Why we pinned our flag to the SRA mast
A few readers have taken umbrage to the fact that St Francis Today is openly supporting the proposed SRA. One reader is calling it “biased and condescending piece of journalism”. First may I clarify as I have on previous posts that I have never made claim that I am a journalist. Certainly I was a columnist for a Sunday National some years ago but never claimed otherwise. By the very nature of columnist one has the right to express one’s opinion. This is exactly what I did in Friday’s post, I expressed an opinion. St Francis Today is primarily a Blog with a news slant as we disseminate news from the main South African News Media. We have no pretensions of being a news media house. St Francis has a news media publication for the purpose of news reporting . All St Francis Today does is as update what i happening in St Francis on a day to day basis.
Those who are outraged at our pinning our flag to the SRA mast, why did you not make similar comment when SFT came out strongly in support of those against Thyspunt and nuclear? Why no complaints that we were being biased when we openly promoted the DA in the Municipal elections. Some things are too important not to make a stand and we believe St Francis needs a helping hand to survive.
But let me explain why I support the SRA even though I live in Cape St Francis and it certainly doesn’t really affect me. Having moved to St Francis some four years ago I have come to love what will be where I will probably live out my life. I don’t make much use of the canals nor the St Francis Bay beach but to lose them would be a catastrophe. I have a young niece and nephew who have spent most of their childhood and now adult holidays in St Francis Bay. They in turn have a little boy and girl who I would pray will also have the opportunity of spending their youth enjoying St Francis. For them and for thousands of others who have enjoyed and hopefully will continue to enjoy St Francis, I support the SRA.
I certainly do not have a problem with those who are against the SRA and respect them for their stand for it is everyone’s right to form their own opinion. Living in a democracy it is the final vote count that will decide the outcome and should it be against the SRA, one would hope those who have lobbied so actively against the SRA will step into the breach and at last make a suggestion or plan to ensure St Francis Bay doesn’t get gobbled up by the sea or that the crime doesn’t reach a level where people leave St Francis Bay for the same reason many moved here, to escape the crime in bigger cities..
One does not need to look far for towns that have slid into disrepair. KZN and the Eastern Cape both have more than their share. Lack of service delivery will have nothing on falling property prices and many a nest eggs may just be eaten up by the snakes of inactivity.
Spot on! I comment in my personal capacity. We have a fantastic opportunity going forward to attract tourists to our beautiful village and surrounds. On arrival, the turn left to 4-wheel drive through our streets and hope the tide is low. The attention required for our beach and spit cannot wait for more politics. I host people from around the world and they love coming here and sharing all of our amenities, activities and events on offer. Crime is a huge concern for those who are considering a return trip or even investment in property.
All you have to do is drive into Hermanus to see what a town can and should look like – and they cannot touch our overall beauty and outdoor offerings.
If St Francis fails, we all lose.
Noted that you comment in your personal capacity, although use ‘The Links’ as motivation.
SFPO have stated that ‘The Links’ have declined to participate in the proposed SRA.
Perhaps this is a good opportunity, in your professional capacity as ‘The Links’ CEO, to explain to the SFB community the reasoning behind this position, given the sentiments (beneficial to ’The Links’) expressed in your comment ?
‘The Links’ is an integral and affluent part of the SFB community, and will undoubtedly benefit greatly from any benefits arising from a successful SRA.
I use the future of St Francis as my motivation.
Mr Suter. Jeff Clause will no doubt reply. Certainly most of us currently living on the Links will pay the increase on our rates so we are not opting out of our responsibility. I do not know what your objections are and frankly do not care so just cast your vote and let those who are trying to save our town get on with it. They are investing an enormous amount of time and money in promoting it and do not deserve the false information put out by some who are trying to white ant this initiative. Mike Tagg
Mr Tagg. May I respectfully suggest you re-read my comment, a bit more carefully this time. My objection was that, although ‘The Links’ will undoubtedly benefit from the SRA, according to SFPO ‘The Links’ have refused to contribute by paying additional SRA property rates. Please correct me if this is false information and I am mistaken, and I will happily tender my apologies.
Mr Suter while you are busy going on about “The Links” i want to point out that you are not a property owner in the area demarcated to be included in the SRA and neither is “The Links”. Why are you interposing yourself and comment on something that has nothing to do with your view. You always have a lot of negative comment but not once have you had any positive suggestion as to how the problems and challenges can be met. People who are not part of the proposed SRA are welcome to put forward any suggestions that will overcome the problems faced of an eroding beach, poor roads, and rising crime are welcome but I feel it is time for you to stop commenting on something when you have no alternative and you are not being asked to vote.
Collo – I do not intend to engage in a ping-pong exchange with you on this matter, but unfortunately your latest personal comments require a response:
– Suggest you review the relevant Act of Parliament – I agree that, while in the current situation I do not have a vote, I (and any other member of the ’local community’) certainly do have the right to comment – just as Messrs Clause, Tagg and yourself have done.
– I do not support the latest exclusion of ‘The Links’, Santareme, et al, from SRA 2.0.
– To equate my questions to SFPO about the financial and technical aspects with “negative comment” is totally misleading and incorrect. The questions remain unanswered – e.g. the financials appear unworkable. Voters need the confidence that what they are voting for can actually happen.
– If you favour an approach of ”anything is better than nothing” to our problems – then well and good – but otherwise, the logic of linking any objection to a demand to propose an alternative escapes me.
– Suggest you review the postings by myself, and many others, on Facebook “Question SRA St Francis” and SFT, starting from March 2017. You will discover many positive suggestions – some of which have now been implemented, albeit partially, in the current SRA 2.0. I have always supported the SRA concept, but differed strongly with the SFPO Committee on the way they were going about it. Direct approaches to the Committee proved fruitless and were ignored.
Let’s close this thread – if you want to discuss anything further, suggest we meet soon over some appropriate liquid refreshment.
Apologies to both Collo and Ian – my 3.38 pm post should have been addressed to Ian, not Collo – however, the offer of refreshments still stands.