Gordon’s Bay is currently in the midst of a spirited community discussion around the proposed establishment of a city improvement district (CID).
Championed by a steering committee, this initiative promises a new era of enhanced services and benefits. But as the community explores this collaborative future, questions have emerged regarding the past administrative practices of the Gordon’s Bay Residents Association (GBRA), whose chairperson is also a key figure in the CID steering committee.
The envisioned Gordon’s Bay CID is a City of Cape Town-partnered initiative, meaning property owners within a designated area would contribute an additional rate to fund a comprehensive range of enhanced services.
These proposed services are ambitious, encompassing bolstered public safety through CCTV, LPR cameras, and additional law enforcement; improved cleaning services with dedicated staff for litter removal and sweeping; urban maintenance like road-line painting and storm drain clearing; environmental development through tree planting and recycling; and vital social and economic development initiatives supporting the homeless.
GBRA AGM issue
“The vision is to elevate the quality of life and safety in Gordon’s Bay through a structured, transparent and sustainable model,” said Edwina Hadfield, a representative of the steering committee. The journey towards the CID has cast a spotlight on the GBRA, particularly its administrative history. When asked if the CID would absorb the GBRA, Hadfield, who chairs both entities, firmly stated: “Not at all; the two entities are entirely separate. The CID is a structured, City-regulated initiative and will function as a registered NPO, governed by a board of directors elected by the property owners in the CID-designated area.”
A key concern raised by residents is the GBRA’s admitted failure to hold annual general meetings (AGMs) over the last five years. Hadfield took full responsibility, acknowledging the lapse, but asserting her continued focus on ethical and consistent community service. While formal AGMs were absent, Hadfield highlighted regular feedback via Facebook and community WhatsApp groups, alongside the GBRA’s proactive advocacy, including facilitating a local Integrated Development Plan meeting.
Serious concerns
She confirmed the GBRA is no longer listed on the City’s official database as an AGM has not been held, but maintained: “This does not affect our relationship with the City or subcouncil. We remain in close contact with officials.”
Addressing financial management for the proposed CID, Hadfield assured residents that “all funds are currently managed by a registered accountant”, with current expenditures solely for CID launch costs, to be reimbursed upon City approval. She reiterated the availability of all CID information online and affirmed: “Every cent received is accounted for.”
Despite these assurances, one anonymous resident voiced “serious concerns regarding the leadership of Mrs Edwina Hadfield . . . who is championing this initiative”, citing the AGM issues and GBRA’s deregistration.
The City clarified its official stance on CIDs, emphasising that such initiatives are inherently community-driven.
Eddie Andrews, deputy mayor and Mayoral Committee member for Spatial Planning and Environment, explained the rigorous process involved: “A CID is always initiated by a community, and not by the City. It usually starts with ‘champions’ within a community, who feel the necessity to improve and upgrade the environment within a defined area.”
Representative steering committee
Andrews outlined the requirements for establishing a City-partnered CID. “The process begins with a representative steering committee meeting the City’s CID Branch. This is followed by defining boundaries, consulting the community on needs, and compiling a business plan.
The City provides CID guidelines to assist. Public meetings are mandatory to present draft and final business plans, allowing for community comment.
Crucially, majority support from property owners (over 50% for commercial, at least 60% for residential) is required, either through written consent or non-objection.
“The application is then submitted to the City by 31 October for council consideration.
Upon council approval, a non-profit company (NPC) is established by the steering committee, which becomes the founding directors. This NPC undergoes registrations and concludes a finance agreement with the City.
“The process is lengthy, and does not happen overnight. Generally speaking, this is a two-year process.”
Regarding governance and oversight, Andrews said: “The process is subject to a rigorous legislative framework under the oversight and guidance of the City.”
A CID, once established as an NPC, manages its own finances and appoints service providers, an accountant, and auditor, but is “subject to all the City’s bylaws and policies, national laws and the Companies Act”.
The City’s role is oversight and legal compliance, with a councillor attending board meetings as an observer.
Addressing concerns about community associations’ official recognition, Andrews affirmed that “all public participation processes and public meetings are open to all members of the public and associations whether the association is listed on a database or not”.
Requires support
He emphasised that the CID establishment process is robust, requiring majority property owner support. “It is up to the local community to elect their leadership; this falls outside of the City’s mandate and responsibility,” Andrews concluded.
Asked for comment, Basil Cranko, chairperson of the Gordon’s Bay Business Association, said that they have not been approached regarding the establishment of a CID and therefore cannot express any opinion about it.
“We would like to see members of the community involved with transparency and full accountability in the future,” Cranko said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.