Some SRA Q&A’s
In answer to some of the questions raised by e-mail and on comments on posts, St Francis Property Owners responded to questions submitted to them by St Francis Today.
SRA Q&A’s
Does Cape St Francis form part of the overall vote or is CSF regarded as a separate entity and will be included only if 50% of CSF property owners vote yes? At a meeting in PE the audience was informed that Cape St Francis had “opted out”. How will funds be split if Cape St Francis is involved…and this all goes ahead.
CSF is not part of the SRA. The CSF Civics Association declined to be part of this a year ago.
There a number of CSF property owners who have questioned this and feel that a broader base of CSF property owners need to be consulted.
When and how is Sea Vista going to benefit?
Sea Vista is excluded from the SRA, as the upliftment of all underprivileged areas are the specific responsibility of the Municipality and the Human Settlements Dept. One of the key objectives to developing the St Francis Vision 2030 was to define how we could assist with the upliftment of Sea Vista, including access to CSI spend and job creation. Please read the St Francis Vision 2030 document (available on the following website : www.stfrancispropertyowners.co.za).
At what stage into the scheme – if it goes ahead – will roads/streets/ storm water drains/ main sewerage be tackled or is it really all about the beach/spit and canals and the 550 canal properties
The top priority is arterial roads (10kms) and storm water drains (R31m). Parallel to this we have to complete the design phase of our river, beach and spit solution, and submit this to DEDEAT (Dept of Enviromental Affairs) to approve the project (this is expense will be about R1m and will probably be funded out of the donations we have received). This initial phase of work for the river is expected to take 12-18 months before any work can actually start on moving sand from the river to the spit and beach. The Security cameras are also a priority given the escalation in crime recently. The Water Borne Sewerage (R106m) and Street paving (R67m) projects are longer term priorities, like the River/Spit/Beach (R133) because this is where the bulk of the costs lie and we will rely on the levy to fund these as we receive the money. The cost of de-silting the River and depositing it on the beach and Spit will cost about R119m, and the groynes for keeping the sand on beach (R15m). The Spit is the smallest part of the whole cost as it is only about one-third the length of the entire beach from Main Beach to the River mouth. People keep saying that this SRA is of sole benefit to the Canals. This is simply not true. The Canal property owners already pay a levy of R212 per month to maintain the canals. We are submitting an application to DEDEAT to allow the Riparians to use their dredger to also maintain the Spit. Nobody else pays for maintenance of the Canals. The Riparians have an agreement similar to the SRA already in place for the past 4 years to get this levy paid to them by the Municipality to maintain the canals. Look how well it has worked! The Sra is no different, but because it is a new levy we have to use the SRA legislation to do it.
How is every single home/erf owner going to be reached – some simply do not ‘do’ the various media related options. A flyer with the Rates/Water/Electricity account ?
We are using a number of different communication channels including public meetings, one-on-one meetings with people, email, WhatsApp, Facebook, Call Centre (phoning), Private Estate Body Corporate communication channels and monthly bills, and public media ie St Francis Today and The Chronicle.
Do you have any information about the impact of suggested sand handling at the spit on the configuration of the surf spots ?
Since surfing is one of the attractions of St Francis Bay, this is probably a parameter to account with We are not using offshore reefs, but instead Groynes, so we don’t expect to disturb surfing spots.
The Beach solution design team have to investigate all impact as part f the EIA submission to DEDEAT. To make this procedure legitimate, legal and transparent surely ALL ratepayers in St Francis Bay should receive a voting form attached to their monthly rates and utilities bill. This should include ALL relevant voting details and dates as well as the full proposed costs of having a special rates area operating in the area.
The Kouga Municipality asked the SFPO Association to bring them consent forms (hardcopy) proving that a majority of property owners support the SRA levy before they will approve our SRA application. This process is legal and confirmed by a legal team we asked to verify our process. This is very simple and transparent. These consent forms are available for inspection at our SFPO offices.
If we cannot get the majority then the SRA proposal will be abandoned, the Committee will resign, what is left of the donations repaid, and the SFPO NPC liquidated.
Thank you for these clarifications. I cannot believe that there are people who do not see the positives in this proposal. To be holding onto the notion that this is only about the spit and the beach is simply a case of not understanding. No matter that the DA now runs the Municipality that they will now redirect funds to St Francis Bay for the necessary remedial work to infrastructure shows a complete lack of insight into the realities of the demands being made on the municipality. Currently 60% of the rates people in St Francis bay is destined for requirements in Poor/disadvantaged communities in the greater municipal area (not just Sea Vista). If there is any change to the allocation it is more likely that it will be an increase from 60% to a higher percentage because the demand is that much greater to improve these areas and provide appropriate facilities and infrastructure. If the DA fail to do this they will be facing a major challenge in the next Municipal election and then will all the naysayers be left standing. Abstaining is simply not an answer either you need to take responsibility for your home, Community and the infrastructure you expect. Sitting on the fence will not be good enough and just complaining about the state of our roads sewerage and Safety & Security is not in itself an answer because it is extremely unlikely that these will receive the necessary financing and attention via your current rates. Of course you could complain enough so that the municipality decides to increase rates substantially but then this still means that the 60% of the increased amount will go to the poor/disadvantaged areas. The SFPO are not suggesting something new it has been done very successfully in many other parts of the country. For instance the CCTV cameras which form such an important part of security in the centre of Cape Town were as a result of such an initiative and were paid for by the Cape Town Improvement District which is just such and SRA. Claremont in Cape Town also had major security and Drug problems and a SRA Zone was established and they now have their own security patrols in addition to CCTV cameras supporting this initiative. Rather support the committee who have spent an enormous amount of time and energy looking for a solution to this problem of Decay that is besetting our community not to mention the Financial contributions that have made to undertake these investigations. I can speak positively about the contribution this proposal will make having been involved in at least 5 such initiatives over the past 30 years. They work and you will see an improvement beyond just the beach and spit. The fact that the initiators may have homes on the canals is also not a factor there concern has been mounted by the general deterioration in St Francis Bay way beyond the canals which has its own type of SRA to deal with the running and managing the canal environment which is such an attraction to visitors and local residents.
As asked before but not answered, will Cape St Francis extra “rates” be ringfenced for CSF?
CSF is not part of the SRA. The CSF Civics Association declined to be part of this a year ago.
There a number of CSF property owners who have questioned this and feel that a broader base of CSF property owners need to be consulted.
Less than a quarter of CSF property owners are members of the CSF Civic Association. Therefore the other three-quarters may reject the decision. It is a massive task to encourage owners to support the Civics. There is no one that prevents someone to encourage owners (1 quarter Civic members and 3 quarters non-members) to participate in the SRA initiative. Good luck. Maybe the Cape St Francis owners do not feel the neglect of the suburb as intensely as the St Francis owners, yet?
Claremont and the center of Cape Town are commercial/business areas where CCTV cameras would be very effective.
Where would the CCTV cameras be placed in SFB? In my opinion CCTV cameras are far less of a priority than roads, pavements, storm water drains, the beach and the elimination of the threat fire caused by the groves of Port Jackson along St Francis Drive, Santereme, St Francis on Sea.
Its amazing how people perceive things and get it wrong Claremont has a business district just as does St Francis but there is a great deal of residential and much of Main Road now has apartment buildings and it was residential component that was the most vulnerable. Similarly Cape Town was to a great extent a business centre the resurgence of Residential development, there are now a lot of people living in the inner city because of its convenience to work and social activities, CCTV has played a major role in changing perceptions. Constantia has CCTV that is strategically placed and has helped tremendously in policing and reducing crime. Constantia is predominantly a residential suburb but again it does have a business precinct just as St Francis does. I may be mistaken but the number of complaints regarding increasing crime in St Francis particularly in Santareme and even in the village seems on the increase and it is better to start addressing it early on rather than waiting for it to get out of control.
I agree that the roads, bush clearing, stormwater and the beach are all priority issues but down play safety as that gets people nervous and insecure. The main point however is how important it is to get a yes vote so the naysayers need to consider the big picture rather than just knocking an excellent initiative to improve conditions in the community. If we don’t agree to contribute who will.
A good starting point for all the naysayers is to actually read the 2030 Vision Document. A clear understanding should then develop that this initiative is virtually the “last throw of the dice” for SFB. If we as property owners do not take charge of our future and destiny then SFB will crumble and decay to a point of no return which in turn will seriously devalue every single property owner’s investment. It is astonishing that people can be so shortsighted and critical of an initiative which has their very best interests at heart. We can be extremely grateful that there are the calibre of people heading up this initiative working tirelessly in the best interests of every single property owner including those in Cape St Francis who for some obscure reason choose to “opt out”.
There is a ‘menu’ of items to be attended to, the ‘pecking order’ is still to be decided on but any worthwhile suggestions can and will be added to this listing which will remain ‘work in progress’.
Please inform the SFPO offices of your suggestion.