I refer to the MDGA’s advice on the back page of the 2007 AGM Minutes:
“Objections to the above liquor licence application must be lodged with SAPS Muizenburg. Please note that a valid reason must be given otherwise the Liquor Board does not entertain the objection”

Inspector Donaldson has confirmed the following:
1. she has no knowledge of this liquor licence application
2. when she does receive such an application, she notifies the Community Policing Forum of which the MDGA is a member and the MDGA is then obliged to notify the residents
3. objections must not be lodged with SAPS Muizenburg, but should be addressed and directed to the Magistrate of Simonstown with a copy sent to the DPO
4. the Magistrate will then consider the objections, not the Liquor Board.

Has anyone else received similar advice? Clearly it’s easy to take a wrong turn when the MDGA give the incorrect information to their residents. Or perhaps they want objections to land up in the dustbin…

This is definitely a step backwards. In the letter it is stated that “the guard is currently under utilized”. What do they mean? It is like saying the stop sign is under utilized… He should act as a deterrent with his presence and not run around scaring small children and older ladies. Instead of getting another guard, we want to stretch the duties of one guard, and share the costs… a cop-out if you ask me! Maybe we do need the bottle store; at least we’ll get another guard?

I see too much negativity here towards the centre. Would everyone prefer the place to be knocked down in favor of low-cost housing instead? Just wondering where this all this bitching about the centre is going…going… gone!

“The owner of the Spar, and a regional representative of the chain, held discussions with Excom, prior to making the application, in order that our members should be aware of their plans”
“(Spar) wish to achieve the acceptance of the community for the venture”
“The Spar representatives have prepared a brochure, setting out their plans. A copy is held in the Marina office, for any member who wishes to read it”

the MDGA for some reason see no obligation on their part to fully inform all their members and instead (for the first time in its history I believe) opted to notify members not by notice at their respective registered domicilia but rather by way of “an information notice…distributed to members by E-mail, informing them of the facts”

In this same e-mail notice, there is stated this fact:
“A security guard will be stationed at the entrance”
further supported by “Spar, as a responsible organisation, with a reputation to protect….”

Now, barely two weeks after the above e-mail notice was issued, the residents of Eastlake Drive and Fisherman Quay (which for those who don’t know are situated in the immediate vicinity of the Eastlake/Spar shopping centre) received a written appeal from Richard Gie – donning his ‘Independent Security Committee’ hat – to join the fight against crime. A page of scare tactics focusing on the crime wave heading towards the Cape alludes to the possibility that Spar will subsidise the security guarding costs for Eastlake Drive. But lo and behold, if you read further it is not Spar who will subsidise the residents, but the members who will be subsidizing Spar! Spar it transpires no longer wish to pay for the services of a full-time security guard and Mr Gie et al have very kindly offered to enlist the support of Eastlake Drive residents to help finance this cost. Who is going to provide the security guard for the bottle store? Or is it the same security guard that the residents will be co-financing? Does this mean that the residents are going to be subsidizing the security for the entire shopping centre????

Now although Mr Gie (donning his MDGA Security Committee cap) is very much aware of the pending llquor license application cum bottle store (donning his Independent Security Committee hat) he doesn’t so much as mention this teeny weeny little matter of a neighbourhood bottle store in his appeal to the Eastlake Drive residents. But hey let’s be fair, he has offered his and Elaine’s assistance (that would be Elaine Meyer of MDGA Excom fame) to these poor helpless residents to set up a committee to facilitate this wonderful security initiative – and dare I say to ensure that it isn’t ignored. Mr Gie (wearing his Cannon Island Security Association regalia) recently appealed to members of that association to ‘reason’ with their neighbours to come on board so that they can achieve the 90% debit orders required for the Marina-wide security scheme. Presumably there will soon be a whole lot of ‘reasoning’ with neighbours going on in Eastlake Drive, too….

I sincerely hope that the residents who received these notices in their letter boxes treat this ‘security initiative’ with the contempt it deserves. In any event, any security guard watching all of Eastlake Drive and Fisherman Quay as well as a Spar and bottle store must have x-ray vision and eyes in the back of his head.

JP

Now that something is actually happening on our very own doorstep, they are shtum!!

What gives? Who greased the palm of whom here? Or does the Chairman just like the idea of having his daily fix on his doorstep?