HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN SA – STOP XENOPHOBIA !

THE WORLD BELONGS TO ALL WHO LIVE IN IT

The Western Cape Civil Society Coalition (made up of trade unions, FBOs, SAHRC and human, health and refugee rights organisations) has been formed to respond to and deal with the threats of and actual violent attacks against foreign nationals as well as the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in our country.

This Tuesday we are having a rally/public meeting to speak out against the:

-xenophobia that is ravaging our communities all around the country

-humanitarian crisis we are facing.

We will also announce our demands of government to deal with this crisis in a unified and urgent manner.

Please forward this announcement and please attend to show your support.

Venue:

St George’s Cathedral, Wale Street (corner Queen Victoria)

Tuesday 27 May 2008

12 – 2pm

Civil Society Task Team WC

Care of:

122 Longmarket Street Corner Adderley

Westminster House, 4th Floor

Cape Town

T + 27 21 422 1490

F + 27 21 422 1551

DON’T TOUCH MY BROTHER, DON’T TOUCH MY SISTER !

The following information was forwarded to us by the SAHRC:

PLEASE CIRCULATE AND GET IN AS MANY MEDIA AS POSSIBLE.

The Anti-Xenophobia Crisis Committee is using cellphones.

1. Emergency report SMS number:
Anyone who knows of a xenophobic attack should send an SMS to 31864.
This will be continuously staffed and information passed on to authorities.

2. Pledge lines to donate R10 for food & blankets:
People who want to donate R10 to the Coalition bank account can send your name (e.g. Zackie Achmat) by SMS to 38871. This will deduct R10 from your airtime (or contract), At least R6 will go to the TAC bank account to buy food, blankets and other supplies for the refugees from xenophobic attacks. (We are negotiating with Vodacom to reduce the deductions).

3. Bulk SMS notification to activists and community organizers on how to respond to attacks.
If you want to notify community activists in your organization via SMS, please contact us and we can send Bulk SMS to 100s or 1,000s of local
organizers at churches, community groups, TAC, other partners. If you want to do this, please contact Peter on 082 829 3353, peter@cell-life.org.za

Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrica!
South Africa belongs to all who live in it!

Contact: Peter Benjamin, Cell-Life, 082 829 3353, peter@cell-life.org.za
On behalf of the Treatment Action Campaign and the Anti-Xenophobia
Crisis Committee

Below we also include a list of organisations and contact names and numbers for those who wish to assist.

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

For years San Marina and Uitsig residents have been complaining about the dangerous intersection between Oudevlei Road and Prince George Drive.

At the November 2007 AGM, there was a general sigh of relief when Councillor Demetri Qually announced that Council was looking into this matter and was considering some traffic-calming measures. Their solution: BIGGER SIGNS.

Councillor Qually, I don’t know if you wish us to thank you for the new signs. In all honesty, what difference do you think bigger signs are going to make?

Once again, the people of San Marina and Vrygrond are being thrown a bone just to placate us. NOT ACCEPTABLE. Go back to the drawing board and do something productive. Maybe, if you do not want to give us traffic lights, at least give us a circle.

I was with greatly disappointed to learn yesterday, that the Executive Committee of the Marina da Gama Association do not plan to attend the mediation session scheduled at the South African Human Rights Commission for the 19^th May 2008.

According to Mr. Jan de Groote, ExCom had not received official notice from the SAHRC. Apparently, the letter was addressed to their street address instead of the postal address and must have gotten lost in the mail. Mr de Groote advised me that he had read about the meeting on this website and that the Chairman had also received an e-mail from a member referring to the mediation session. Apparently, both he and Mr. Harrison phoned the SAHRC to find out what was going on, but Mr. de Groote claims that nobody they spoke to at the SAHRC knew anything about the meeting.

The SAHRC however advised us that all parties had confirmed the place, date and time of the meeting.

Mr. Peter Harrison, Chairman of the Marina da Gama Association, purportedly left for the UK yesterday and will only be returning early in June.

Of course I am devastated, but probably not more so than Ms. Anna Moore of the SAHRC. She had especially postponed her return to the UK in order to attend the mediation session.

Personally, I hope that ExCom see their way clear to still attend the meeting on Monday. This matter has dragged on for long enough and must now be settled, bit in the mean time, the meeting has been provisionally postponed to the 25^th June 2008.

Anita

I had the most disconcerting experience today.

As I came home, the Chubb security vehicle was parked across the road from my home. The guard was busy talking to two burley men who were clearly quite suspect. Thinking that I was safe as the security guard was there, I stopped my vehicle behind the Chubb vehicle, got out and proceeded to open my garage to park my car, but just as I was closing the garage again, the two men were right behind me – and the Chubb vehicle was nowhere to be seen!!

The men proceeded to start harassing me for a job/money, until a kind gentleman (and I mean this in every sense of the word) stopped in the road, making it obvious that he was keeping an eye on the situation. When the men saw this, they quickly walked off. The gentleman asked me if I was ok and only left when I was safely inside my property.

My point is this: Generally, I am quite cautious. Had the Chubb vehicle not been there, I would not have climbed out of my car until such time as the two men had left. The security guard cannot claim he did not see me (I actually greeted him), but did not bother to stick around until such time as he was sure I was safe, and had that kind gentleman not stopped, who knows what would have happened to me. I do know that I was genuinely uncomfortable and felt truly threatened. I had to close the garage door, hang onto my handbag for dear life and attend to two very demanding men at the same time.

Next time, I will know not to trust the presence of the security guards to protect me. I will just drive around the block until such time as the guard and whomever he was having a chat with are gone. The security guards are not there to protect you, but only to give you a false sense of security.

To the gentleman who stopped to make sure I was ok – Thank you. I am sure your presence made a huge difference to the outcome of the situation.  We need more people like you who would be prepared to give a minute or two of their time, just to keep an eye on your neighbour.  You were marvellous.

(Supplied by a resident who asked to remain anonymous.)

Of all cars in the world, mine would probably be the last one I would have thought would be stolen. Rusted to bits and beaten and bashed, but as life would have it, it has become another crime statistic.
The story is actually quite ironic. I was visiting a resident of one of Marina da Gama’s “protected houses” and when I came out, my car was gone. My immediate reaction was relief – hey, this was the kick up the you-know-what I needed. It was high time I got rid of it and I had in fact been actively looking for a new (used) car.

But the paradox of the situation did not escape me. Here I live in what is called the most vulnerable part of the Marina. My house has never been broken into, my car has never been broken into and although I had a bicycle stolen out of the yard once, I have generally been left alone. Funny how, on the rare occasion I venture into the “protected” part of the Marina, my car gets stolen!The real irony is that the next morning I get a call from the police telling me that the car has been recovered.The thieves had ploughed it into a sand dune along Baden Powel Drive and left it there where it was found the following morning.

Although I am thankful to the police for their prompt action, it is probably hardly worth the trouble to go and fetch it at Bellville, where it is now kept until it can be fingerprinted and processed by the police.

I would however like to take this opportunity to thank the police for their quick response to my call and also to Inspector Drake of the Muizenberg police for his enthusiasm when he told me the car was found again. My mind tells me that it would probably have been better had it not been recovered, but my heart is thankful that this little car, which has given me so many years of excellent service, did not spend the end of its days in the hands of criminals. Somehow, it just deserves better.
(Posted to marinasecurity@gmail.com by a resident of Marina da Gama)

According to the Human Rights Commission, the Legal Department of “the Commission has considered the complaints of the residents of Marina da Gama and are concerned that prima facie it may constitute a violation of the rights to Freedom of religion, belief and opinion and just administrative action” in terms of Sections 15 and 33 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996.

The South African Human Rights Commission has called on the Chairman of the Marina da Gama Association, Mr. Peter Harrison and the complainants to attend a mediation session on 19 May 2008 in Cape Town.

Anita says that “although we are really, REALLY grateful to the Human Rights Commission for taking an interest in the matter, it is shameful that the matter has had to go this far. Had the Councillors followed through on their resolution and forced ExCom to do a proper public participation process, this matter would have been democratically settled a long time ago.”

But it is not just our Councillor who is to blame for Marina da Gama being disgraced. The fact that ExCom does not see that the vote of 406 members count for nothing if around 400 members were not properly notified of the meeting, speaks of bull-headed arrogance and an utter disregard for the members of the community.

Shame on the Councillors and shame, shame, SHAME on ExCom.

I understand that, by Law, the Marina Da Gama Association has the right to comment on all building plans. The Executive Committee of the Association is however in the habit of dictating architects, charging large deposits, scrutinizing fees and inspection fees. In my opinion, these are unethical practices to which I am not prepared to be submitted. It is our choice which architect to use and we are already paying Council for building inspections and scrutinizing plans.

Its a proven fact that, should your building plans conform to the style and architecture of the area, there is no need to submit first to the Association to guarantee Council approval.

I have heard those with outstanding subscriptions will not get Association approval till fees are paid up in full!  Yeah right!

The latest news is that Simon’s Town Magistrates Court received the application for a liquor licence from Tops At Eastlake Bottle store yesterday (3 April 2008).

They are now awaiting objections from the community.

Objections must be lodged within 28 days from the above date and can be sent to:

Simon’s Town Magistrate’s Court
Private Bag X4
Simon’s Town
7995

Fax no: 021 786 3429

Attention: Mr Nazo

RE: TOP AT EASTLAKE – LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATION – EASTLAKE CENTRE, MARINA DA GAMA

Please ensure that all objections are properly motivated as an “I do not want a bottle-store in my back yard” will probably not do. You will have to explain why you do not want a bottle-store in your back yard.

Anyone can object, whether you own a property or whether you are just renting in the area, but please make sure that your objections are in on time, as this will probably be your best chance to stop the process.  Once the licence has been approved, it will be very difficult to have it revoked.

I have not been in town and have only now had a chance to look at the website again. 

Well done to Anita and co. for managing to get the Human Rights Commission on board.  Mediation is necessary.

I have read the Executive Committee’s response to Anita’s letter and it is a load of bs.  Council’s report was rejected when they resolved that the Association first get a proper public participation process on the go. I do agree with them about is that “It is time for all to move forward in the best interests of the community that we all live in.”  But, in order to move forward, we first have to correct the mistakes, and, from what I understand, there were many.

It is important to note that around 400 members were not informed of the meeting at which the changes to the constitution were voted in.  I am one of those members.  That is a significant number of people.  It does not matter if it was the most well attended meeting in the history of the Marina, what matters is that 400 member were not notified of the meeting.  This makes the meeting unlawful, regardless of who else attended and the decisions taken thereat cannot be binding.  If the Association want to keep the changes voted in at the meeting, they will have to call another meeting, table the issue again, and get a new mandate to change the constitution.  Of course, this time inviting every single homeowner.

If what Anita says is correct and this constitution has never been approved or adopted by the members at an AGM.  This needs to be rectified.   It cannot just be ignored, as it will raise all kinds of questions in the future.  So the Executive Committee will have to see that this happens.  Call a meeting and have it adopted.  Get the mandate you say you have and walla, no more problems.

It is extremely short-sighted of the Executive Committee not to see that you cannot build a secure future based on such major oversights.  It will just lead to endless problems in the future, so if you want to move forward, do it pro-actively and correct the mistakes.  Then you can securely move forward, knowing where you stand.

March 17, 2008

Dear Ms Koetsier

Your Letter of 2 February 2008 – To the Executive Committee of the Marina Da Gama Association

We refer to the above letter relating to a meeting held on 2 February 2008 between yourself with your brother and Toni Joubert, Elaine Meyer and Bob Craske. The open items of that meeting have been addressed to you in a separate letter.

You attached a list of perceived shortcomings you had identified with the constitution.

These were raised by you in 2006 and were fully addressed at that time.

However, as with all questions relating to the constitution, any Home Owners Association Constitution is the property of the members of the association and can only be changed by them. If any member wishes to do this the Annual General Meeting is the forum to do it. An ExCom cannot change the constitution, it is solely up to the members.

You have raised the question of the legality of the constitution.

`The Planning Department’s Report to Council on the changes made to the Constitution of the Marina da Gama Association’

reads as follows:-

Legal Issues.

“The city’s records unfortunately, do not reflect when the said Association was formed and whether or not the Constitution for the Association was ever formally approved”

“However, Section 29(3) of the Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 (LUPO) states that a “A home owners’ association which came into being by virtue of a condition imposed under the Townships Ordinance, 1934 (Ordinance 33 of 1934), and which exists at the commencement of this Ordinance, shall be deemed to be a home owners’ association which came into being by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section. ” “

“So whilst it must be assumed that no formal approval for the constitution has issued, the Association as well as its constitution are deemed valid in terms of the aforesaid legislation.”

The Marina da Gama Association and its constitution are therefore valid.

You state that ‘in the unlikely event that you are able to prove the legitimacy of the Constitution, the changes thereto were not voted in lawfully’

The constitution is proven legitimate and the Planning Department Report went on to state:

Legal Issues

“The submissions made to Council show that the resolutions to amend the constitution as proposed were properly adopted at duly constituted meetings of the association in terms of the current constitution, which as has been discussed, is deemed to be a valid constitution in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 “.

“In this regard, it is noted that the approval of the proposed amendments do not specifically impose or approve the security plan proposed by the association, but merely allow for the members of the Association to implement a security plan, if they so wish “.

“A copy of the proposed amendments has been referred to the Legal Advisor who has no objection to the proposed amendments. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Head or Legislation and Enforcement that the amendments proposed to clauses 4.1, 5.4, and12 are a private matter between the members of the Association “

Conclusions

Reasons for support

“The approval of the application as proposed is not deemed to have a detrimental effect on the members of the Marina da Gama Association and the proposals have been supported by Council Legal Department.”

It is completely clear, from the above, that the councils’ Legal Department were satisfied that the correct procedures were followed, and that there was no detrimental effect on the membership of the association.

We believe that you may already have a copy of the report from the Planning Department but attach a copy in order that you can publish it.
Council have repeatedly said that the resolution of the Sub-Council meeting is a mere recommendation and confirmed this publicly in an address by the Manager of the Sub-Council to the AGM.

You ask for ExComs’ official comments on statements made by individual members of past Executive Committees and also from third party comments to objectors.

The members of the Executive Committee are nominated as individuals at Annual General Meetings or can be co-opted on to an elected committee when required. They are nominated by paid up members of association and accept to serve on a voluntary basis until the next AGM. They come from all corners of the Marina. The current committee has three members from the Uitsig Peninsula, two from Cannon Island, three from Park Island and two from Eastlake. Some members do not serve their full terms as personal or business reasons may dictate. The committee, from your own comments, is constantly changing, and in a dynamic and fluid manner. The current committee has 50% new members from last year, so new ‘blood’ is introduced to ensure that views of all can be represented.

In view of this, to ask the current committee to form a collective view on statements which are up to two years old, and hence two previous committees past would be unfair and impossible. Making value judgements on bare statements without context, under such conditions, would be beyond the Wisdom of Solomon. To assume that it could be done should invoke the same sentiment.

It is time for all to move forward in the best interests of the community that we all live in.

You thank us for the invitation to write an article for the Marina News and our assurance that the article would be published, you were not given and we cannot give any assurance as to publication, that is up to the editor. It was explained that we do not review articles for publication.

It is worth noting that the very first act of members of the current committee was to contact you immediately after the AGM; before you left the hall, and that we met you at someone’s home as you said that you would be unhappy at the office. It was a genuine effort to build bridges.

Yours Sincerely
The Marina Da Gama Association P.O. Box 121
Muizenberg
7950
Executive Committee
The Marina da Gama Association

-oOo-

I have read the Executive Committee’s official response to my letter and am very disappointed. The letter has no substance, it says nothing, it proves nothing and the most illogical part thereof is that the Executive Committee keeps on clinging to a Council report which has been rejected in its entirety, both by the sub-council committee and by Council’s Legal Department. Unbelievable!!

Well, I have news for them. This matter has not been dealt with adequately. Not by a long shot. You can fool some people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The Executive Committee hangs the future of the Association on the basis of a report written by a Council official who was under severe political pressure and who was very relieved that his report had been rejected out of hand and that the constitution has still not been ratified by Council.

In the end, no matter how fast the lie runs, the truth will always catch up and this Executive Committee has still not been able to prove the legitimacy of the constitution. It was foisted on home-owners in Anglo’s time and it was foisted on home-owners after Anglo left and has never been adopted in it’s entirety at an AGM.

As for commenting on the quotes in my letter, we have no idea what the views of the Executive Committee is. If indeed it is the Committee’s intention to build bridges, the current Committee must explain what its views are. Please note that 12 out of the 17 quotes were written by currently serving committee members and are inexcusable, regardless of the context in which it may have been placed. An explanation is therefore not an unreasonable request. I can however see why you would think that it would take the Wisdom of Solomon to explain away these insults to the community.

The committee is however clearly not prepared to accept responsibility for its actions and shifts the blame from one to the other. If it is true that the committee “does not review articles for publication” I suggest that you not only fire the editor of the Marina News, but also the people currently still serving on the Executive Committee who have written such disrespectful, unacceptable rubbish.

In conclusion, I will still write that article for the Marina News, but now doubt that it will be published. Once again the Committee has backtracked on its promises. Thank goodness for Warren who has made this website available to us as at least those of us with access to the internet will be able to read the article here. Thank you Warren.

Anita

Early this morning I received a phone-call from an exited resident telling me that she received a letter from the South African Human Rights Commission inviting her to a meeting to mediate the matter between the Association and the complainants (objectors). Lo and behold, later this afternoon, I also received such a letter.

It has taken almost two years, but the Human Rights Commission has seen enough merit in our complaints to call for mediation

According to the SAHRC, they believe “that it would be beneficial to schedule a mediation session, at our offices, between the Marina Da Gama residents who have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission and the Marina Da Gama Association. Here your grievances can be discussed and the SAHRC can act as a mediator.”

Unfortunately, the SAHRC can only accommodate those who have lodged a complaint with them.

Maybe now we will finally be able to settle this matter.

Let’s face it, the Prince George Drive section running along Marina da Gama is a mess and just downright dangerous.

For the Marina residents, the notorious Oudevlei Road intersection is a major sore point and residents of San Marina and Uitsig have been complaining for years that this intersection is lethal. Time and again, Council has rejected the idea of a traffic-light at this intersection but at the November 2007 Marina da Gama Association AGM, Demitri Qually, our local Councillor, promised “that the Oudevlei Road Intersection Issue would be sorted out in the next month or two.”

But Qually must have had his map upside down, as the only new traffic light which is making its appearance, is at Cannon Island Way on the other side of Marina da Gama. Why Cannon Island Way was chosen is a mystery, as this was one of the roads which only gave north-bound access to Prince George Drive. The developers must have had some serious muscle though, as not only did they persuade Council to put up a traffic light, they actually managed to get Council to open a gap in the centre island to give both north and south-bound access to the residents. Costa da Gama and other developments along the Eastern side of Prince George Drive still have to make do with first travelling south and then making a u-turn if they want to travel north.Councillor Qually says that they cannot have a traffic light at the Oudevlei intersection as it would be too close to a regional road. The problem is that the regional road they are referring to is the proposed Ring-Road, a road which, at this stage, is still a figment of the imagination and looks to remain so for a long time to come. In the mean time, lives are being placed at risk at the Oudevlei intersection and our Councillor’s promises remain, as always, empty.

When one gets bad service from a restaurant you can just get up and leave. Unfortunately in the Marina da Gama we cannot simply walk away from sloppy mismanagement and Nazi-style Association leadership. To get away from this, we would have to sell our homes. It would seem as if the Marina Management is under the miss-impression that the opposition is a One-Lady show. But there is a lot of discontentment among home-owners, it’s just they are not as proactive or loud as others. Why is it that, no matter where you work or stay, especially in the Marina Da Gama’s case, there is always a bad apple? In our case you can pick between the chairman or perhaps even the whole basket-full.

How can you claim x amount of members if you don’t even have an official register?

Association big-wig Toni Joubert thinks San Marina residents will take advantage of kerb clean-ups? Who does she think she is?

ArchCom Chairman, Jan de Groote, promised electric fencing will be repaired within two days. Now this bloke knows how to mouth away. Perhaps I misunderstood, after all, he did not mention two days from which date in which year. This is the same person who told me to see an optician as I had a problem with my eyesight.

Demetri Qually and De Groote have two things in common as far as responding to residents, they don’t reply to emails as they feel its beneath there stature and they don’t make good on their promises!!

The Chairman of the Marina Da Gama Association seems to think he has a moll in the office.

Maybe he is confusing the Association with the FBI, or the Secret Service?

Anita wrote

LEGALITY OF THE ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

It seems as if ExCom are currently trying to engage the objectors in a participation process in terms of the Council resolution. We welcome any effort by the Executive Committee to resolve issues and engage with the objectors. ExCom must however do this officially, as ExCom members engaging in their private capacity, with only one or two objectors, has no real meaning.

At ExCom’s own admission the public participation process around the changing of the constitution had been seriously lacking as around 400 (one third) of the membership were not officially notified of the meeting where the changes to the constitution were adopted by only 408 members.

But even before the changes to the constitution are seriously discussed, it is necessary to ascertain that the original constitution is valid and legal. The Chairman is quite incorrect in stating that this matter has been adequately resolved and Council still has not ratified the constitution. Despite their threats to hand us over to a collection agency, I, for one, will not pay them a cent until such time as the question of the legality of the constitution has been resolved.

I would however suggest that ExCom skip the stage of handing me over to a collection agency as these agencies do not have the legal right to issue summons against defaulters. Instead, I would suggest that they hand me over to a lawyer as this will expedite the matter. I will then ask them to prove their right to collect such levies/subscriptions from me and if they can prove that the constitution is binding, the matter will be resolved once and for all.

The following article was placed in the February Marina News.

In my opinion, it is a blatant attempt at blackmail. To what depths will this Executive Committee sink to get the security scheme off the ground? They admit that the top-down approach did not work. It seems like the bottom-up approach is also not working. Are we now getting the side-swipe?

Of course, the blackmail note was unsigned.

Locking of Bridges in the Marina
Bridges are locked at 20h00 each night and unlocked each morning at 6h00, Monday to Sundays by our security service providers.
This is done in the interests of security. We are aware of the inconvenience some of you experience because of this, but have to point out that this safety feature benefits far larger numbers in our community. Our crime stats over the years have significantly been reduced, particularly at night, since the bridges were locked.
The council has given us permission to lock the bridges at night, after considerable pressure and particularly after several tragic crime-related events had occurred, with criminal elements using the cover of darkness and the bridges as escape routes.
We regret that no keys are issued to members.
We would love the bridges to remain open for all those early morning joggers, those taking walks, those with maids who take the short cuts, those of us who want to visit friends at night via the bridges. What an ideal Marina this would be, when we can all take a walk at any time of the day or night without fear. Unfortunately, this cannot happen until there are sufficient security checks and balances are in place.
The locking of the bridges will be reviewed once members agree that the overall security in the Marina has improved and this won’t happen until the remaining unprotected parts of the Marina are properly secured.
You are, of course, reminded to remain alert at all times.

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.

As with all things Marina Da Gama Association, it is once again a struggle to get any information out of the Executive Committee. I have, on behalf of those who want to oppose the liquor licence, asked the Executive Committee for details as to where and how residents can object, if they so wish. This was their reply:

Dear Anita

Objections must be lodged with the SAPS Muizenberg. Please note that a valid reason must be given, otherwise the Liquor Board does not entertain the objection.

Regards
Jan de Groote

I was given no contact person, contact numbers or time frame during which objections can be lodged.

I was informed by another resident that the Association is not prepared to send out flyers in the Marina in order to make information available to the residents who do not have access to a computer, as “it is too expensive“. I would therefore suggest that those with computers advise their neighbours and friends who do not.

I did manage to find out that the contact person at Muizenberg SAPS is Inspector Donaldson and that she can be reached at: 021 788 8754

You may fax your objections directly to the Liquor Board for attention: Alexis at fax no. 021 483 5066.

(It would seem as if advertising for the full liquor licence has not been done yet, so thus far we do not have a date by which objections have to be lodged. Alexis from the Liquor Board has however invited us to object to the Board directly. Inspector Donaldson is on leave until Wednesday.)

Anita

JT wrote the following:

Fyi, I have just spoken to Inspector Donaldson, Liquor Officer at SAPS Muizenburg and she very kindly said that I may quote her:

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 Marina da Gama Association 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 Marina da Gama Association give the incorrect information to their residents. Or perhaps they want objections to land up in the dustbin…

JT asked
on February 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Hi Bob Hi Elaine Hi Toni

Just a few minor points & questions you might want to apply your minds to for the benefit of your members:

1. The Marina News is controlled by whoever finances it and controls its distribution – now wouldn’t that be the MDGA and by default Excom? Was it the editor’s call to place that awful letter about AK on the cover page? If so, why didn’t the Chairman offer an apology in the next edition and distance the Association from such a distasteful act? I witnessed an Excom member whooping with delight…

2. My title deed restriction is very clear. I am not bound to any unlawful association, constitution or act. PeriodOn to more serious stuff:

3. Exactly who were the Trustees of the Eastlake Association at the time that the trustees’ powers to alter the constitution were first transferred and were there subsequent transfers of these powers?

4. When did this happen and to whom exactly were these powers transferred? Were any conditions attached to such transfer? I guess we’ll never know without the Trustees’ Resolution required to effect such a transfer of powers (hint: very important document). I should think that the effective date of the resolution would also have some significance.

5. Who was it who authorised the new redrafted version of the Eastlake Association constitution? No, I mean who exactly? (hint: Anglo American is quite a large bag of rather diverse entities and people, and even if they or a representative of the group ‘approved’ the constitution it doesn’t automatically follow that ‘they’ were the Trustees of the Eastlake Association – they might have simply proffered their professional wisdom much as an interfering ‘Big Brother’ might do and in the belief that someone else was attending to the legalities).

6. What assurance do we have that a couple of individuals didn’t in fact intentionally hijack what was a legitimate association in law and convert it unilaterally in an unlawful manner into a body they could control? Without the old records and resolution book of the association it certainly appears to be a distinct possibility (hint: statutory records are normally handed over simultaneously with the transfer of powers as they belong to the organisation).

A few minor points:

7. If the association does not have an official register of members, does not verify its member register against Council and other official title deed records, where is the assurance that all members are notified of meetings and invoiced for subs? How many members did you say there are? And how many erven exist with this title deed restriction?

8. If the association does not maintain attendance registers, where is the assurance that the association isn’t contravening its own constitutional voting requirements? I refer specifically to the reference to a percentage of ‘…members present at the time of voting and entitled to vote…’, which if I’m not mistaken implies that anyone present and entitled, but abstaining, still counts as a negative vote. How do you count these votes without an attendance register?

9. Why do you need a list of objectors in order to call a meeting to address members’ concerns? Why can’t you just invite all the members and let them decide for themselves if they do or don’t wish to participate? It’s not a party although I suppose you could include an RSVP for catering purposes. It would of course be a discussion forum to which all members should be invited so that your legal counsel and other appropriate professionals can address the members’ concerns. Members, too, should be able to bring along their lawyers and accountants if they feel more comfortable having a knowledgable person engage on their behalf on technical points. Excom have demonstrated that they’re more than capable when it comes to calling meetings at extremely short notice when it suits them. So why is this so hard to do?

10. Does Excom comply with par 13.2 of the MDGA constitution? I don’t recall any ‘books of account’ being laid before any AGM I’ve attended. Would other members care to commment? Surely if a member isn’t able to attend an AGM he may view the books of account at the office? Why does Excom have such a problem with this? Your general attitude towards your members on this point reflects very, no extremely, poorly on the lot of you.

11. Do you think we might have the budget for the year we’re about to commence seeing as the subscription has already been approved? And what’s happening to the minutes? I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that a fresh pair of hopefully registered eyes has been appointed to scrutinize the records this time around. You’ve also issued an updated constitution incorporating the resolutions voted on at the 2007 AGM – surely this calls for the speedy issuing of the minutes supporting this?

12. Last one. Ask yourselves this question: if the association were to cease to exist, let’s say for lack of volunteers to serve on the Excom, the legal requirement for an association to exist in the Township Area would fall away – completely. So how critical is this association really and to whom? Why would Council or anyone else place any meaningful reliance on an association that is not only run by a bunch of volunteers (idiots for all they know) but also one that might disappear in the blink of an eye. Not to mention the fact that its existence probably causes Council a ton of extra work.

13. Ok last one promise. What happens if all the members withhold their subs and the association goes bankrupt? I am not being facetious here – I genuinely am interested to know what happens in such a case.

That really was the last one.