This Association has never had, nor will it ever have the authority to enforce building codes and architectural guidelines. The only body with that authority is Council. This was proclaimed in the Provincial Gazette of the Cape of Good Hope on 2 October 1987 (page no.1048/9).

All the other developments you talk about have common property. This common property needs to be maintained and rates and taxes must be paid for it. The Marina Da Gama Association has none.

A ratepayers’ association cannot, by its very definition, have compulsory membership. Only a home-owners’ association can and a home-owners’ association must have common property to administer.

The home-owners’ association does not address anti-social behaviour, nor should they. It is not within their job-description.

So, my question to you is: Why should we belong to an Association with no teeth and nothing to spend our money on?

Thanks for the very comprehensive feedback…Phew, seems like we’ll be moving into a conflict zone. It makes total sense what you are saying but it also seems that if the majority of residents wanted to change things that they could. It would be a case of getting sufficient numbers to the relevant meeting and adopting relevant resolutions? I am correct in saying that this?…It is also strange to me that if the MDGA is so disliked that the majority of owners don’t turn up for these meetings to voice their concern and make changes to the constitution…So I guess I will have to see for myself firsthand..

Thanks again for your input, much appreciated

You have inadvertently stumbled across the very essence of the problem. In a block of flats you have common property which needs to be maintained, rates and taxes need to be paid and basic services have to be delivered. You are also protected by the Sectional Titles Act which governs how these levies may be charged and administered and there is an ombudsman, should any problems arise.

In Marina Da Gama, we have no common property to be administered and the basic services are rendered by the municipality. Rates and taxes are paid individually. There is no law protecting us, bar the common law, and your recourse is to the High Court – a very expensive exercise, should you have to go that route. This is a very dangerous situation to be in, considering that home-owners’ associations are run by volunteers from the community. There is also nothing prescribing basic qualifications or managerial skills of these volunteers.

When reading your constitution, please take into account that the constitution calls for a quorum of 60 people to validate a meeting. Considering that there are about 1 300 homes in the Marina, this means that as little as 40 people can change this constitution to whatever they like on behalf of the rest of us. Because the Association is in fact a very unpopular body (some meetings have turned seriously ugly in the past), the average attendance at meetings is about 120 homeowners with the right to vote. As a rule, these people tend to follow whatever the Executive Committee of the day proposes.

Voting for the Executive Committee does not happen. There should be 12 such members, and on average it is very difficult to get together 12 volunteers to serve on the committee. So, whomever has their name put forward is automatically a Committee Member. Should there still be spaces vacant on the Committee, the standing Committee Members will co-opt someone of their choice. It is certainly not a community choice as to whom our “leaders” are.

Granted, it is your own fault if you do not attend the meetings, unless of course you were not notified of the meeting to start with. This is what happened at the meeting where the controversial changes happened in 2006 – over 500 people were not officially notified – and yet the meeting was declared “valid”. When I pointed out at the meeting that non-resident members did not receive notification and that my mother, a non-resident member, was one of them, I was told that “we will phone the old bat in the case of a hang-vote.” Charming.

And if you dare object to the obvious flaws, the derision, threats and lies fly about like bullets during a war.

I appreciate the fact that you are prepared to make an objective evaluation of the situation, and much has been written about the subject during the last 3 years. I would therefore suggest that you get copies of the past 3 years’ newsletters from the Association offices. Should you wish, I will forward you copies of my formal objections to Council and the Association and further information I have at hand. My e-mail address is: anotheranita@gmail.com

We did call for a public participation process, as did Council. Council even offered to help and get the Independent Electoral Commission involved (who do this kind of thing free of charge), but the Chairman of the Marina Da Gama Association declined, saying: “Talk of a ‘Public Participation Process’ is misplaced; the Council itself accepts that changes to our constitution are a private matter between members, so there is no public to be consulted. There will be no referendum, and we don’t need any further interference from Council in our internal affairs.” Peter Harrison – Chairman: September 2007 Security Bulletin

I agree. If the majority of the homeowners agree to something, then democracy should rule, but the Association has overstepped its bounds, did not follow their own rules and as a consequence now have to prove to us that they have the power over us they claim they have. They have not been able to do so.

It is this very same abuse of power which leads me to believe that an association, in order to be effective in the community, must be a voluntary body. Most communities have very effective ratepayers’ associations, and I believe that their effectiveness stems from the very fact that they are voluntary. The people who belong and serve on these committees are passionate about what they do, but in order to survive, they have to do what the community wants, otherwise they will not have the membership or the funding to keep going.

I know that the people of the Marina are passionate and proud of our surroundings and our beautiful suburb. Why not give us a little credit that we can look after our own standards, without a “Big Daddy” watching over us. Kirstenhoff does it, Meadowridge does it, – and they don’t have a compulsory association. If you have pride in your property and pride in your area, it comes naturally that you would want look after it. Now you get silly little letters from the Association telling you that you should paint your house, when you have already bought the paint and was about to start painting anyway. And the letters are just about rude enough to get your back up, leave the planned painting job and tell them to get lost. Most counter-productive, if you ask me.

Thanks Anita for updating me on the proposed amount change, which is substantially more than my impressions of the R170 per annum!! I too would also be rather inclined to voice my concerns about this amount ESPECIALLY the “uncapped” bit… Should the Association not put together a manifesto explaining where these contributions would go and how the additional amounts would be budgeted and spent as well as the pros of this?? Then this could be sent to home owners in the Marina and then a survey had? Would seem to be the most “democratic solution” in my opinion.. Hopefuly everyone would take an honest look at the pros and cons and make a informed decision then even if it means accepting they were wrong, then it is up to the MDGA to accept “the will of the people” so to speak…

I look forward to following this post and seeing the outcome which I trust will benefit the majority and not the minority, whatever the outcome may be..

My fight with the Association started because the Executive Committee wanted to raise the small R170.00 annual contribution (capped at a maximum 10% increase per annum) to a staggering R2 640.00 per annum (uncapped) at the whim of as little as 40 of the +- 1 300 homeowners. This lead to an investigation into their actual power to do so, which in turn lead to the ultimate conclusion that the Association, as it stands, is not the compulsory association they claim to be. Compulsory Associations just seem to attract bullies anyway.

You miss the point. The issue has less to do with a small contribution of R170pa than it has to do with a title deed restriction and the potentially onerous implications thereof if the MDGA has its way.

How would you like to find yourself unemployed one day and having to fork out thousands of rands each month courtesy of a title deed restriction and a bunch of idiots who can’t budget?

Hail Mary

I look forward to seeing the “Rise of the Marina da Gama” headline in a weekend paper in the not to distant future…

God Bless

i have no problem contributing towards an honourable association and R170pa is well within my means, but i won’t tacitly endorse what recent excoms have tried to do to cement an excessive authority over my property and person through underhanded means and distorted facts, not to mention “dismissive approach” adopted in response to my and other residents’ legitimate queries.

you must do what you feel is right for you – to my knowledge nobody has ever complained or harassed residents who have paid their subs -and please pop in here for a giggle from time to time. only requirement is a sense of humour.