When I reach
This wonderful beach
Life moves on
With joyous abandon
Warm seawater
Gentle bywater
Young and old
Vetch's treasures behold
So Dr Sutcliffe, please!
The public appease
By putting aside
All pomp and diatribe
And don't let paradise
Be destroyed in an orgy of avarice!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Mercury 28 Aug 08 ( Letter - Logan Moodley )
Transnet Is Ignoring The Human Aspect
August 28, 2007 Edition 1
I have read with interest recent articles in The Mercury about the development of Vetch's Pier. I wish to remind readers that this is not the only development with pure economic gain in mind.
The same has occurred on the Bluff side of the Durban harbour. Transnet, in typical big bully-type fashion, have not only closed access to the South Pier but have also without any consultation whatsoever closed access to the adjoining beaches.
This now closes the last remaining fishing area within the precinct of our harbour.
Their reason for closure is said to be construction. Ridiculous - do we close the entire city centre when we build in Gardiner Street?
This has left thousands of subsistence fishermen without access to earn a living. This constitutional right is being ignored by the authorities in favour of economic benefit for the rich.
When Transnet are approached, they simply refer callers to their attorneys. Do they not understand that there is a human side to life? Do they not understand that people have to feed their families?
This is getting out of control and it is about time Transnet realised that they are the custodians of the Durban harbour and they should not deprive the owners of the harbour their bread and butter.
I am certain concerned citizens of our country will agree that this inhumane behaviour needs to end.
Logan Moodley
Durban
August 28, 2007 Edition 1
I have read with interest recent articles in The Mercury about the development of Vetch's Pier. I wish to remind readers that this is not the only development with pure economic gain in mind.
The same has occurred on the Bluff side of the Durban harbour. Transnet, in typical big bully-type fashion, have not only closed access to the South Pier but have also without any consultation whatsoever closed access to the adjoining beaches.
This now closes the last remaining fishing area within the precinct of our harbour.
Their reason for closure is said to be construction. Ridiculous - do we close the entire city centre when we build in Gardiner Street?
This has left thousands of subsistence fishermen without access to earn a living. This constitutional right is being ignored by the authorities in favour of economic benefit for the rich.
When Transnet are approached, they simply refer callers to their attorneys. Do they not understand that there is a human side to life? Do they not understand that people have to feed their families?
This is getting out of control and it is about time Transnet realised that they are the custodians of the Durban harbour and they should not deprive the owners of the harbour their bread and butter.
I am certain concerned citizens of our country will agree that this inhumane behaviour needs to end.
Logan Moodley
Durban
Friday, August 17, 2007
The Mercury 17 august 2007
Don't let greed pillage Vetch's
August 17, 2007 Edition 1
Having recently listened through a lengthy debate at the Point Yacht Club (PYC), I came to the conclusion that there is a need to refocus on the Y in PYC.
For the first hour, the debate remained focused on the aspect of property development and the offer of a "not to be missed" opportunity to acquire rights to build a clubhouse on the currently occupied launching site at Vetch's.
Surely this is just a major distracter to the real issue unfolding?
The short coastline area between uShaka Marine Park and the harbour mouth is a geographically unique national treasure, offering unparalleled and safe access for everyone to enjoy a wide variety of water activities.
These sometimes conflicting activities currently co-exist in relative order and harmony.
But, if overseas property developers, in financial collaboration with local developers and city management, have their way, this "national treasure" will be pillaged to construct a Small Craft Harbour (SCH) facility which will be directly exposed to the elements of coastal weather patterns.
This glamour concept of an SCH will only serve the interests of the developers who have invested heavily in the construction of apartment blocks catering for the super- rich. The SCH then becomes part of a marketing drive aimed at these global jet-setters.
What is not logical is that this destruction of our national treasure is being done to further the aims of the developers and not in the interests of the simple folk who wish to see the existing beach access as the prime concern for protecting the status quo.
The fact that there is discussion about the cost versus benefit of building a clubhouse at a preferential land sale price to the PYC is not the issue.
The real issue is: Do we want developers destroying the water access facilities at Vetch's?
It also begs the question: Who is clamouring for an SCH in the first place? Both the PYC and the Royal already have safe and effective berthing facilities inside the main harbour itself.
With the widening of the harbour entrance, ease of entry and exit through the harbour should also be enhanced. I urge like-minded Durbanites to oppose any attempt to "meddle" with the stretch of beach.
David Aikins
Durban
August 17, 2007 Edition 1
Having recently listened through a lengthy debate at the Point Yacht Club (PYC), I came to the conclusion that there is a need to refocus on the Y in PYC.
For the first hour, the debate remained focused on the aspect of property development and the offer of a "not to be missed" opportunity to acquire rights to build a clubhouse on the currently occupied launching site at Vetch's.
Surely this is just a major distracter to the real issue unfolding?
The short coastline area between uShaka Marine Park and the harbour mouth is a geographically unique national treasure, offering unparalleled and safe access for everyone to enjoy a wide variety of water activities.
These sometimes conflicting activities currently co-exist in relative order and harmony.
But, if overseas property developers, in financial collaboration with local developers and city management, have their way, this "national treasure" will be pillaged to construct a Small Craft Harbour (SCH) facility which will be directly exposed to the elements of coastal weather patterns.
This glamour concept of an SCH will only serve the interests of the developers who have invested heavily in the construction of apartment blocks catering for the super- rich. The SCH then becomes part of a marketing drive aimed at these global jet-setters.
What is not logical is that this destruction of our national treasure is being done to further the aims of the developers and not in the interests of the simple folk who wish to see the existing beach access as the prime concern for protecting the status quo.
The fact that there is discussion about the cost versus benefit of building a clubhouse at a preferential land sale price to the PYC is not the issue.
The real issue is: Do we want developers destroying the water access facilities at Vetch's?
It also begs the question: Who is clamouring for an SCH in the first place? Both the PYC and the Royal already have safe and effective berthing facilities inside the main harbour itself.
With the widening of the harbour entrance, ease of entry and exit through the harbour should also be enhanced. I urge like-minded Durbanites to oppose any attempt to "meddle" with the stretch of beach.
David Aikins
Durban
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Mercury Today ( 13 august 2007 )
Weighing up the Vetch's odds
Photo: INLSA
August 13, 2007 Edition 1
The Durban Point Development's Neels Brink was quoted as saying that he believed three issues needed to considered equally in any development: the social, the environmental and the economic "Pledge to break EIA logjam" (The Mercury, August 8).
His position is compounded by his statement that the past few years had seen unfair bias placed on ecological issues.
However, if we review this in the context of his quest to destroy Vetch's, Brink seems to be acknowledging that the project should be shelved.
According to Brink, the balance is two to one against the building of a small-craft harbour at Vetch's. The social and ecological assessments are against, but the economic study, is, apparently, in favour.
The Water Rat
Photo: INLSA
August 13, 2007 Edition 1
The Durban Point Development's Neels Brink was quoted as saying that he believed three issues needed to considered equally in any development: the social, the environmental and the economic "Pledge to break EIA logjam" (The Mercury, August 8).
His position is compounded by his statement that the past few years had seen unfair bias placed on ecological issues.
However, if we review this in the context of his quest to destroy Vetch's, Brink seems to be acknowledging that the project should be shelved.
According to Brink, the balance is two to one against the building of a small-craft harbour at Vetch's. The social and ecological assessments are against, but the economic study, is, apparently, in favour.
The Water Rat
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Tribune 12 aug 07
Vetch's in a child's eye
August 12, 2007 Edition 1
Year 2014:
A 9-year-old girl carefully reads through the diver's logbook, hanging on every word with fascination.
"Where is this 'Vetch's Pier' where you and my Dad dived when he was small, Granddad?
"Please can I dive there with you too?"
The man sighs and looks wistfully to the sky.
"It has gone, Sinney, swallowed up by greedy men, whose only thought was for money, but I have a picture of it."
A look of disbelief crosses the child's face.
"Had you dived there enough - or didn't you care about me?"
Graham Lancaster
Pietermaritzburg
August 12, 2007 Edition 1
Year 2014:
A 9-year-old girl carefully reads through the diver's logbook, hanging on every word with fascination.
"Where is this 'Vetch's Pier' where you and my Dad dived when he was small, Granddad?
"Please can I dive there with you too?"
The man sighs and looks wistfully to the sky.
"It has gone, Sinney, swallowed up by greedy men, whose only thought was for money, but I have a picture of it."
A look of disbelief crosses the child's face.
"Had you dived there enough - or didn't you care about me?"
Graham Lancaster
Pietermaritzburg
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
The Mercury 08 aug 07 ( Tony Carnie )
Sandcastles on the slopes of a volcano
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
POOR Pastor Ray McCauley seems to be caught somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Barely two years after retiring to a luxury beachfront villa in Durban for a well-earned rest, the cruel sea is eating away relentlessly at the rather sandy foundations of his home in Eastmoor Crescent, La Lucia.
His front boundary wall has toppled over. If the sea carries on misbehaving, the front lawn, swimming pool and possibly his very home could end up in the drink.
Were it not for the charity of his neighbour, Norman Reeves, Pastor Ray might be batting from a much stickier wicket.
Documents before Acting High Court Judge Nigel Hollis suggest the Rhema Church founder benefited indirectly from Reeves's sand-redistribution adventures, because quite a bit of the sand scooped up from the beach in front of the Oppenheimer residence in Forest Drive also landed in front of Pastor Ray's pozzie.
Mrs O, whose mansion is set quite a distance back from the beach, is less than charmed. Her family seems to have done quite a good job in preserving the indigenous vegetation and sand dune cordon in front of Milkwood House. She would prefer to keep it that way.
It's quite remarkable, in fact, to see just how much beach sand there is in front of Milkwood, compared to Eastmoor Crescent, where homes and several neatly manicured gardens are so much closer to the beach.
Crumbling
And now, to heap insult upon injury, poor Norm and Pastor Ray face a new legal obstacle in defending their homes. The new Integrated Coastal Management Bill, recently approved by the cabinet, will make it an offence for landowners to fortify their crumbling coastal boundaries when the high-tide mark shifts capriciously.
In short, the new Bill recognises that the coastline is a dynamic, unpredictable environment.
Rather than encouraging people to build houses on the slopes of a volcano, the state has a duty to ensure that property developers have respect for the forces of nature - including the very real risk of climate change and rising sea levels.
The new Bill has another purpose: to ensure that the coastline remains public property rather than just one more piece of prime real estate to be privatised and defaced by the wealthy or unscrupulous.
This phenomenon has been most noticeable along the Cape coastline, but one needs only to look towards Zimbali or Vetch's Pier to spot similar trends closer to home.
But should the state and taxpayers be obliged now to pick up the tab for such ill-considered development?
Yet the sea has sent us a timely reminder that it is not to be trifled with. Buyers need to think more carefully when they splash out on a new sandcastle.
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
POOR Pastor Ray McCauley seems to be caught somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Barely two years after retiring to a luxury beachfront villa in Durban for a well-earned rest, the cruel sea is eating away relentlessly at the rather sandy foundations of his home in Eastmoor Crescent, La Lucia.
His front boundary wall has toppled over. If the sea carries on misbehaving, the front lawn, swimming pool and possibly his very home could end up in the drink.
Were it not for the charity of his neighbour, Norman Reeves, Pastor Ray might be batting from a much stickier wicket.
Documents before Acting High Court Judge Nigel Hollis suggest the Rhema Church founder benefited indirectly from Reeves's sand-redistribution adventures, because quite a bit of the sand scooped up from the beach in front of the Oppenheimer residence in Forest Drive also landed in front of Pastor Ray's pozzie.
Mrs O, whose mansion is set quite a distance back from the beach, is less than charmed. Her family seems to have done quite a good job in preserving the indigenous vegetation and sand dune cordon in front of Milkwood House. She would prefer to keep it that way.
It's quite remarkable, in fact, to see just how much beach sand there is in front of Milkwood, compared to Eastmoor Crescent, where homes and several neatly manicured gardens are so much closer to the beach.
Crumbling
And now, to heap insult upon injury, poor Norm and Pastor Ray face a new legal obstacle in defending their homes. The new Integrated Coastal Management Bill, recently approved by the cabinet, will make it an offence for landowners to fortify their crumbling coastal boundaries when the high-tide mark shifts capriciously.
In short, the new Bill recognises that the coastline is a dynamic, unpredictable environment.
Rather than encouraging people to build houses on the slopes of a volcano, the state has a duty to ensure that property developers have respect for the forces of nature - including the very real risk of climate change and rising sea levels.
The new Bill has another purpose: to ensure that the coastline remains public property rather than just one more piece of prime real estate to be privatised and defaced by the wealthy or unscrupulous.
This phenomenon has been most noticeable along the Cape coastline, but one needs only to look towards Zimbali or Vetch's Pier to spot similar trends closer to home.
But should the state and taxpayers be obliged now to pick up the tab for such ill-considered development?
Yet the sea has sent us a timely reminder that it is not to be trifled with. Buyers need to think more carefully when they splash out on a new sandcastle.
What is Neels Brink saying?
08.2007
Dear Neels.
Does your statement, which is quoted in The Mercury today, mean that you have now decided to abort your plans to destroy Vetch's Beach?
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
In this case the score is 2 / 1 against the development going ahead :
Social - 1 against.
Ecological - 1 against.
Economic - 1 for ( according to the study, only marginally ).
brgds
Ratty
Pledge to break EIA logjam
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
Greg Ardé
Premier S'bu Ndebele has pledged to cut lengthy environmental impact assessments in KwaZulu-Natal to a maximum of three months to speed up investment in the province.
He was addressing corporate leaders at a Growth Coalition meeting in Durban yesterday.
The coalition is an informal alliance of business and political interests aimed at stimulating economic development. It is headed by Ndebele and former Mondi Paper chief, John Barton.
Ndebele said that investors could not afford to wait 18 months and longer for the government to approve environmental impact assessments or complete rezoning.
"EIAs (environmental impact assessments) will have to be finalised with a turnaround time of three months, failing which an appeal will have to be lodged with the provincial director-general, who will liaise with the heads of treasury and agriculture who will form a bottleneck-breaking mechanism."
The premier added that though environmental impact assessments were necessary, they "shouldn't slow down development". "We have lost so much business we don't even know about" because developers with projects worth billions of rands were stalled by "a snail, or a frog". The same investors took their money elsewhere, he said.
T C Chetty, of Tongaat Hulett Developments and the SA Property Owners' Association, said: "If this is applied, it is probably the best news that the property sector in this province has had for some time. We've heard the words. We wait to see the action."
Metallon Property Managing Director Neels Brink, said: "It is wonderful that the government has recognised the problem, because it is really hampering the economy of the province. The process of objections is complex and people are abusing it. Any speedy resolution that is fair, just and equitable is to be applauded."
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
Brink said that in January the eThekwini council had approved a R400 million development and an objector had appealed to the province. The province still had to set a date for the appeal.
Ivor Daniel, President of the KZN Institute of Architecture, said: "Anything to reduce delays would be good. This continues to be a negative for investors and developers. How this pledge is implemented is critically important. The whole development approval process needs to be streamlined."
Responding to written questions in parliament on the environmental impact assessments backlog last year, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said that about 38 000 environmental impact assessment applications had been finalised across the country since 1997.
However, there were nearly 5 300 applications still in progress in March 2006. Of this pending total, 874 were from KZN.
greg.arde@inl.co.za
Dear Neels.
Does your statement, which is quoted in The Mercury today, mean that you have now decided to abort your plans to destroy Vetch's Beach?
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
In this case the score is 2 / 1 against the development going ahead :
Social - 1 against.
Ecological - 1 against.
Economic - 1 for ( according to the study, only marginally ).
brgds
Ratty
Pledge to break EIA logjam
August 08, 2007 Edition 1
Greg Ardé
Premier S'bu Ndebele has pledged to cut lengthy environmental impact assessments in KwaZulu-Natal to a maximum of three months to speed up investment in the province.
He was addressing corporate leaders at a Growth Coalition meeting in Durban yesterday.
The coalition is an informal alliance of business and political interests aimed at stimulating economic development. It is headed by Ndebele and former Mondi Paper chief, John Barton.
Ndebele said that investors could not afford to wait 18 months and longer for the government to approve environmental impact assessments or complete rezoning.
"EIAs (environmental impact assessments) will have to be finalised with a turnaround time of three months, failing which an appeal will have to be lodged with the provincial director-general, who will liaise with the heads of treasury and agriculture who will form a bottleneck-breaking mechanism."
The premier added that though environmental impact assessments were necessary, they "shouldn't slow down development". "We have lost so much business we don't even know about" because developers with projects worth billions of rands were stalled by "a snail, or a frog". The same investors took their money elsewhere, he said.
T C Chetty, of Tongaat Hulett Developments and the SA Property Owners' Association, said: "If this is applied, it is probably the best news that the property sector in this province has had for some time. We've heard the words. We wait to see the action."
Metallon Property Managing Director Neels Brink, said: "It is wonderful that the government has recognised the problem, because it is really hampering the economy of the province. The process of objections is complex and people are abusing it. Any speedy resolution that is fair, just and equitable is to be applauded."
Brink said three issues needed to considered in any development: the social, ecological and economic. All needed to judged equally. In the past few years, he said, unfair bias had been placed on the ecological.
Brink said that in January the eThekwini council had approved a R400 million development and an objector had appealed to the province. The province still had to set a date for the appeal.
Ivor Daniel, President of the KZN Institute of Architecture, said: "Anything to reduce delays would be good. This continues to be a negative for investors and developers. How this pledge is implemented is critically important. The whole development approval process needs to be streamlined."
Responding to written questions in parliament on the environmental impact assessments backlog last year, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said that about 38 000 environmental impact assessment applications had been finalised across the country since 1997.
However, there were nearly 5 300 applications still in progress in March 2006. Of this pending total, 874 were from KZN.
greg.arde@inl.co.za
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
