There are two things, Johan, that I think you don't address or fairly discuss in the piece above:
1) From what I've heard there is a strong case that the developer acted in a dishonest, manipulative and possibly corrupt way by having an environmental impact assessment done for one type of development, and then bait-and-switching to a different development plan. This is dishonest and deserves to be exposed for what it is. This will not be the first such case in Stellenbosch -- another recent one being the Root44 market / wine emporium at Audacia where the developer also did a bait-and-switch to build something that was never approved and likely would not have been approved.
2) You criticise the SIG as being run by a small number of people who you claim don't represent the wider community. What about the developer? They arguably represent an even smaller number of people who stand to directly benefit from this development. Do they represent the wider community's desires? If you want true democracy then we should rather have a referendum among Stellenbosch's residents.
I've known this bit of mountain for about 35 years. It is true that a large part of the site was planted with blue gum trees and/or pine plantation. And yet, having a housing estate high up on the mountain does not necessarily serve the interests of Stellenbosch in the long run.
I scrutinized the development's website and their promo video that features ridiculous stock footage of Amazonian bird life and close-ups of black wattle and other non-indigenous plants. This does not align with their narrative of delivering unspoilt nature. This is the work of an entity that doesn't care an iota about fynbos or local fauna.
We don't necessarily need a luxury estate there. There are surely other ways of increasing the revenue, value and desirability of Stellenbosch. If this truly falls in the municipality's plan for the best possible future for Stellenbosch as a responsible, desirable and liveable city then so be it, but I am glad that there will be legal scrutiny applied to this, because I smell something fishy. Better to measure twice before we cut up our mountains.
Francois, I'd be interested to hear the source of 'what you heard'. What I found quite surprising is that almost all the media reporting – GroundUp, Carte Blanche – came from one source, the SIG. For those of us who are usually not happy with biased reporting, I found it quite surprising that most were simply happy to listen to a source that confirmed their preexisting views.
The hotel complex was approved two decades ago. The residential development was approved six years ago. The SIG was happy to sign off on both, as was the municipality and province. Banks gave money having checked the documentation. I am not a lawyer, and perhaps there is something I've missed, but a lot of people would have to be at fault if something was 'possibly corrupt'.
To equate Botmaskop with the Root44 market makes no sense to me. Steinhoff was born in Stellenbosch, therefore all Stellenbosch companies are corrupt?
The Stellenbosch Interest Group's name literally implies that they represent Stellenbosch residents. The judge also confirmed this. The developer has never suggested that they represent Stellenbosch residents.
You cannot have a referendum on every development or, for that matter, on all economic policies. That is why we have elected officials.
It is not for any of us to choose what the market 'needs'. A boutique hotel would have been nice in my opinion, but it was clear that there was no market for it – it would have been unprofitable – and so a residential development was the only viable outcome to the owners. If the residents feel that this should be something else, as I responded to Pieter, then they should be willing to buy the property or, through their elected officials, redirect precious public resources to turn it into something they want. The cost will then also be clear: you can either have a public park or schools, clinics, affordable housing, roads, etc.
Finally, it's easy for you to say that you're happy for the interdict to delay construction. What I hoped to highlight is that this has a tremendous economic cost: for the workers on site and for the future service workers of those properties. Most of them don't even know that they are losing out, and most of the rest of Stellenbosch probably don't care.
My information comes primarily from SIG and Carte Blanche ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVDI2PT172k ). I do read these critically. For instance, the Carte Blanche segment makes contradictory points: it argues the area shouldn’t be developed due to environmental concerns, yet also suggests it could rather have been developed as low-cost housing. These inconsistencies don’t escape me.
The Root44 and Botmaskop developments have these similarities: In both cases, environmental approvals were reportedly obtained for smaller, less invasive developments. Then, the developers pivoted to more profitable, more intrusive plans while citing the original approvals. Both were approved by Stellenbosch Municipality. That’s the bait-and-switch I referred to. If a municipality allows this pattern to go unchecked, it’s not fulfilling its duty to the public.
You're right that we can't have referenda for every planning decision. That's what elected officials are for. But when those officials enable short-term private gains at the expense of legal and environmental safeguards, that’s exactly when civil society—or the courts—should step in.
Yes, SIG might only involve a small number of people, but that’s often the case with civic activism. Most people don’t have the time or bandwidth to comb through government gazettes or attend public hearings. That doesn’t mean the concerns raised are invalid.
As you rightly noted, the court order is an interim measure—it simply allows time for all arguments to be properly heard. Delays do cost money, but it’s far better to resolve valid concerns now than after construction is complete. Measure twice, cut once.
I'd like to add one small point to say that residents/tax payers/voters don't elect officials: We vote for parties in municipal elections, who then elects the officials. We've had a mayor for a long time that many felt didn't serve the interests of the residents of Stellenbosch. These officials should be held accountable and removed if necessary.
I will concur with whatever the court finds, but I honestly believe a thorough investigation is necessary.
Johan, this article is hard to swallow. I respect your views but cannot agree with you in a broad sense.
I believe it's a flawed argument to say just because the natural state of that area hasn't been maintained that development is (basically) the only alternative.
I also think it's unreasonable to highlight that the SIG only takes on certain projects: Choose your battles, e.g. I donate to the local animal welfare, but I cannot save all homeless or abandoned animals/pets.
Lastly, and this is a crucial point: It's a massive eyesore. Have you looked at the building plans? Do you know about that landswap application, because suddenly they cannot develop part of the land due to geographic constraints?
I'm not even remotely in the inner circles of Stellenbosch. I don't live in that vacinity, though I cycle there (and I do care about that with other cyclists). I'm not a wealthy person. I'm not old Stellenbosch money or a resident, yet I support the intervention, because there's been a number of questionable decisions. A lot of what you see is residents being fed up with poor service and maintenance, while new developments are being approved.
The argument goes the other way too: Just because you have or can get access to obscene amounts of money doesn't mean you can get what you want. The wealthy also shouldn't be allowed just to ruin a mountain, because they have the funds.
I think the cycling argument is weak. It's been private (but unfenced) property since at least 2003. Mountain biking is an expensive activity; you may not live in the wealthiest part of Stellenbosch, but to say that dozens of people shouldn't have temporary or permanent jobs because you want to cycle in that part of the mountain is a bit, well, elitist.
The eyesore argument: Well, yes, it is an eyesore, because it is unfinished. The land will not return to some original state all by itself. Now that construction is dormant, with the rainy season approaching, I can only imagine that erosion of the terrain will follow: and again, it is the communities downstream (Idas Valley) that will suffer the consequences. The only sustainable way to protect that part of the mountain is to complete the development.
I was actually thinking the other day what can be done, besides building on it: Another sculpture park, similar to the Dylan Lewis garden. That's one other option I could think of.
And yes, cycling (especially mountain biking) is a privileged hobby, for sure. I didn't intend to make it the core of my argument. It was intended to connect with one of your points as a matter of honesty (and perhaps bias). The reason it upsets me is that I believe that area should be free for anybody to enjoy and shouldn't be fenced off for a handful of wealthy people. Are you ok with the exclusivity of this? I don't see how that argument makes me elitist.
It is private property, Pieter, just like your house or mine, rezoned many years ago.
If you want it to be a sculpture garden then there really are only three options: a) buy the property yourself, b) crowdfund buy it, or c) vote for a political party that's willing to spend precious public resources on a public park. I think you'll realise that neither of these three options will provide a more sustainable, safe, and attractive outcome than what is currently being proposed.
I sense some frustration in your latest comment – and that's ok. Perhaps this has to do with a fundamental difference in views: My personal belief is that capitalism cannot trump all. There is a socialist part to me.
It was rezoned, yes, but only for a small-scale development. I understand the ownership of property and I know the development of land isn't directly in the hands of the municipality, yet they approved this development. It should be quite clear from the comments here, but also on Facebook and other places that the situation doesn't sit well with residents. We cannot simply hide behind processes and historic approvals. If people object, we should find a way to improve the public participation process, for example. Most of the arguments I've heard follows the reasoning of "oh well, it is what it is, let's continue". I cannot concur with that.
The planned development is exclusive. How is this uplifting the community? The jobs created for construction is temporary. The permanent jobs will honestly not be that many.
With that I'd like to rest my case. It's not my intention to upset anybody or to seem thick in my thinking.
This has little to do with capitalism/socialism, Pieter, and much more with political economy. (Sidenote: if you were truly socialist, you'd advocate for social housing instead. I don't see any of the SIG members suggesting that.)
The fact that you still equate 'residents' or 'public' with those that voice their objections on Facebook exposes your bias. There are many, many people that stand to gain from an almost R1 billion development, and they are not on those groups. In fact, I would argue they don't even know yet that they stand to gain. Again, if you were truly socialist, you'd actually want to be the voice for those voiceless.
No one is 'hiding behind processes and historical approvals'. I'd urge you to investigate the matter yourself. I don't want to get into the technical details, but let me just say that I think the SIG has been very cunning in how they presented the facts to the judge. If you actually look at the footprint including all the relevant services – as the municipality, and the province, and the banks, and all the other relevant parties did – then you'll find the footprint exactly the same, a footprint the SIG signed off on many years ago.
Just as you should not just rely on what I say, I'd suggest you do not only rely on what you read in various media reports where a specific narrative has been carefully crafted.
It is my personal view that that piece of land should not be developed for residential purposes. Whether it's passed some process is immaterial to me, because I'm even questioning that rezoning, even though it happened many years ago (if I knew, I can assure you I would've objected). I'm not going to accept that because someone dished out a stamp that it is the ethical/moral way forward (this is what I mean by hiding: people say "the process was followed"). I honestly don't care if it's an expensive development, low-cost or social housing: That land should not be developed for that purpose. It being an highly exclusive development just makes it worse for me. Don't build houses there. Find something else.
(I didn't say I'm 100% socialist. Just check what I wrote again, please. I'm merely trying to establish where we are differing at the core. I'm not educated in your field, so it's quite possible that I'm using some loose definitions.)
I am neither wealthy, nor do I hold any kind of status in this town. I am a nobody. I arrived in Stellenbosch from elsewhere and have no family connection to this town. Mine is not a case of “nimbyism” but more a case of general horror at the rape and destruction of a beautiful mountain and natural area so rich in natural diversity. For what good reasons are these spaces being sold out and destroyed, and for whom is the gain? As a citizen of the town, I see no gain for those who aren’t wealthy or for those who care.
Thanks Donna, I appreciate the comment. I think I made it quite clear that many residents will benefit from the development, not only the 77 families who will purchase the properties. Dozens, if not hundreds, of temporary and permanent jobs will be created by the massive investment. I think these people also deserve a voice.
I am also appalled by the current condition of the mountain, which is why I would like to see the project completed. I do not see any alternative for 'returning' it to its original state. That is because it was already in poor condition when the first environmental impact was completed in the early 2000s.
Thanks Johan. Opinions are not facts, and I don’t believe it’s a fact that it can’t be rehabilitated or restored. It should be (also an opinion).
77 more families creating more money is not argument enough to destroy Botmaskop. The (many more than) 77 families in Newinbosch are also coming. Let’s not talk about Dalsig, or Brandwacht, or all the student developments, or the area behind Coetzenburg, or or or ...
If we cared about more than just money,
we would be more likely to do the right thing here.
Of course it can be rehabilitated, Donna. But it will be at an exorbitant cost. Who foots the bill? What does not get built/provided (services, housing, etc.) in order to repair a mountain slope?
It's easy for people with money to say we should care about more than just money.
"What does not get built/provided (services, housing, etc.) in order to repair a mountain slope" is the same question you can ask for any area of protected nature. Clearly the answer can neither be: "never build" or "never refuse to build". Will the cost in this case have been exorbitant? Was the environmental impact assessment done properly and honestly w.r.t. the 77 erven in question? I hope that the court will decide this fairly.
For 20 years there has been no infrastructure upgrade in terms of roads and traffic to accommodate the many developments going up. People sit frustrated in traffic daily in stellenbosch small streets. For 150 years only three schools have been built, with the influx of people into stellenbosch with new developments even stellenbosch parents dont get their kids into school. First sort out infrastructure, then we start talking about development. No such thing as nimbyism
They are...Ronnie D will show you their records, and so would Bertha H. They've become personae no grata from before you were born, due to their slant. And nowhere, and never, have they said that the represent anyone. According to them, they challenge along law-lines...may, mayn't and so forth.
From a friend: "Die prof moet hom eers vergewis van die feite. Hy kan eerstens die kindertjie emosionele aanslag maar uitlos.
Hy moet verder maar weer mooi dink oor sy populistiese ongegronde bewerings betreffende die ekonomiese voordele wat die ontwikkeling alles kan inhou vir Stellenbosch, en veral dan nog vir spesifieke groepe mense in die stad. (ons sal binnekort maar moet praat van stad?). Hy blyk veral nie ʼn langtermyn visie te hê nie.
Sy filsofie oor die gedrag wat hy toedig aan SBG en ander mense van Stellenbosch pas weer goed aan by sy seuntjiestorie en hoort nie tuis by die feite waaroor die geskil gaan nie.
Professor in sosiale filosofie? (and crowdsourcing)...."
Kootjie, ek vind jou vriend se kommentaar disrespekvol. Jy en hy/sy is welkom om van my te verskil op 'n rasionele manier – en die doel is om juis sinvolle gesprekke oor 'n komplekse onderwerp aan te moedig – maar jou reaksie hierbo getuig van die teendeel.
**Stellenbosch Interest Group: Annual General Meeting**
You are cordially invited to the Annual General Meeting of the Stellenbosch Interest Group to be held on Wednesday, 14 May 2024 at 18:30.
**Guest speaker:** Dr Brian du Preez
*“The recent discovery of a stunning new indigenous plant following the felling of a decades-old pine plantation at Stellenbosch has been hailed by plant lovers and conservationists as a botanical miracle. A handful of these beautiful plants of the Moraea genus emerged on the slopes of Botmaskop on the Helshoogte Pass, just 50 or so metres from the border fence of the planned Botmaskop luxury housing estate. The new plant has been named Moraea anastasia, with its species name derived from the ancient Greek word meaning ‘resurrection’. One of more than 1,200 indigenous Iridaceae (Iris family) species in southern Africa, it was discovered by botanist Dr Brian du Preez, a Smuts Fellowship post-doctoral student at UCT. Du Preez had been carefully monitoring the slopes of Botmaskop”.*
**Topic:** Bridging the divide between science and society – A botanical perspective.
**Venue:** The Chamber of Mines (Geology) Building on the corner of Ryneveld Street and Merriman Avenue. The venue is on the ground floor and the entrance is on the eastern side of the building. Anyone interested is welcome to attend the meeting, but you must RSVP online at this link:
They do, there is one next to dalsig planned where everybody jogs in the mountains. That is being fought. Libertas farm is being fought next to boord due to traffic congestions on the r44. The double storey hospital in die boord is being fought. So is the development of the pudu’s in the next brandwacht developemnt. The town simply cannot afford any more until infrastructure is sorted. Whatever peoples motives are for opposing these, mine is firstly infrastructure, but secondly also that i enjoy nature around stellenbosch. If all green farmland and woods are gone and we start looking like durbanville, people will also start moving away (i will)
As stated in the piece, the SIG were not against the development when it would have been a hotel, with a larger traffic impact, so while traffic is terrible, that is clearly not the reason why they are suddenly opposed to the new development.
If they are opposed to all developments, then that should be their stated reason for opposing the current one.
Yes i cannot comment on the SIG when it was supposed to be a hotel, i also did not know that that was on the cards (hotel). Would have made no difference to me either way i would like it to remain nature and not be developed. I liked your arguments and article in principle but people are very much divided on these issues and always will be, but not necessarily for the reason of nimblyness 😁 remember not
All of us living in stellies have lots of money or worry about social class or standing… although there are many. You get a lot of ordinary folk here as well. Some of us have different reasons and viewpoints relating to these developments. I can assure you the ones around die boord will be fought tooth and nail IF a highway is not built around town to alleviate the r44 pressure. Anyway my door is open of you want some perspective on how stellies looked and felt during late nineties v now.
I am so glad the SIG prioritises the difficult problems that degrades the image and value of Stellenbosch like Botmaskop and doesn't get involved to stop those uplifting, value enhancing areas like the Kayamandi urban creep. In decades to come we will thank them for their efforts
In short: Stellenbosch Interest Group: Annual General Meeting
You are cordially invited to the Annual General Meeting of the Stellenbosch Interest Group to be held on Wednesday, 14 May 2024 at 18:30.
Guest speaker: Dr Brian du Preez
“The recent discovery of a stunning new indigenous plant following the felling of a decades-old pine plantation at Stellenbosch has been hailed by plant lovers and conservationists as a botanical miracle. A handful of these beautiful plants of the Moraea genus emerged on the slopes of Botmaskop on the Helshoogte Pass, just 50 or so metres from the border fence of the planned Botmaskop luxury housing estate. The new plant has been named Moraea anastasia, with its species name derived from the ancient Greek word meaning ‘resurrection’. One of more than 1,200 indigenous Iridaceae (Iris family) species in southern Africa, it was discovered by botanist Dr Brian du Preez, a Smuts Fellowship post-doctoral student at UCT. Du Preez had been carefully monitoring the slopes of Botmaskop”.
Topic: Bridging the divide between science and society – A botanical perspective.
Venue: The Chamber of Mines (Geology) Building on the corner of Ryneveld Street and Merriman Avenue. The venue is on the ground floor and the entrance is on the eastern side of the building.
This is an interesting issue…If the SIG didn’t participate in the public processes, had no issue in principle with a hotel, and bulks services and reticulation have been installed (R140m) the development should go ahead. The balance of probabilities is against them.
A more convincing argument would be to say to the court that all planned developments in Stellenbosch should be ceased until the infrastructure issues are resolved by the municipality. And the bark start with this development. This would be a more appealing public good argument than the ecological argument. Jhb (fourways) has a similar issue of developers running ahead of the planned infrastructure upgrades, therefore, clogging roads, sewage, etc.
Agree that Stellenbosch needs infrastructure investment. There are many reasons why it is not/cannot happen, reasons that might be the topic of a future post.
Ahhh the keyboard warriors hard at work! I'll simply say that I do not agree with your opinion Johan, and I am glad the development was stopped. I am relieved to live in a town where citizens can still have a say against developers and dodgy municipal decisions! This is rare!
Ahhh the keyboard warriors hard at work! I'll simply say that I do not agree with your opinion Johan, and I am glad the development was stopped. I am relieved to live in a town where citizens can still have a say against developers and dodgy municipal decisions! This is rare!
There are two things, Johan, that I think you don't address or fairly discuss in the piece above:
1) From what I've heard there is a strong case that the developer acted in a dishonest, manipulative and possibly corrupt way by having an environmental impact assessment done for one type of development, and then bait-and-switching to a different development plan. This is dishonest and deserves to be exposed for what it is. This will not be the first such case in Stellenbosch -- another recent one being the Root44 market / wine emporium at Audacia where the developer also did a bait-and-switch to build something that was never approved and likely would not have been approved.
2) You criticise the SIG as being run by a small number of people who you claim don't represent the wider community. What about the developer? They arguably represent an even smaller number of people who stand to directly benefit from this development. Do they represent the wider community's desires? If you want true democracy then we should rather have a referendum among Stellenbosch's residents.
I've known this bit of mountain for about 35 years. It is true that a large part of the site was planted with blue gum trees and/or pine plantation. And yet, having a housing estate high up on the mountain does not necessarily serve the interests of Stellenbosch in the long run.
I scrutinized the development's website and their promo video that features ridiculous stock footage of Amazonian bird life and close-ups of black wattle and other non-indigenous plants. This does not align with their narrative of delivering unspoilt nature. This is the work of an entity that doesn't care an iota about fynbos or local fauna.
We don't necessarily need a luxury estate there. There are surely other ways of increasing the revenue, value and desirability of Stellenbosch. If this truly falls in the municipality's plan for the best possible future for Stellenbosch as a responsible, desirable and liveable city then so be it, but I am glad that there will be legal scrutiny applied to this, because I smell something fishy. Better to measure twice before we cut up our mountains.
Francois, I'd be interested to hear the source of 'what you heard'. What I found quite surprising is that almost all the media reporting – GroundUp, Carte Blanche – came from one source, the SIG. For those of us who are usually not happy with biased reporting, I found it quite surprising that most were simply happy to listen to a source that confirmed their preexisting views.
The hotel complex was approved two decades ago. The residential development was approved six years ago. The SIG was happy to sign off on both, as was the municipality and province. Banks gave money having checked the documentation. I am not a lawyer, and perhaps there is something I've missed, but a lot of people would have to be at fault if something was 'possibly corrupt'.
To equate Botmaskop with the Root44 market makes no sense to me. Steinhoff was born in Stellenbosch, therefore all Stellenbosch companies are corrupt?
The Stellenbosch Interest Group's name literally implies that they represent Stellenbosch residents. The judge also confirmed this. The developer has never suggested that they represent Stellenbosch residents.
You cannot have a referendum on every development or, for that matter, on all economic policies. That is why we have elected officials.
It is not for any of us to choose what the market 'needs'. A boutique hotel would have been nice in my opinion, but it was clear that there was no market for it – it would have been unprofitable – and so a residential development was the only viable outcome to the owners. If the residents feel that this should be something else, as I responded to Pieter, then they should be willing to buy the property or, through their elected officials, redirect precious public resources to turn it into something they want. The cost will then also be clear: you can either have a public park or schools, clinics, affordable housing, roads, etc.
Finally, it's easy for you to say that you're happy for the interdict to delay construction. What I hoped to highlight is that this has a tremendous economic cost: for the workers on site and for the future service workers of those properties. Most of them don't even know that they are losing out, and most of the rest of Stellenbosch probably don't care.
Hi Johan, thanks for your response.
My information comes primarily from SIG and Carte Blanche ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVDI2PT172k ). I do read these critically. For instance, the Carte Blanche segment makes contradictory points: it argues the area shouldn’t be developed due to environmental concerns, yet also suggests it could rather have been developed as low-cost housing. These inconsistencies don’t escape me.
The Root44 and Botmaskop developments have these similarities: In both cases, environmental approvals were reportedly obtained for smaller, less invasive developments. Then, the developers pivoted to more profitable, more intrusive plans while citing the original approvals. Both were approved by Stellenbosch Municipality. That’s the bait-and-switch I referred to. If a municipality allows this pattern to go unchecked, it’s not fulfilling its duty to the public.
You're right that we can't have referenda for every planning decision. That's what elected officials are for. But when those officials enable short-term private gains at the expense of legal and environmental safeguards, that’s exactly when civil society—or the courts—should step in.
Yes, SIG might only involve a small number of people, but that’s often the case with civic activism. Most people don’t have the time or bandwidth to comb through government gazettes or attend public hearings. That doesn’t mean the concerns raised are invalid.
As you rightly noted, the court order is an interim measure—it simply allows time for all arguments to be properly heard. Delays do cost money, but it’s far better to resolve valid concerns now than after construction is complete. Measure twice, cut once.
I'd like to add one small point to say that residents/tax payers/voters don't elect officials: We vote for parties in municipal elections, who then elects the officials. We've had a mayor for a long time that many felt didn't serve the interests of the residents of Stellenbosch. These officials should be held accountable and removed if necessary.
I will concur with whatever the court finds, but I honestly believe a thorough investigation is necessary.
Let's not fall trap to the sunk cost fallacy.
Johan, this article is hard to swallow. I respect your views but cannot agree with you in a broad sense.
I believe it's a flawed argument to say just because the natural state of that area hasn't been maintained that development is (basically) the only alternative.
I also think it's unreasonable to highlight that the SIG only takes on certain projects: Choose your battles, e.g. I donate to the local animal welfare, but I cannot save all homeless or abandoned animals/pets.
Lastly, and this is a crucial point: It's a massive eyesore. Have you looked at the building plans? Do you know about that landswap application, because suddenly they cannot develop part of the land due to geographic constraints?
I'm not even remotely in the inner circles of Stellenbosch. I don't live in that vacinity, though I cycle there (and I do care about that with other cyclists). I'm not a wealthy person. I'm not old Stellenbosch money or a resident, yet I support the intervention, because there's been a number of questionable decisions. A lot of what you see is residents being fed up with poor service and maintenance, while new developments are being approved.
The argument goes the other way too: Just because you have or can get access to obscene amounts of money doesn't mean you can get what you want. The wealthy also shouldn't be allowed just to ruin a mountain, because they have the funds.
Pieter, thanks for the comment, as always.
I think the cycling argument is weak. It's been private (but unfenced) property since at least 2003. Mountain biking is an expensive activity; you may not live in the wealthiest part of Stellenbosch, but to say that dozens of people shouldn't have temporary or permanent jobs because you want to cycle in that part of the mountain is a bit, well, elitist.
The eyesore argument: Well, yes, it is an eyesore, because it is unfinished. The land will not return to some original state all by itself. Now that construction is dormant, with the rainy season approaching, I can only imagine that erosion of the terrain will follow: and again, it is the communities downstream (Idas Valley) that will suffer the consequences. The only sustainable way to protect that part of the mountain is to complete the development.
I was actually thinking the other day what can be done, besides building on it: Another sculpture park, similar to the Dylan Lewis garden. That's one other option I could think of.
And yes, cycling (especially mountain biking) is a privileged hobby, for sure. I didn't intend to make it the core of my argument. It was intended to connect with one of your points as a matter of honesty (and perhaps bias). The reason it upsets me is that I believe that area should be free for anybody to enjoy and shouldn't be fenced off for a handful of wealthy people. Are you ok with the exclusivity of this? I don't see how that argument makes me elitist.
It is private property, Pieter, just like your house or mine, rezoned many years ago.
If you want it to be a sculpture garden then there really are only three options: a) buy the property yourself, b) crowdfund buy it, or c) vote for a political party that's willing to spend precious public resources on a public park. I think you'll realise that neither of these three options will provide a more sustainable, safe, and attractive outcome than what is currently being proposed.
I sense some frustration in your latest comment – and that's ok. Perhaps this has to do with a fundamental difference in views: My personal belief is that capitalism cannot trump all. There is a socialist part to me.
It was rezoned, yes, but only for a small-scale development. I understand the ownership of property and I know the development of land isn't directly in the hands of the municipality, yet they approved this development. It should be quite clear from the comments here, but also on Facebook and other places that the situation doesn't sit well with residents. We cannot simply hide behind processes and historic approvals. If people object, we should find a way to improve the public participation process, for example. Most of the arguments I've heard follows the reasoning of "oh well, it is what it is, let's continue". I cannot concur with that.
The planned development is exclusive. How is this uplifting the community? The jobs created for construction is temporary. The permanent jobs will honestly not be that many.
With that I'd like to rest my case. It's not my intention to upset anybody or to seem thick in my thinking.
This has little to do with capitalism/socialism, Pieter, and much more with political economy. (Sidenote: if you were truly socialist, you'd advocate for social housing instead. I don't see any of the SIG members suggesting that.)
The fact that you still equate 'residents' or 'public' with those that voice their objections on Facebook exposes your bias. There are many, many people that stand to gain from an almost R1 billion development, and they are not on those groups. In fact, I would argue they don't even know yet that they stand to gain. Again, if you were truly socialist, you'd actually want to be the voice for those voiceless.
No one is 'hiding behind processes and historical approvals'. I'd urge you to investigate the matter yourself. I don't want to get into the technical details, but let me just say that I think the SIG has been very cunning in how they presented the facts to the judge. If you actually look at the footprint including all the relevant services – as the municipality, and the province, and the banks, and all the other relevant parties did – then you'll find the footprint exactly the same, a footprint the SIG signed off on many years ago.
Just as you should not just rely on what I say, I'd suggest you do not only rely on what you read in various media reports where a specific narrative has been carefully crafted.
It is my personal view that that piece of land should not be developed for residential purposes. Whether it's passed some process is immaterial to me, because I'm even questioning that rezoning, even though it happened many years ago (if I knew, I can assure you I would've objected). I'm not going to accept that because someone dished out a stamp that it is the ethical/moral way forward (this is what I mean by hiding: people say "the process was followed"). I honestly don't care if it's an expensive development, low-cost or social housing: That land should not be developed for that purpose. It being an highly exclusive development just makes it worse for me. Don't build houses there. Find something else.
(I didn't say I'm 100% socialist. Just check what I wrote again, please. I'm merely trying to establish where we are differing at the core. I'm not educated in your field, so it's quite possible that I'm using some loose definitions.)
I am neither wealthy, nor do I hold any kind of status in this town. I am a nobody. I arrived in Stellenbosch from elsewhere and have no family connection to this town. Mine is not a case of “nimbyism” but more a case of general horror at the rape and destruction of a beautiful mountain and natural area so rich in natural diversity. For what good reasons are these spaces being sold out and destroyed, and for whom is the gain? As a citizen of the town, I see no gain for those who aren’t wealthy or for those who care.
Thanks Donna, I appreciate the comment. I think I made it quite clear that many residents will benefit from the development, not only the 77 families who will purchase the properties. Dozens, if not hundreds, of temporary and permanent jobs will be created by the massive investment. I think these people also deserve a voice.
I am also appalled by the current condition of the mountain, which is why I would like to see the project completed. I do not see any alternative for 'returning' it to its original state. That is because it was already in poor condition when the first environmental impact was completed in the early 2000s.
Thanks Johan. Opinions are not facts, and I don’t believe it’s a fact that it can’t be rehabilitated or restored. It should be (also an opinion).
77 more families creating more money is not argument enough to destroy Botmaskop. The (many more than) 77 families in Newinbosch are also coming. Let’s not talk about Dalsig, or Brandwacht, or all the student developments, or the area behind Coetzenburg, or or or ...
If we cared about more than just money,
we would be more likely to do the right thing here.
Of course it can be rehabilitated, Donna. But it will be at an exorbitant cost. Who foots the bill? What does not get built/provided (services, housing, etc.) in order to repair a mountain slope?
It's easy for people with money to say we should care about more than just money.
"What does not get built/provided (services, housing, etc.) in order to repair a mountain slope" is the same question you can ask for any area of protected nature. Clearly the answer can neither be: "never build" or "never refuse to build". Will the cost in this case have been exorbitant? Was the environmental impact assessment done properly and honestly w.r.t. the 77 erven in question? I hope that the court will decide this fairly.
For 20 years there has been no infrastructure upgrade in terms of roads and traffic to accommodate the many developments going up. People sit frustrated in traffic daily in stellenbosch small streets. For 150 years only three schools have been built, with the influx of people into stellenbosch with new developments even stellenbosch parents dont get their kids into school. First sort out infrastructure, then we start talking about development. No such thing as nimbyism
Fair, but then you would expect the SIC to be against all new developments, no?
They are...Ronnie D will show you their records, and so would Bertha H. They've become personae no grata from before you were born, due to their slant. And nowhere, and never, have they said that the represent anyone. According to them, they challenge along law-lines...may, mayn't and so forth.
From a friend: "Die prof moet hom eers vergewis van die feite. Hy kan eerstens die kindertjie emosionele aanslag maar uitlos.
Hy moet verder maar weer mooi dink oor sy populistiese ongegronde bewerings betreffende die ekonomiese voordele wat die ontwikkeling alles kan inhou vir Stellenbosch, en veral dan nog vir spesifieke groepe mense in die stad. (ons sal binnekort maar moet praat van stad?). Hy blyk veral nie ʼn langtermyn visie te hê nie.
Sy filsofie oor die gedrag wat hy toedig aan SBG en ander mense van Stellenbosch pas weer goed aan by sy seuntjiestorie en hoort nie tuis by die feite waaroor die geskil gaan nie.
Professor in sosiale filosofie? (and crowdsourcing)...."
Kootjie, ek vind jou vriend se kommentaar disrespekvol. Jy en hy/sy is welkom om van my te verskil op 'n rasionele manier – en die doel is om juis sinvolle gesprekke oor 'n komplekse onderwerp aan te moedig – maar jou reaksie hierbo getuig van die teendeel.
Dankie, ek gee weer wat my vriend gestuur het....sal jy vd os op die jas belangstel om die SIG jaarvergadering by te woon?
Nooi gerus, Kootjie.
Waardeer Dankie Johan, hiermee:
**Belangegroep Stellenbosch Interest Group**
**INVITATION**
**Stellenbosch Interest Group: Annual General Meeting**
You are cordially invited to the Annual General Meeting of the Stellenbosch Interest Group to be held on Wednesday, 14 May 2024 at 18:30.
**Guest speaker:** Dr Brian du Preez
*“The recent discovery of a stunning new indigenous plant following the felling of a decades-old pine plantation at Stellenbosch has been hailed by plant lovers and conservationists as a botanical miracle. A handful of these beautiful plants of the Moraea genus emerged on the slopes of Botmaskop on the Helshoogte Pass, just 50 or so metres from the border fence of the planned Botmaskop luxury housing estate. The new plant has been named Moraea anastasia, with its species name derived from the ancient Greek word meaning ‘resurrection’. One of more than 1,200 indigenous Iridaceae (Iris family) species in southern Africa, it was discovered by botanist Dr Brian du Preez, a Smuts Fellowship post-doctoral student at UCT. Du Preez had been carefully monitoring the slopes of Botmaskop”.*
**Topic:** Bridging the divide between science and society – A botanical perspective.
**Venue:** The Chamber of Mines (Geology) Building on the corner of Ryneveld Street and Merriman Avenue. The venue is on the ground floor and the entrance is on the eastern side of the building. Anyone interested is welcome to attend the meeting, but you must RSVP online at this link:
https://shorturl.at/NReMV
They do, there is one next to dalsig planned where everybody jogs in the mountains. That is being fought. Libertas farm is being fought next to boord due to traffic congestions on the r44. The double storey hospital in die boord is being fought. So is the development of the pudu’s in the next brandwacht developemnt. The town simply cannot afford any more until infrastructure is sorted. Whatever peoples motives are for opposing these, mine is firstly infrastructure, but secondly also that i enjoy nature around stellenbosch. If all green farmland and woods are gone and we start looking like durbanville, people will also start moving away (i will)
As stated in the piece, the SIG were not against the development when it would have been a hotel, with a larger traffic impact, so while traffic is terrible, that is clearly not the reason why they are suddenly opposed to the new development.
If they are opposed to all developments, then that should be their stated reason for opposing the current one.
Yes i cannot comment on the SIG when it was supposed to be a hotel, i also did not know that that was on the cards (hotel). Would have made no difference to me either way i would like it to remain nature and not be developed. I liked your arguments and article in principle but people are very much divided on these issues and always will be, but not necessarily for the reason of nimblyness 😁 remember not
All of us living in stellies have lots of money or worry about social class or standing… although there are many. You get a lot of ordinary folk here as well. Some of us have different reasons and viewpoints relating to these developments. I can assure you the ones around die boord will be fought tooth and nail IF a highway is not built around town to alleviate the r44 pressure. Anyway my door is open of you want some perspective on how stellies looked and felt during late nineties v now.
I am so glad the SIG prioritises the difficult problems that degrades the image and value of Stellenbosch like Botmaskop and doesn't get involved to stop those uplifting, value enhancing areas like the Kayamandi urban creep. In decades to come we will thank them for their efforts
Hahahahahahaha lol
for everyone: do consider attending and do RSVP ple:
https://shorturl.at/NReMV
In short: Stellenbosch Interest Group: Annual General Meeting
You are cordially invited to the Annual General Meeting of the Stellenbosch Interest Group to be held on Wednesday, 14 May 2024 at 18:30.
Guest speaker: Dr Brian du Preez
“The recent discovery of a stunning new indigenous plant following the felling of a decades-old pine plantation at Stellenbosch has been hailed by plant lovers and conservationists as a botanical miracle. A handful of these beautiful plants of the Moraea genus emerged on the slopes of Botmaskop on the Helshoogte Pass, just 50 or so metres from the border fence of the planned Botmaskop luxury housing estate. The new plant has been named Moraea anastasia, with its species name derived from the ancient Greek word meaning ‘resurrection’. One of more than 1,200 indigenous Iridaceae (Iris family) species in southern Africa, it was discovered by botanist Dr Brian du Preez, a Smuts Fellowship post-doctoral student at UCT. Du Preez had been carefully monitoring the slopes of Botmaskop”.
Topic: Bridging the divide between science and society – A botanical perspective.
Venue: The Chamber of Mines (Geology) Building on the corner of Ryneveld Street and Merriman Avenue. The venue is on the ground floor and the entrance is on the eastern side of the building.
This is an interesting issue…If the SIG didn’t participate in the public processes, had no issue in principle with a hotel, and bulks services and reticulation have been installed (R140m) the development should go ahead. The balance of probabilities is against them.
A more convincing argument would be to say to the court that all planned developments in Stellenbosch should be ceased until the infrastructure issues are resolved by the municipality. And the bark start with this development. This would be a more appealing public good argument than the ecological argument. Jhb (fourways) has a similar issue of developers running ahead of the planned infrastructure upgrades, therefore, clogging roads, sewage, etc.
Agree that Stellenbosch needs infrastructure investment. There are many reasons why it is not/cannot happen, reasons that might be the topic of a future post.
Hope you are well otherwise, Omphile!
I think that post/discussion is important moreso for the future of development in the town.
I am good, Johan, I can’t complain. When I am in Stellenbosch we must touch base. I hope you and the family are well.
There is an response by Dr. Brian du Preez to Johan's article available at
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BpKn13qjF/
Worth a read and clearly address the issues at hand
Ahhh the keyboard warriors hard at work! I'll simply say that I do not agree with your opinion Johan, and I am glad the development was stopped. I am relieved to live in a town where citizens can still have a say against developers and dodgy municipal decisions! This is rare!
Have you asked yourself, Danielle: Stopped, to be replaced by what?
Ahhh the keyboard warriors hard at work! I'll simply say that I do not agree with your opinion Johan, and I am glad the development was stopped. I am relieved to live in a town where citizens can still have a say against developers and dodgy municipal decisions! This is rare!