Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-06-09 22:04:48 +02:00 | Marlene | No I do not | All of the above | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | The municipality is asking for a permanent land disposal before confirming whether the local sewer and water grid can physically process the waste of tens of thousands of new occupants without causing an ecological disaster. |
2026-06-09 21:50:24 +02:00 | Geoffery | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | |
2026-06-09 21:23:04 +02:00 | Carmen | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | The traffic and transport assumptions in the Draft Development Concept are fundamentally flawed. The plan relies on a proposed PRASA rail station that does not appear in any of PRASA’s Corporate Plans up to March 2026. The City cannot approve a high-density precinct based on unverified, unbudgeted transport infrastructure. The strain on traffic in Pinelands as well as the N2 is unsustainable as it is already, |
2026-06-09 21:19:28 +02:00 | Dave | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | ||
2026-06-09 21:19:16 +02:00 | Dimpho | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Development |
The City maintains that the redevelopment process is entirely “procedurally sound” following the adoption of Council Resolution C39/05/26 on 27 May 2026. Proponents argue that the draft concept represents a vital step toward spatial justice, turning an exclusive recreational area into a vibrant, high-density precinct with 8,600 homes (minimum 30% social housing). They assert that technical studies, transit coordination, and environmental impact assessments will be dealt with thoroughly in the subsequent legislative phases after the land disposal principle is approved.
Opponents argue that the City is executing an administrative “bait-and-switch.” Asking the public to approve an irreversible public asset disposal while keeping essential technical studies (valuations, sewer metrics, and TIAs) hidden behind PAIA walls violates the basic tenets of fair administrative action under PAJA. Furthermore, the revelation that PRASA has zero alignment with the City’s transit claims proves that the project’s planning is prematurely optimised. The community insists that the public participation process must be halted and restarted only when all baseline evidence is public and the legal authorisations are genuinely transparent.