I would like to offer a different perspective on the public meeting held at the Somerset West Town Hall on Monday 3 October. Much has been said about it in the news article, and even more about Ward 84 councillor Norman McFarlane (“Residents row with ward councillor”,DistrictMail & Helderberg Gazette, 12 October).
I would like to offer my interpretation of the events that transpired and perhaps go some way in setting right the picture so illustrated by the article.
Firstly, it was a well-attended gathering and there is no doubt in my mind that it was well organised. It is by my judgment that at least 80% of the seats had been taken by the time of my arrival. This is a stark contrast to the picture drawn by the article of “a poorly publicised meeting”.
We had been invited to a presentation on the City of Cape Town’s policies and its action plan to address the rising homelessness problem in our city and specifically our town. I expected there to be robust and honest conversations. What I encountered, instead, was perhaps disappointing in the least.
The first speaker was almost immediately heckled. He had attempted to set out the controversial legal developments that had taken place in the Western Cape post Covid-19 pandemic.
He also explained the ever more arduous burden that was being placed on the City by our courts when addressing the growing problem of displaced persons.
The official went to lengths to explain the procedures followed and the solutions which the City had implemented. This was simply met with hostility straight from the onset. The speaker was interrupted and heckled throughout, and such behaviour suspiciously only became worse when the female speaker addressed the meeting.
It was clear to me many attending the meeting had not come to inform themselves on what was being done to resolve this important socio-economic issue. But rather, they had come to force their ideas on the City.
McFarlane, as the intermediary, tried to bring some kind of civility to a situation that was fast spiralling out of control. The councillor was robust and direct; however, it cannot be said his behaviour was in any way inappropriate, what with the blatantly disrespectful and dysfunctional behaviour exhibited by some there.
I do not recall any rude exchange with an elderly gentleman. In fact the councillor is a man of considerable age himself.
That said, the meeting did elicit some healthy criticism of the City.
There were concerns raised with regard to the response times of the Displaced Persons Unit and genuine questions regarding the practicality of the procedures being followed. There were also genuinely harrowing stories shared regarding the rising crime rate, safety and health concerns of the affected residents.
Contact details were shared and promises were made by officials to follow-up on specific situations reported to them.
Accusations made of a breakdown of trust between McFarlane and the residents of Ward 84, in my opinion, are unfounded. A councillor is an elected official who oversees the service delivery within his ward.
He does not carry individual power to shape the policies of the City. He certainly cannot be expected to create new novel means of solving the problem of homelessness in his ward. He is bound by the City and the decisions of the municipal council.
To suggest that replacing the councillor would solve our problems in Somerset West would be foolhardy and, I believe, a red herring. I respectfully urge residents to inform themselves with regard to the City’s efforts and the legal framework which it is bound to obey. It is only through knowledge and honest conversations that we will find the solution.
I would also like to add that while we grapple with these challenges we must keep in mind the homeless are human beings themselves and not simply a problem to be solved. To paraphrase loosely: a society is judged by the way that it treats its most vulnerable.
