WHILE the special rating area (SRA) is an excellent initiative and idea, we will not be billed twice for basic service delivery, which we would normally expect such as lighting, cleanliness and action against crime in the area. These at present leave a lot to be desired.
We respectfully ask the metro firstly to acknowledge its shortcomings and lack of service delivery, and act against these members and departments employed to do so on these basic service delivery issues in the area, and for that matter the rest of the metro. It should then move forward with remedial action, with our assistance if required.
Should the MBDA need the assistance of a residents’ association (already in existence) to assist it with the metro’s shortcomings, then I think that my proposal to have the metro pay a rebate back to this special purpose vehicle as a Section 21 company, with the same amount the MBDA is proposing to increase the normal rates in the area, is valid. The rates are already excessive.
If this proposal is accepted, residents will gladly support you on the initiative. Then let this Section 21 company show the metro, at it’s own discretion, what they can achieve in the area with the funds available to them, by implementing this rebate back to them.
After all, it is their money and they should have a say in how it’s being used or not used in the area. Once this amount has been rebated by the metro and is received, it can then be used at their sole discretion.
This would hopefully include the same proposed increase in rates value also being applicable to the municipal and other Section 21 companies’ buildings in the area.
This would only be fair, and would then also benefit them by the newly rejuvenated SRA area and the property value increases, should it be a success.
We await the reply from the metro at the next public participation meeting.
As a landlord in the Richmond Hill and Central areas, together with other parties concerned, I reject the MBDA’s claim that it had 50% plus one vote in favour of the proposed SRA in Richmond Hill. I ask that a forensic audit is done on this alleged vote as soon as possible, to prove to all ratepayers in that area that this was done legitimately.
I will not be paying or contributing to this levy and firmly believe that we are already paying for these basic services.
I respectfully ask that the metro either provide these services, as it is already being paid to perform these basic services, failing which a rates withholding initiative will be implemented by the ratepayers and the withheld funds used to provide for the services not currently being provided by the metro.
I therefore propose the same rebate is given back to the proposed Section 21 company, to assist the metro where we can as ratepayers.
We will demonstrate to the MBDA what we can achieve, but will not pay double for something that we should already be entitled to as ratepayers. After all what are we paying rates for?
Certainly not salary increases, new cars and parties I hope, but for these very same basic service issues as proposed at the meeting.
I trust this will have a positive response, and co-operation from the metro and the MBDA, and look forward to engaging with them to find an amicable solution to the metro’s and ratepayers’ dilemma.
– Alon Rathbone, Port Elizabeth