EDITOR – I would like to respond to the article, Take back the streets.
I am scared about something that stopped being introduced in 2008 and which again appears to be rearing its ugly head, working on people’s emotions because of our high crime rate and people then making a hasty and wrong decision.
In 2008, UIP (I think it was called that) tried to establish this ‘security system’. Residents in our area received notification in our home post box advising us of the meeting: venue, topic, date, time.
In those days our rates were reasonable and even then I couldn’t understand why anyone would want to attach something to their rates account over which they will thereafter have no control. Costs for this ‘system’ could escalate – no matter what the people who were trying to introduce this promised. Do we have any control of DSTV increases, no, we just get notified, the same will happen here.
I can’t remember the name of the councillor I spoke to but he said to me that he didn’t want to come to the meeting as he had to remain impartial but told me it was a very bad idea. He said that obtaining the permission and getting the required 66 per cent would be the easiest thing to do, however, no matter what anyone said, we would never be able to stop the ‘system’ because to stop it the municipality would ask for a 100 per cent vote.
On hearing that, I typed out an A4 letter explaining this to the residents and deposited it into every single post box and asked everyone to attend the meeting to block this.
Thank God they did and what a heated meeting it was. But at least we blocked it. You know there were people there who said they could hardly afford their monthly water/lights and rates account, others whose children were paying for them.
People that want to set up this type of thing should remember that every person’s circumstance is different, they shouldn’t impose something like this onto other people – and they are using our fear of crime to achieve this. To get this up and running it should require a 100 per cent vote of owners of the property, why does it require only 66 per cent?
The very next year the municipality decided to do property evaluations and most rate payments almost, or did, double. Can you imagine what we would be paying for this ‘system’ now ? And remember, our rates just keep going up and up.
Should they want to set this up, UIP and/or whomever, must ensure they provide residents with a definite date, time, and venue when they have a meeting to decide this.
They have to give enough time to canvas people to attend. Imperative: They must ensure each resident receives the notification.
I want people to be aware of the implications of having a continual payment attached to their rates, that there are alternatives, and please don’t hand control of your life to other people and end up with something that will become a burden. You know, if you suddenly find yourself struggling financially, you can make the decision to cancel certain services, but with this system, you will not be able to do so.
Lorraine Fouquereaux
Glenmore
* Letter shortened – Editor
