Following a meeting of ‘St Francis Bay Concerned Residents’ held on Thursday addressed by an attorney from Graaff Reinet, and an advocate from Port Elizabeth regarding the SRA, St Francis Today has received the following letter from a former chairman of St Francis Bay Residents Association and Kromme River Trust. SFT has long been suggesting dialogue between those for and those against to find common ground but rather than positive input there has really only been criticism of SFPO efforts to improve security. the roads, beach and spit rather than any constructive input. Maybe this letter from Hilton Thorpe, below, will encourage this much needed dialogue to not only find common ground that has been so elusive but also correct the facts of the SRA and dispel rumours of excessive spending by SFPO on office space and staff salaries which simply is not true but seems to have incensed some.
The only winners if this matter goes to court will be the legal fraternity for no matter the final outcome, it is this St Francis Bay community who will have to pay the legal bill one way or the other.
“Dear Collo,
Yesterday Julia & I attended a meeting of the above Association, which has been set up specifically to oppose the SRA plans of the St Francis Bay Property Owners Association. It was a well-attended, and well-organised meeting, addressed by an attorney from Graff Reinet, and an advocate from Port Elizabeth. The retired population of St Francis Bay was well-represented there, with the affordability of a 25% increase in rates on top of normal annual increases high on the list of concerns.
It quickly became apparent that the St Francis Bay community is caught between a rock & a hard place. The Chairman of the Concerned Residents made it clear from the outset that they are not opposed in principle to a Special Rate to address the major problems confronting St Francis Bay, but they could not agree to the cost being met by one section of the community. This being the case, they were preparing to take the matter to the High Court, and had already prepared preliminary documentation. There is no doubt that the objectors’ concerns are real, and we share them.
The lawyers came up with a list of legal technicalities which, in their view, amounted to failure to observe due process, and could be challenged in court. However, litigation is extremely expensive, slow and would achieve nothing towards solving the current impasse. This should be a last resort. It would surely be far preferable if the opposing parties were to sit down, debate the issues raised, and try to find some consensus on a way forward.
The problem is really caused by the inability of the authorities to solve the problems here, and the legislation with regard to Special Rating, neither of which is the fault of the SFBPOA. They have spent two years, and expended large amounts of time and cash seeking a solution, and have been driven to their present position by the lack of government capacity and by very demanding legislation.
No special rate can be imposed by the Municipality without the approval of 50% + 1 of ratepayers. In the case of Santareme and St Francis-on-Sea, there is a large number of undeveloped stands, and, despite huge efforts by the SBPOA, it has not been possible to identify or communicate with many owners. Incorporation of these suburbs would mean that the 50% +1 target is unattainable, and no action of any sort can be taken. It was not clear that sufficient thought had been given to this by the objectors. Their demand for full participation by the whole community will simply lead to stalemate.
In our view, we should be very grateful to the committed group of able people who have bent over backwards to accommodate all the conflicting currents in this complex situation. It was very sad to us to see such a deep division between two groups, both of whom have the interests of the village at heart, but who seem to have little common ground on how to go about securing this.
A solution to all this is critical to the future of St Francis Bay. Failure to move forward would be a tragedy for the village. Let us hope that common sense will prevail, and that a spirit of co-operation and compromise on the part of both sides will replace the litigious mind-set displayed at yesterday’s meeting”.
Hilton Thorpe
Former Chairman of the St Francis Bay Residents Association and of the St Francis Kromme Trust
Well said Hilton
Well said Hilton. Going to court is never a solution.
We need to act to save our town and beach or we will end up with nothing
Hilton has put it well. We have had endless meetings to which everyone
in SFB was invited.Everyone agrees that something needs to be done,
but no one wants to pay. We are in effect buying an insurance policy to
protect our valuable assets.Mother Nature’s wrath will not wait while
we are bickering.Let’s give the SRA a chance.
There is wide spread support for the principles of the SRA through out the whole of St Francis Bay including Santereme and the Port.
The major objections from these areas i believe was the budget contribution required for the beach and the spit by the SRA team, from memory this accounted for over 50 % of the budget.
The true priority should be and still is the road infrastructure and
security, to which the large majority of ALL residents would support.
If this was adopted and we leave the beach and spit to those effected then the cost model changes dramatically.
At 50% of budget and another 50% households added to the revenue then we have a model that would be fully inclusive and affordable.
St Francis needs an SRA model to uplift and upgrade the town and the team have done a supperb job creating the franework lets support Hilton’s idea of a round table to find common ground between parties and move this vital community project forward.
Please stay out of the courts.
John,
The idea that the state of the spit and beach are only an asset to those nearby and not an asset to the whole community is absurd.
It is self evident that SFB is a seaside resort and that it’s economy, and therefore it’s property values, depends entirely on the well being of the environment in which it is located.
The laudable efforts to secure the future of our community assets need only active support and constructive assistance.
No matter what is said, 25% is a greedy over the top levy and it appears that the opposition it has created may be its downfall.
Kevin. This comment is unhelpful. No one other than the SFB community benefits from this levy. Ask for the budget and get your facts straight. Inclusive of the 25% levy, SFB still has low rates on a national scale.
You have got to be kidding !!!
Concerned Residents are so concerned that they are willing to take on the SFPO about a 50% hike that will be undeniably be spent in the community while completely ignoring the 100% that is been squandered?
The Municipality under the auspices of our majority elected Government, have been collecting 100% of our rates and taxes for decades while letting our town’s infrastructure crumble!
Be a Hero – If you are going to pick a fight then at least pick the bully.
Put your effort, money, lawyers and advocates into a 100% Rates Boycott … then by simple deduction you wouldn’t have to fight the 50% cause you’d ensure the 100% is spent wisely …. and as a bonus you would unite a community and not divide it.
Well said Hilton. While the key players leading the SFPO have put an inordinate amount of time, effort and thought into saving St Francis Bay, together with communicating their plans far and wide, all the objectors have done is object. They have yet to provide a viable alternative, while in the meantime the beach is going, the spit will soon be gone, the roads fall into disrepair and crime is steadily on the increase. Surely legal action and all that goes with it is not the alternative you objectors have to offer?
It is beyond me that there are still individuals who cannot or will not see the bigger picture. It is very easy to white ant any initiative but the very same people do not offer real implementable alternatives.
I ask all those of you who are actively engaged in trying to derail this well researched project, that has required an admirable level of selfless dedication from Wayne and his team, to step back and ask yourselves what REAL alternative solutions, to the range of issues we face, you have to offer.
If there are none, then in all good conscience you should provide your whole hearted support and assistance to the SRA.
Agree with Hilton! Perhaps he can broker a discussion between the parties with an impartial mediator present so that we can avoid our SRA levies being squandered on legal fees?