UnProtea like behaviour from Environmental Group
Land claimants must fight, again
Earlier this week I read about the Protea Village land claimants latest battle to return to their land. In order to understand this, we must understand that land rights are only truly won when not only the ownership of the land, but the zoning rights, development and environmental rights are all won that allow for return to the land. Without that, a shallow liability is won.
For many, this also necessitates rights for developments that involve some level of cross-subsidisation. Winning land use rights takes time and is costly, as is building a home; and for many who have been dispossessed, the only way to fund this is through more intensive development of their land. For Protea Village, the City of Cape Town also agreed to a ten year rates grace period, and that they will contribute to the link/bulk services.
The Protea Village land claimants have walked a long path, to regain these rights. They have faced objections (including by legal giant William Booth), but have - through our national, provincial and local systems, been awarded the required approvals. It is important to note in this story, that they have also built relationships with the neighbourhood to which they will return - in 2017 the Bishops Court Rate Payers Association voted to support the development. The Fernwood Rate Payers Association similarly indicated that they would not oppose the development.
Given the location of this important restitution site next to the Liesbeeck River, which holds a lot of historic and ecological value for Cape Town, an organisation like Friends of the Liesbeeck would be imagined as a logical partner to the claimants. The claimants, after all, grew up along the river before being forcibly removed and hold decades’ old knowledge about its system. The claimants used the services of a well regarded fresh water specialist, Dr Liz Day, in preparing their plans. The claimants will be a future community of role players to work with in the management and care of the river. A relational approach to co-managing this ecosystem seems like a no-brainer.
Instead of becoming a collaborator, however, FoL have launched an 11th hour application to appeal the approved plans. FoL have submitted complaints that are substantively similar to the objections used in the earlier planning process (and these objections where not upheld by the authorities who awarded the relevant authorisations). These objections were promoted by Ian Kilbride (a business man and Stellenbosch University ‘Philanthropy’ Lecturer, hiding behind “SPA 1 (PTY) LTD”. I guess he missed the part of Philanthropy that says justice is more important than charity). FoL are also using the same legal team - Adv Peter Kantor acted on behalf of SPA 1, and now acts on behalf of FoL.
Upon closer inspection of the timeline of objections and the parties involved, it seems as though a civic group, focused on environmental protection, is being leveraged as a smokescreen for a select group of affluent individuals. Their objective appears to be to delay or decrease the project's viability, thereby undermining the probability of the claimants' return.
The opposition reflects a deep disrespect for the institutional legitimacy of the process followed to date, the rights won by the claimants, and the (tried and tested) pathways available in the future to manage a publicly accessible river space.
Restitution and ecological services are not mutually exclusive objectives, and this has been considered in the years-long planning and design process, and DEADP approvals.
After reading the news earlier this week, I emailed FoL to appeal to them to not cause additional delays to justice. To recognize the river “not as a spatial barrier, but as a unifying resource that enhances the quality of life for everyone”. And to work together to manage the river, rather than take on a role as objector to rights already won.
I received feedback that new instructions had been issued to their lawyers. However, no instruction that is short of withdrawing the appeal is enough. Further delay tactics are just that - they are not in the interest of justice, development, or even the environmental cause they pertain to represent.
I appeal strongly to any funders and supporters of FoL to stand up and ask them to account for why they are doing this, and in whose interest.
I also appeal to the City of Cape Town to ensure that their role in this development is met - that their commitment for bulk works is planned and funded in line with the development’s construction programme, so that no further unanticipated delays are experienced.
The longer there are delays, the more it shifts the viability of the project. The individuals involved in the objection know and understand this - they are specialists with privileged access to government corridors and understanding of development processes. They cannot hide behind an environmental brand - and environmentalists among us should be just as outraged with the abuse of the ecological cause for NIMBYs goals.
Finally, I recognise that this post has anger, and “appeals” within it. I am angry. And I am concerned about the future of our city, when civic groups are not governed by clear principles - to serve the many objectives of our city, and to do so with transparency, and integrity.
Thanks for this update. What's not clear is where is the process now - has another complaint been lodged? When i spoke to one of the developers a few months back, i understood him to say that this matter was going to the Mayor's desk for finality??