Let’s work together and forget the pettiness.
With the announcement in parliament that only nine percent of the 2017 / 18 budget will be spent on municipalities, possibly those opposed to the St Francis Property Owners SRA proposal should reconsider their NO votes and actively engage themselves in finding a way forward. Only those who choose to ignore the Minister’s assertions in his budget speech and Kouga Executive Mayor Elza van Lingen’s confirmations that priority will be the upliftment of the poorer areas of Kouga can be in any doubt that there is not going to a magic wand that will see the Kouga municipality finding the funding to address our deteriorating infrastructure.
St Francis Today was yesterday given a copy of a flier that is being distributed in St Francis soliciting property owners to reverse their YES vote. Considering the government’s decision is it not time that the anti SRA body reconsider and rather start working with the SFPO to find a solution to what realities are facing our little (affluent) hamlet. One would have to be without social conscience to ignore the plight of the poor for there is a growing restlessness throughout South Africa with the general feeling amongst the poor that nothing has changed since the demise of apartheid 22 years ago.
Certainly there may be flaws in the SRA proposal that need to be addressed but discounting it as unworkable is rather like burying one’s head in the sand. Leaving it to the politicians to solve is not going to work and if we are going to ignore the experience of well qualified business people and their well researched suggested solutions, who are we going to turn to. If nothing is done and the input of the present SFPO committee is totally ignored, their value may be lost to us forever. Like David Cameron resigning when he lost the Brexit vote, will this committee too decide to throw in the towel? And who of those so against the SRA are going to step into the void and fight for St Francis should these proven business leaders decide to step down.
This is not a pro SRA post but rather an appeal to forget the petty arguments and come together as a community and find solutions not only for St Francis but also for our close neighbours in Sea Vista.
The SRA is not about the canals, the spit and beachfront properties. It is about St Francis and our future. Maybe it is time to again read the SFPO “Vision 2030” document.
As a new member of St Francis (with a home in the process of being built) I am astonished by the vitriol surrounding this debate. There is no alternative to a YES vote – unless on considers slow and interminable decay an alternative. We are privileged to have a group of energetic and committed individuals envisioning a different future for this wonderful piece of the world. And yes a future that is fully cognizant of the need to alleviate the plight of the poor and not be dependent on an under-resourced and over-stretched municipality whose focus must be elsewhere if they are to deliver their mandate.The SRA will help enhance living standards, preserve our individual capital investments and generate sustainable employment for the region. Why would we not collectively want this? I have not seen a coherent alternative from the NO camp and time is not on our side.
What was the % spend in previous years ?
well said Ian!
I have made the following point before but without a workable answer.
There are many property owners here who are living very close to their fiancial Armageddon, both retired folk and those running small businesses. Many of us earned our retirement funds in a very different economy than that prevailing now. Yes, there is the intention to offer relief to such people but as yet, no actual formula. Thus such people are scared of over committing their resources. There are also those with holiday homes they cannot now afford to keep but cannot sell.
Employing a financial adviser to effectively carry out a means test will not meet with everyone’s approval and could result in a no vote for that reason. I have no idea how this problem can be solved, just passing on comments I have heard.
A suggestion has been made that the proposed project be dealt with in smaller bites to allow the cynical to assess the results. How workable this would be can only be evaluated by the board.
Just a thought: if this scheme does go ahead, please don’t do what was and maybe still is, common practice in the UK, where one authoriy will resurface a stretch of road followed a few weeks later, by another which will then dig up the road to attend to a utilities problem.