. We will keep you updated in this matter as we get more information from the City Council.

Thank you for coming to our committee meeting to give us an informal overview of what you propose for the Precinct Development.

We noted that the development is a progression from the original ‘precinct upgrade’ presented to the Bungalow Owners Association during 2008 and 2009. Indications from our face to face presentation are that the footprint and scale have changed significantly. Previous discussion focused on replacing the garages and upgrading the restaurant site. Our comments on that proposal are, in many ways, still pertinent – refer to previous correspondence.

The contemplated development you described now envisages a three tier, 750 parking bay garage, a Woolworths Retail Store and other trading facilities plus a bungalow site development. You indicated that access roads and public walkways to the beach will be re-routed to accommodate this development. Understandably, it is difficult to canvas our community without any written proposal with site plan which sets out the proposal alluded to in your presentation. The proposed development will generate interest and a wide range of comments from the Clifton Bungalow Community and all users of the area so it is in everyone’s best interest if we present them with a comprehensive proposal so that we can apply our minds to hard information and respond with helpful and informed comments.

Kind regards – Paddy Walker – Chair

Maiden’s Cove plans raises concerns

Cape Town - Olive Brown has an abiding memory growing up in District Six – weekends were set aside for the beach. “Instead of sitting in a cinema, we would go to the beach. My father taught us to swim and we just loved it. It was so beautiful and so safe.”

She says the choices were limited for people of colour to visit along the Atlantic in those days: Oudekraal, Sea Point Tidal Pool and Maiden’s Cove – known then as “fourth beach” – were the only options.

Now a grandmother living in Athlone, Brown has continued the tradition and takes her grandchildren to the beach on weekends.

They mainly go to Maiden’s Cove as the tidal pool has been demolished and the “entry fee at Oudekraal is prohibitive”.

“It is expensive if we all go – around R120 for the day. And Maiden’s Cove is the only place you can still braai along the coastline.”

But she is terribly concerned about plans to develop the area around Maiden’s Cove.

On Thursday the city presented its proposed “design vision” for land between the Clifton bungalows and Camps Bay, including Maiden’s Cove, the Glen Country Club, sports oval and the existing city-owned parking facility.

“I’m really cut up about it. It takes me back to the apartheid era when things were just taken from us.”

In a letter she wrote to the Cape Argus about her concerns Brown said: “I find it unthinkable that local government would be so insensitive and sell off the only free recreational area available along this coastline.”

She wrote that the coloured vote was the reason the DA was in power in the Western Cape.

“Evicting (that’s what it amounts to) those who have for generations enjoyed Maiden’s Cove, is reminiscent of the inhumane forced removed of people from District Six.”

But Ian Neilson, the city’s mayoral committee member for Finance, said it was “foreseen that the general public will have free and enhanced access to the public areas along the shore, and that similar, but relocated, sporting facilities to what is available at present, will be incorporated into the development”.

He said the city regarded the property as being under-utilised and providing somewhat limited access to the ocean front for residents and visitors.

“The city wishes to see the enhancement of this area to make the beach, ocean and recreational facilities more accessible to all Capetonians, while protecting the natural vegetation, strengthening local and international tourism potential and unlocking investment opportunity to potentially drive job creation.”

The proposal includes the construction of 34 bungalows, retail facilities and a double storey underground parking garage with about 700 spaces under the bowling green.

Neilson said that there were no buyers as yet.

“Once the urban design framework is completed, a portion of the land, with development constraints, will be offered on public tender.”

He added that the city had received positive feedback in general, but the prevailing input had been that strong development parameters must be put in place for any potential redevelopment of this site.

“The city has also been urged to ensure that conservation and heritage matters are attended to as priority considerations.”

But Chris Willemse, chairman of the Camps Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association, said Neilson was on record saying the city had consulted stakeholders.

“But this was before the two major stakeholders – ourselves and the Clifton Bunglalow’s Association – had officially responded so I’m not sure who they consulted.”

Willemse said there was concern about the lack of public participation.

“We feel the city is just on a box-ticking exercise and this will be steamrolled through.”

There have been reports that mayor Patricia de Lille is backing the project and it is already a done deal.

Willemse said the plan kept changing from a “development, to a vision, to we’re just playing around and nothing definite has been decided”.

“Yet every time we see it, it has morphed into something bigger.”

He said the association would like to see a proper environmental impact assessment and traffic assessment to understand the limitations to a site that was both a national monument and a provincial heritage site.

Willemse said an official complaint had been lodged with the city for advertising last week’s meeting so late.

It had been advertised on the Friday before the public holiday, which meant many people missed it.

“One of their officials arrogantly said they only needed to give seven days but it was in fact only six days.”

He said it was decided that the meeting would be for information only and another properly advertised and constituted meeting would be held in about 21 days’ time.

In an opinion piece published online recently Judith February, with the Institute for Security Studies, wrote: “Given the tooth and nail fight to retain the Sea Point promenade as a true ‘seafront for all’ Capetonians, it is surprising that the city is planning to develop a section of Maiden’s Cove, also on the Atlantic seaboard.

“Not content to leave the scenic beauty well enough alone, public comment has been sought for the development of a parking garage in this most beautiful of parts.

“A parking garage one might naturally assume will be a precursor to a mall, shops or some kind of commercial development,” February said.

helen.bamford@inl.co.za

Cape Argus

BOA Website: Comment to City proposal

Mr. Neil D. Eybers

Project Manager: Development and Facilitation

Property Management Department

13^th Floor, Civic Centre, Hertzog Boulevard

CAPE TOWN, 8000

3^rd August 2015

neil.eybers@capetown.gov.za

Dear Mr Eybers

Re:  Proposed Disposal of land for the development known variously as the Clifton ‘Precinct’ Development and Maidens Cove Village.

Ground rule

The Clifton-on-Sea Bungalow Owners’ Association (BOA) is on record as objecting to any development on the Clifton Scenic Reserve, a Provincial Heritage Site (Gazette No: 3932  Date: 13/02/1948).   Our objection to any development on this site frames our comments and concerns related to the processes followed by the City to dispose of this asset and this includes the public participation process.  We fully reserve our rights to deal further with all elements of further processes such as the re-zoning and environmental authorization.

In making the following comments we trust the City’s commitment to taking cognisance of public sentiment and constructive comments. This implies a willingness to approach the proposed development with an open mind and not bulldoze through development by circumventing protective measures and engaging in sleight of hand.  These comments are therefor provided in good faith and in an effort to prevent a development that has the potential to   be a shameful monument to a discordant relationship between politics, developers, development and public spaces.

1.       Public participation - The Proposal Process to date.

The BOA finds the public participation process followed by the City to date sub-optimal in a number of ways. The BOA is an interested and affected party and encouraged to make informed comments but engagement in the process has been minimal and information is scant.  These will be dealt with in more detail in due course; but our key points are:

·       There has been no attempt to list and review alternatives; but rather, a plan has been presented on a stand-alone basis.

·       There has been no “base-line” analysis of the constraints as they relate to the site, existing services and legislative restrictions.

·       There has been no clear representation as to the current zoning of the sites.

·       It is of especial concern that the City is itself considering the rezoning of the sites in question, since it would be both applicant and adjudicator.

·       There is the appearance of undue haste, especially given how long a process that such a development plan might “normally” be subject to , were the applicant to be an arm's length member of the private sector. 

 2.     Development Alternatives.

As explained by the presenters, the SV proposal presents elements that fall into two categories:

-        elements that are seen as inclusionary, that would make the precinct and its amenities more accessible to the general public (such as the board-walk, etc.);

-        elements that are exclusionary (or, more correctly, exclusive), which would , by their nature, restrict access to those who could afford the price of entry, this latter category including the bulk of the built forms proposed, such as housing, hotel, retail and parking.

In fact, we think it fair to say that the inclusionary elements are pure costs, whose expense will be borne by revenues generated elsewhere. We therefore think it appropriate that various alternatives along what SV referred to as the “development continuum” should have been explored in somewhat greater detail; and the input of the public sought. We offer the following possible “levels” of development, by way of example.

•                Level Zero – no development. The area has been protected from formal development for a long time, in order to maintain its natural beauty and unspoilt nature. Although shabby, the existing facilities do function; and could be modestly upgraded. In the light of the importance of the area to both locals and visitors, it does not seem unreasonable that the public at large would see this no-development scenario, with modest upgrades via the public purse, as being worthy of debate. Similarly, local residential ratepayers, who undoubtedly contribute far in excess of average rates and taxes, could reasonably expect some of their “surplus” to be spent on such upgrades.

•                Level Zero Plus – an “improvement district”. The inclusionary elements – and perhaps others – proposed by SV could be funded by a voluntary increase in rates and taxes, along the lines of the various City Improvement District initiatives in other parts of the City. Local residents might consider this an acceptable price to pay to avoid the disturbances of developments, of the types proposed by SV.

•                Level One – washing of the hands. Assuming that it is agreed that the inclusionary elements need to be funded by exclusionary development on the site, should the scope of such development not be limited to only that which would fund the inclusionary elements? The two pieces of land, which are currently zoned, being the old commercial site and the existing garages, would surely be able to be put to “exclusive” uses which would adequately fund the SV proposals (and probably provide a surplus!)

•                Level Two – benign residential. We argue that residential development is potentially more benign in its impact on what is essentially an existing residential neighbourhood, as opposed to retail and/or commercial development, which by their nature need a certain critical mass in order to be successful; and such resulting mass is inevitably at the expense of the residents and the public seeking to get away from commercial glitz. 

•                Level Three – …… and so on to the full scope of development as presented by SV

3.    Baseline Analysis.

We feel the public in general, and the BOA in particular, are deserving of some more detailed analysis of the obvious and existing constraints to development; and how such constraints are to be balanced in a development scenario. Amongst others, more reference should, in our view, have been made to:

·       existing legislated protocols, such as the Scenic Drive, Provincial Heritage Site, Coastal Zone Strategy, National Environment Management Act.   It is common cause that the citizens of Cape Town have, in the past, sought to protect the area from development.

·       The removal of the public parking, and a drive towards paid parking especially with regards to Maidens' Cove.  A City official is on record as saying that free parking is at an end.

·       Infrastructure constraints. Bulk services in the area appear at full stretch, especially sewerage.

·       Traffic along Victoria Rd and Kloof Rd are both problematical especially in summer.

·       Parking demand varies wildly, with peak demand only on the busiest summer days. At night, parking areas are currently liabilities rather than assets to local residents.

·       Public transport, as a viable alternative to passenger vehicles and parking, also seems constrained by road conditions at peak times. The contradiction between the MyCity bus service (which has resulted in narrowing of roads!), and the increased private vehicle traffic, is glaring

·       Analysis of retail market size for this catchment area, demand and need for additional retail space.

·       Residential property demand

·       Current usage of and demand for recreational amenities on the site : cricket, bowls and tennis, paragliding and outdoor event such as cycle races, walking and running events

The BOA is supportive of a process that is seen to be rigorous and fair. To us, both of these prerequisites are potentially compromised, not only by the City's stated desire to make money from the rezoning and development process; and, into the future, through increased rates and taxes; but also, by the appearance of undue haste which seems to be part of the current process, where only lip-service is paid to the concept of real public participation.

We urge the City to consider

•                slowing down the process, to a pace more usual for this kind of development;

▪                following the usual process by conducting a full EIA and land use planning application which will inform   

               what can or cannot be developed on the site rather than devising an optimal development (seen from the  

               City’s perspective) and then following due process to force the desired development through; and

•                introducing checks and balances that would mitigate the view that the City is both judge and jury in   its own application. Some form of independent ombudsman would go a long way to allaying our

fears in this regard.

4.    Shortcomings of the SV Presentation.

In the view of the BOA, there are certain aspects of the SV presentation that are important to the Association; and were either glossed over or missing entirely. The main items are:

•                residential security

•                development risk analysis

•                financial analysis.

4.1  Residential Security. The existing bungalow precinct and its residents grapple with issues of security and petty crime. On the face of it, the SV presentation does nothing to address these issues; and perhaps may even exacerbate them. Providing more numerous and easier ingress and egress to the precinct would, in terms of conventional security advice, make things easier for both professional and opportunistic criminals. The impact of more night time traffic implied by the retail/food-service components would only serve to increase the risks of both crime and disturbance. It would therefore seem to us that the residents would have bear the brunt of the effort and expense of mitigation of these factors, probably through the use of alarms, patrols, armed

response, electric fences, lighting, etc. The BOA feels that its members need much greater attention given to this issue; and do not accept that “more people and better access improves security”, as put forward by SV.

4.2  Development Risk Analysis.  The BOA accepts that the primary motivation behind the City's proposals are to unlock the value of the precinct, in a way that optimises the financial returns to the City; and allows the cross-subsidisation needed for enhanced service delivery to disadvantaged areas of the Metropole. In order to do this to the best advantage of both citizens and, especially, ratepayers, it would seem to be both desirable and necessary to consider the vital aspect of the risks associated with the various development aspects proposed in the SV scenario. By way of simple examples :

·       the provision of parking, especially on the scale suggested, appears to involve very high risk. This is because there can be little ability to accurately estimate future parking revenues. In fact, we suggest that underground parking is generally not financially viable on a stand-alone basis in even the busiest areas of SA – and this precinct could never be included in that category! The construction cost alone of an underground bay is about R250 000 today; and any reasonable allocation of land value in the precinct would, in our view, bring the cost to no less than R500 000 per bay. There are also substantial fixed costs associated with operating such a facility. We estimate the City's WACC at around about 10%; implying that the break-even net revenue, after expenses, would need to be R50 000 per annum per bay. Our research suggests that pre-expense break-even would therefore be about R6000 per bay, per month, over all 800 bays – which seem far-fetched. The real problem is that the full expenditure (R100 million for the costs, excluding land, of the proposed 800 car garage) must be incurred before the actual revenue number is revealed. The likelihood that local residents will be interested in securing parking space is a reality however not in an open parking garage situated a good walking distance from the nearest bungalows. The market value of garaging facilities increases with the proximity as security, adverse weather conditions, lugging shopping etc. are big considerations.  Ideally garage/parking facilities should be located in/below the parking areas on the mountain side of Victoria Rd above 3^rd Beach.

·       Retail, especially of the types contemplated in the SV proposal, we would consider being high risk. Rentals from anchor tenants, such as a food store, would never, in our view, justify the costs associated with a fair

land value, construction cost, the costs of providing the required 6 bays per hundred of parking, development risk/profit and a WACC for developers far higher than that of the City. Furthermore, food-service operations involve the highest costs per square meter as well as the highest failure rates in the retail industry – so they are only “nice to have” if someone else pays ….The CBOA would suggest that, inevitably, developers will mitigate their risk at the City's expense, by lowering the residual land values attributable to the retail component in their feasibilities.

·       Residential development is seen as a low risk. Land values in the area are easily established, no additional parking is required in terms of the SV proposals, phasing is easy, the likely impact of additional bulk infrastructure is the lowest of any built form, and the quantum and quality of ongoing revenues in terms of rates and taxes is the easiest to establish. It is also fair to say, in our view, that the demand profile for single residential plots with self-contained parking within this precinct would seem to be high.

·       Finally, revenues precede or closely follow expenditures, especially in the sale of serviced plots.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that based upon a sensible assessment of risk, the development proposal should emphasise residential and reduce or eliminate the retail and parking elements entirely.

4.3    Financial Analysis. We suggest that the complete absence of “ballpark” estimates for the financial implications of the SV proposals do a disservice to the public participation process.

A concerned party would need to know, in broad terms, some of the following:

·       The costs of the public or “inclusive” aspects of the proposals; and an estimate of the ongoing costs of their maintenance.

·       The financial targets for the disposals; and the potential amounts available for the cross- subsidies involved.

·       The potential amounts of development profits to be made by third parties.

·       Ongoing revenues to the City; and their impact on the local residents.

The BOA is aware that financial projections are a double-edged sword; and can be used to prove or disprove whatever the authors determine; but we believe their absence, in this case, materially diminishes the cogency of the proposal and the extent to which it can be properly understood by parties on the margin.

We trust that you will find our comments constructive and balanced but I must reiterate that our position is one of opposing any development on the Clifton Scenic Reserve, a Provincial Heritage Site.

Yours sincerely

Paddy Walker

Chair

A 16-year-old Camps Bay High pupil has become the latest victim of a series of deadly attacks that have rocked the Hout Bay township of Imizamo Yethu

Cape Town - A 16-year-old Camps Bay High pupil has become the latest victim of a series of deadly attacks that have rocked the Hout Bay township of Imizamo Yethu.

Kwekwe Ngetu was outspoken and well-liked, a keen artist with ambitions of becoming a lawyer, but on Saturday night his life was cut short.

His school’s principal David de Korte told the Cape Argus the circumstances surrounding his death were still unclear. It is suspected that a knife-wielding gang of youths which has been terrorising the informal settlement was behind the attack which left two dead and one injured.

De Korte said the Grade 10 pupil had gone to buy electricity when he was attacked. The township’s community policing forum’s deputy chairperson Vincent Sodlala said Kwekwe had been walking with a 22-year-old man, identified by his employer as Zuko Roji, who was also killed in the stabbing attack.

Roji worked at the Vida e Caffe on Chapman’s Peak Drive for two years. A dark cloud was hanging over the business on Monday morning as family and staff struggled to come to terms with Roji’s brutal murder.

It was reported that a woman was also stabbed during the attack and was receiving treatment in hospital. However, police did not confirm this.

At Camps Bay High School, staff broke the grim news to students at an assembly on Monday morning. De Korte said some pupils cried; others asked if they could post a picture of the murdered student in the school’s foyer.

According to the principal, Kwekwe’s mother had died when he was still young. His father is living in the Eastern Cape and the only contact the school has is for Kwekwe’s social worker.

The stabbings have been followed by calls to demolish a derelict city-owned building in Hout Bay dubbed the “White House” which residents believe has become a magnet for crime.

Nchikala Ngoy, 27, was stabbed to death close to the building, which is on the main road next to Imizamo Yethu, earlier this month and some residents believe that the suspects “used the house as a hiding place”.

Samkelo Krweqe, of the South African National Civic Organisation (Sanco), said when Ngoy was killed next to the White House there was a feeling that even more suspects were using the house for criminal activities.

“As a community, we have come together to put a motion to the city to demolish the house. We believe if it’s demolished it will go a long way in ending crime,” he said.

Hout Bay Civic Association’s Roscoe Jacobs said crime transcended all barriers and that as residents they were united in fighting crime. He said the association hoped that the city council acted on its plea.

“On Wednesday, a motion will be tabled at the City of Cape Town’s full council meeting for the demolition of the infamous White House. This property has become a symbol and concrete catalyst in the spiralling crisis of crime in Hout Bay of late.”

Jacobs said the broader community had sent a clear message, since 2011, on its stance over the “problem building”.

He said the community is therefore unanimous in its hope that the motion will be passed and a date for the demolition will be given by the city.

“We are aware that the demolition of the White House might not put an immediate end to the crime crisis, but we believe it will send a clear message to criminals that lawlessness will not be tolerated in our community.”

The city council’s mayco member for Transport, Brett Herron, said the demolition of the White House would take place as soon as possible.

“It will cost about R30 000 to demolish, and no decision has been made about the future use of the site. We will have to consider whether we have a need for it.”

The council’s mayco member for Safety and Security, JP Smith, said a decision to demolish the White House had already been approved.

Cape Argus

Clifton property development alarms residents

Cape Argus: Tuesday 19 May 2015

Plans for the sale of prime municipal land in Clifton – including the sites of the Glen Country Club and Bungalow restaurant – to a private sector developer are at an "advanced stage", but there will still be opportunities for affected communities to comment before a tender process is finalised.

The city wants to sell or lease portions of four erven in Clifton for an underground parking garage, a residential village with a boutique hotel and a commercial space with an anchor retail tenant, while also mooting upgrades to recreational and sport facilities in the area.

But the project has been slammed by residents and lobby groups in the area who are concerned that the proposed developments could be detrimental to Clifton.

Janey Ball of action group Clifton Organised said the draft conceptual framework published in February was somewhat vague. Soon after the deadline for submissions on April 4, a full mayoral committee meeting was convened on site on Friday.

"It seems clear that this development process is being driven through the corridors of the city with great haste and it is extremely worrying that council, at this early stage, is being asked, at month-end, to grant inprinciple approval for the sale of certain portions of the land."

Ball said the "impetus" for the development was the refurbishment of the garages at Clifton. But now residents are being asked to consider a development that will include 40 bungalows, 880 parking bays and a boutique hotel on the legally protected Clifton Scenic Reserve. "The approach we are taking is in no way intended to be obstructive nor are we anti-development. We simply wish to be part of a transparent process that considers all inputs. "We are also mindful of the privileged position our community enjoys and mindful too of the city's need to optimise returns on all possible investments. Accordingly we are committed to working with the city to achieve a 'win-win' situation from which all parties can emerge content," said Ball.

During the public participation process earlier this year, objectors complained that the proposed sale of this prime Atlantic Seaboard land would deprive residents of the free use of this valuable coastal asset. There were also concerns about the impact of the development on a protected heritage site.

Many of the 90 comments lodged during this public comment period related to whether the city had followed proper planning processes.

One resident noted: "Why is the mayor fast-tracking and driving the sale of land used freely and for over a century by families from across the Cape Peninsula for the benefit of a private developer who is behind the scenes and unnamed?"

The Bungalow Owners' Association said on its website: "We believe the statutory process has not been properly followed – except for the Municipal Finance Management Act 56/2003 and the council's bylaw relating to the Management and Administration of the City of Cape Town's Immovable Property published on February 28, 2003 Section 4 – no feasibility studies have been carried out, and no market research conducted as yet. The reported land values are, in our opinion, completely understated."

Another objector said: "It would be a short-term, completely unsustainable project which would ruin the long-standing attractiveness, sustainability and tourism in one of the most popular and beautiful areas in our country."

There were also concerns about traffic congestion in the area.

But speaking at yesterday's Subcouncil 16 meeting, Clifton's ward councillor Jacques Weber took pains to assure affected residents and other associations that their concerns would be considered before any plans were finalised.

"This is just one of a few stages of public participation. Development in this area is needed and welcomed."

Subcouncil chair Demetri Qually said: "This is a major development that will require the creative and participative involvement of all stakeholders. People don't want to see a significant asset disappear."

The erven in question are currently being used by restaurants and sports clubs, and as parking lots. One of these establishments is the Glen Country Club, which the city has described as a "run-down eyesore in this prestigious coastal precinct".

In the report considered at the subcouncil meeting, Neil Eybers of the city's finance directorate said the precinct upgrade project had initially focused on the redevelopment of the Clifton garages located next to the public parking area for Clifton's fourth beach.

But this "footprint" was expanded following an internal decision that the whole precinct would benefit from an upgrade that would inject "much-needed investment" into the area. This decision forms the basis of the draft development framework.

"Other problems and challenges in the precinct relate to safety and security, limited public access to the coast, insufficient parking for visitors to the area, the lack of a precinct identity and opportunities for further private sector investment," said Eybers.

The sale or lease of the land will be done through a competitive process and the successful bidder or bidders will have to work within the approved design framework.

Portions of the residential properties will be sold, while the management of the sports facilities will remain the responsibility of the clubs, he said.

The report referred to the "rationalisation" of the active recreational facilities in the precinct, including the potential development of a covered bowls green, and upgrades to the cricket oval and tennis courts, Maiden's Cove picnic area and the inclusion of a walkway along the coastal edge. The project will possibly include the relocation of the Bungalow restaurant, formerly known as La Med.

Eybers said all other city policies, such as the scenic drive policy, would be considered during the approval process, and residents would again have an opportunity to comment.

The city would also invite affected parties to comment on an updated map and plan for the area in the next 10 days.

Once council has approved the sale or lease of the properties, the urban design framework will be presented to affected parties for comment. When this is finalised, the city will call for tenders for the sale, lease or development of the facilities in accordance with the design framework. The successful bidder will need to get the necessary statutory approvals for the developments.

Eybers said the council would derive "significant financial benefit" in the form of the sales price and lease income, as well as the rates and taxes. It's been reported that the sale could be worth about R100 million. The council-owned garages will be redeveloped by the private sector at no cost to the city.

This article can be found at http://gctca.org.za/clifton-property-development-alarms-residents/