JT wrote
On 20 February, the Marina da Gama Association issued an e-mail notice to those members on its e-mail list (half the membership if you’re lucky) advising of Spar’s plan to open a bottle store and how the Marina da Gama Association will not act on behalf of its members in either supporting or opposing the liquor license application. Although this same notice states that:
“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 Marina da Gama Aassociation 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 Marina da Gama Association’s 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 Marina da Gama Association’s 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.
6 users commented in " Residents asked to subsidise Shopping Centre security guard "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI agree with the part where JT points out that the security stationed at the Spar also has to patrol an entire road, away from the centre. So exactly how much of his time will he be protecting the shoppers at the centre, and indeed the centre itself? And should it not be the owners of the shopping centre who is charging HUGE rates for their property rentals, and not the tenants like the Spar, who should be protecting the visitors to the centre?
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!
Further to my posting, I am happy to report that the MDGA have included on the back page of the 2007 AGM minutes (issued yesterday or today) a copy of their e-mail of 20 Feb.
Thank you Excom!
Although I have quite a few questions regarding the minutes themselves and the rather sketchy budget for 2008/2009, there is something that is screaming at me from these pages: A pretty graph shows that there are 1,328 members of which 156 attended the AGM. Then we read that the poll was conducted by a show of hands and that 186 people voted in favour of Resolution One, 169 for Resolution Two with 2 against and 179 for Resolution 3. Now did some people vote with both hands???? (proxy votes should be disclosed separately surely?) I’m going to have my coffee now and then I’ll check again with my calculator to make sure…
Hi Resident.
No, you have it all wrong. We (at least I) am not against the shopping centre. Quite the contrary. I support it fully and have shopped their relatively often, considering the time it has been open. We are thrilled that we have a proper little shopping centre there. Well done to Spar and well done to all the other enterprising entrepreneurs who have invested money and time in our area. We will support you fully.
That does not detract from the fact that we would not like to see this self-same shopping centre, (of which we are quite proud) deteriorate by the addition of a bottle store. I have nothing against liquor, as such, but I would prefer not to have a bottle store at my front door. The reality is that there is a reason why people have to apply for liquor licences (as opposed to the vet-shop which does not) and that residents have the opportunity to oppose such an application. They have the potential of ruining a neighbourhood.
Of course we don’t think that Spar wants to ruin the neighbourhood deliberately. They have invested a lot of money in the venture and we wish them well. This is the reason why we were prepared not to oppose the grocer’s wine licence.
But a fully licensed bottle-store is a different kettle of fish. And it is not necessary – we have one at Capricorn Shopping Centre. Yes, you have to cross busy Prince George Drive, but it’s not as if it is miles away.
I suggest you go look at the lot that hang around at the bottle stores in Muizenberg and Kalk Bay. Even at the Friendly Store in Muizenberg late at night.
They may call it upmarket, but a bottle-store remains a bottle-store and can by no stretch of the imagination be called “upmarket”.
I think Spar is an asset to the community. I will continue to support it. I think that the owners of the shopping centre have made a stupendous improvement to the place. I think the Association should stop bothering them about the beautiful stone-wall – it looks great. BUT I DON’T WANT A BOTTLE STORE IN MY FRONT GARDEN and, if it comes to fruition, will not support it.
I was just wondering. What happened to William’s promise to speak to the Association. What was the Association’s response to him queries?
Mel, you’ve just read my mind. Hey William have you had any response? I am sincerely hoping that you get further than the rest of us (being nice certainly didn’t work for me – in fact your head will spin if you see my correspondence with the association).
Agree JT
The owner is way too quiet about it all. Does he hope it will simply go away?
Mel
I cannot fault your argument. I am however still worried about the security at the centre if they are going to force the only guard to roam an entire street.
And the wall: I like it too. I just wish they would do something about the proposed fountain and the empty shops. There is too much wasted space. As I’ve said in another mail, over 13 years I have seen many shops come and go, because people need more than just a few services. How about you open a little flower shop or something? This little centre is ideal for some of the residents to start their own little business. We need you guys. Can’t we entice ADT or Chubb to take a shop in the centre? This will surely help with security, and can bring them a lot of business.
Leave A Reply