Speech: Informal Trading Plan for Table View area (Subcouncil 1)

This proposal doesn’t carry the support of the community affected by it.
Some 2400 ratepayers signed a petition spanning 51 pages yet this was rejected in error in its entirety because some of the signatories “apparently” submitted their signatures too late (page 313) – but this is not true.

“Mayco rose above public pressure” means Mayco ignored public comments
This proposal does not carry the support of the interested and affected parties. The disdain and disrespect for the public is shocking.

This proposal breaches the By Law in various respects in that:

1. Many of the informal traders are positioned right outside the doors of formal businesses, obstructing their window displays, signage and access doors. Yet, the By Law disallows this and objections by these businesses have been ignored.

2. In other instances there are no ablution facilities and no access to running water for the informal traders. This concern was raised by ward councillors and the traffic department but the official replied (p316) that the informal traders can walk home to use the bathroom, and a second comment (also pg 316) that “a roll out solution to the lack of ablution facilities “has some way to go”. We note that no budget is allocated to such a roll out – meaning that no ablution facilities will be provided at least in this financial year.

3. In another instance, a ward councillors concerns have been totally ignored regarding the deletion of two sites – what does this say about the role of the ward councillor when Mayco does exactly the opposite to the ward councillors concerns and the Subcouncils decision?

4. In a 5TH instance, the plan allows for traders to operate between two places of worship – when the By Law disallows this.

5. Furthermore the plan is silent on how Law Enforcement will be capacitated to do their work in respect of illegal informal traders and the sale of illegal products including drugs. The minutes of the Subcouncil meeting confirms that various ward councillors raised this concern but are being ignored. In fact, even the writers of this trading plan acknowledge that Law Enforcement capacity is severely constrained, particularly over weekends.
This is of particular concern because the officials suggest (pg 313) that “law enforcement will not be expected to deal with compliance” – even though this is their mandate.

The subcouncil minutes also reveal that the official gave contradictory advice on how the trading plan can be amended. First he said any amendment must go through the full PP process. Yet he contradicted himself (page 309) saying the Subcouncil had heavy sway and therefore did not need to go back to the public participation process.
What does this mean – that the subcouncil could at its will amend the trading plan without informing and involving the public and asking their views and permission?

6. The permitting proposal is a mess. Each approved informal trader receives a one-month permit and requires Law Enforcement approval to be renewed for the next month (pg317) – every month. This simply will not work (1) because LE does not have the inspection capacity nor the administrative capacity to do this month in month out for every single informal trader.

Simply put, this is a poorly conceived and unworkable trading plan that thousands in the community don’t support – and should not be approved today – instead it should be referred back for further refinement at the subcouncil and through public participation.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s