CAPE TOWN SCANDAL: City won't stop dumping your money

Dear Cape Town Citizens,

Van Eeden

          AS A RATEPAYER MYSELF THIS MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL. AND IF I THINK LIKE THIS I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE MINDS OF THE HOMELESS POOR.

          Your Council continues to play in its favourite sand pit with thousands of your ratepayer’s money. It will be millions more before you know it the way the bungling is going on.

          This would be on top of the R5-million that has already been thrown away on failed experiments at a rubbish dump site that was closed for refuse 30 years ago.

            Ironically it comes just as all our service charges are about to go up by almost 10% - well above the inflation rate.

          The site is at Witsands next to a popular surfing and wind surfing beach not far from Cape Point.

          It is also a short distance from the troubled Black township of Masiphumelele and the Coloured one of Ocean View where they are crying out for funds to upgrade the facilities.

February & March earth moving takes place

          In February and March this year a regiment of huge earth moving equipment spent more than a month rearranging the sand dunes – something that has been going on more or less in the same way for the last 10 years.

          The purpose of this massive expenditure of R500 000 a year or more has been to stop what is left of the buried rubbish from being washed into the sea by keeping it well covered in an area where strong winds shift the sand around at most times of the year.

          My impression is that instead of solving the problem these machines make the dunes even more unstable and destroy any vegetation that could hold it together that might have started growing on them.

May 10 road has to be cleared of sand.

The job was done so poorly that less than two months after the dune moving had been completed a front end loader had to clear a nearby road that was covered in sand.

June 8 earth movers are back doing exactly what they had done before

That was early in May. Now a month later on 8 June the same number of earth movers - a huge tracked bulldozer and excavator as well as two dumper trucks – were brought in once again to cover large sections of non-biodegradable material like glass and plastic that the wind had uncovered.  

Sand being dumped in June in exactly the same place as
it was put earlier in the year in February/March

March 7 net fencing is erected

The R200 000 net fencing on a 4 ha ridge that had been built up parallel to the sea also proved to be a complete failure.

          This “tried and tested” method was put up last March by Vula Environmental Restoration that claims to be dune restoration specialists.

          “The nets work by disrupting the airflow thus forcing wind to drop the sand load within the net field on top of the old landfill site,” Deon van Eeden the head of Vula told me. “The sand is then retained where it is required.”

March 13 first winter storms flattens or buries nets

          The system failed completely to retain the sand because the wind was so strong during the first two winter storms that most of the 5 km of netting was either buried completely or flattened. And a large area of rubbish was exposed between the nets.

Net graveyard

May 30 some netting removed to prepare for the dumping of more sand

          They then had to be partially removed so that tons more sand from further inland could be brought in to cover the exposed area.

          “The nets are maintained by lifting so as to retain their functionality and to continue to catch the sand in the target area,” Van Eeden said.

          It is weeks since the nets were trashed and very little has been done to raise them again.

Nets removed to make way for more sand to be dumped

          Vula's contract runs until March 2017, but as the nets have been so ineffective so far it would seem pointless in having them replaced.       

          In any event he revealed that they were only put there in a “test” section to “inform the formulation of the future management strategy for the Witsands landfill.”

After playing in this sand pit for more than 10 years I would have thought the Council and its experts would have finished experiments years ago.

I pointed out to Van Eeden that William Woodhouse, a Professor of Soil Science and a member of the US Army Corps of Engineers, who was an expert on dune stabilization, maintained that the most effective way of doing this was with vegetation. It was the only permanent solution as well as being very cost effective.

Van Eeden’s firm claims to have stabilized dunes with indigenous grasses and to be able to produce vast quantities of indigenous plant seed. So I asked him why the vegetation method had not been adopted at Witsands.

“The reason why the entire 19 ha has not been instantaneously vegetated is that there has not been a detailed study of the viability of this and there is not an Environmental Authorisation in terms of the relevant legislation to implement this,” he told me.

Mounds of sand that were covered naturally by the
          indigenous vegetation shows that this could possibly
be grown over the whole site

Councillor Johan van der Merwe the Mayoral Committee Member for Environmental Planning gave me a similar explanation when he said, “It was almost impossible to do this as the sand is naturally mobile and if it were to be successful this natural system would require several authorisations.”

          “These,” he added, “Were a Standard Operating Protocol as part of land fill closure.”

        It is a terrible indictment on the Council that 30 years after the dump was closed it has done nothing to overcome the bureaucratic stumbling block that would have enable it to try covering the site with vegetation – a method that all the international experts say is the one sure way of permanently stabilising dunes. And if it worked the Council might never have to spend another cent there again.

        There is no question that vegetation will not grow there because all around the dump site the dunes are covered with it growing naturally.

          Van Eeden confused the issue of whether to plant vegetation or not when he told me that the net system was “indeed non-permanent but it aids significantly in creating a stable environment and micro climate where seeds naturally occurring in the sand can germinate. It is clear from past efforts that the unstable environment is not conducive to self stabilisation.”

Another example of vegetation covered mounds in the
middle of the land fill site

          Both he and the Council’s experts don’t seem to have taken into account that Witsands is almost at what is known as the “Cape of Storms” and that is why the net system did not work making it necessary to bring in the earth movers once again.

           The cost of hiring these is mind boggling made worse because each of them has to be transported to and from the site on a low bed truck. Somebody is making a killing and they are not from either of the nearby townships I mentioned earlier.

          Nothing will stop the City from continuing to build sand castles over and over again with your money while it steadfastly refuses to adopt the only method that could solve the problem once and for all at a minimum cost.  

What is being done is about as futile as digging holes, filling them in and then digging them out again, only in this case it’s at GREAT COST.

          It is a disgraceful, outrageous SCANDAL that should stop immediately because it can only seriously damage the Council’s reputation.

Regards

          Jon, a Consumer Watchdog who does his best to make sure his bark is heard.

P.S. Before I put this on my blog I sent it to Johan van der Merwe and invited him to make any comments he wished. The reply I got was: “Please feel free to proceed without City comment.”
Earlier Posts: 
Cape Town's never ending money dump
Is Cape Town still wasting money on a rubbish dump closed 30 years ago

WHY THE SUNDAY TIMES WILL NEVER EXPOSE THIS ON-GONG SCANDAL

Dear Readers,

Caxton's Terry Moolman

          The latest edition of the Johannesburg based Sunday Times carries a revealing special report supplement to celebrate its 110^th anniversary.

          In it the current Editor Bongani Siqoko tells us: “We have brought down to earth the most powerful for exploiting the poor and the downtrodden of our country.”

          That might have been in the past but is that what’s happening now?

Why has his paper ignored a deplorable scandal that without a doubt is “exploiting the poor and downtrodden of our country” and has been bringing big business handsome profits for years?

The Sunday Times even has it own Consumer Watchdog Megan Power who writes a column each week.

To make matters worse it’s been there for all to see week in and week out effectively bringing the morality of newspapers in general into disrepute.

Under the heading of Herbalists the daily newspaper The Citizen is coining it with advertisements from people fraudulently calling themselves doctors, professors and all kinds of other experts. They promise the poor and uneducated miracle cures, instant wealth and a host of other dubious ways to improve their lives.

All for a price of course.

Even the Editor Steven Motale agreed with me TWO YEARS AGO (citizen's dubious ads) that these advertisements were not believable, but his paper has never stopped churning out these lies.

          Money takes preference over morality at this publication that has a daily circulation of 51 000. Surely by taking ads from fraudsters the paper is just as culpable because it is aiding and abetting them to rip off the unsuspecting, especially when the paper knows that what it is printing is NOT TRUE.

No wonder the South African Editor’s Forum (SANEF), which claims to be “committed to encouraging ethically driven media”, says on its website that the newspaper industry around the world “is often maligned for its lack of integrity.”

Well with papers like The Citizen, that doesn’t even believe in the veracity of everything it prints, you can understand why this industry has that unenviable reputation.

Needless to say as far as I know not a single member of SANEF has done anything to try and stop this immoral practice at The Citizen. In fact when I tried to get comment from this upholder of free speech I got a rude brush off (questionable ethics).

The Sunday Time’s anniversary supplement might have inadvertently provided the answer as to why neither the Sunday Times, nor SANEF or any other newspaper in South Africa has yet had the guts to take The Citizen to task for so badly bringing down standards in the industry.

A story headed CAXTON HAS A LONG RELATIONSHIP WITH TIMES MEDIA explained it all.

            Caxton Printers in Johannesburg is the largest single-site print factory in the country, it revealed. “In total, 103 different products, including some 10 daily newspapers and six weekend newspapers are printed at the site,” Jaco Koekmoer, 

CEO of Caxton Cold Set was quoted as saying.

          “These include the Caxton owned The Citizen, as well as many of its free community newspapers, in addition to the daily and weekend newspapers the company prints on behalf of other publishers, such as the Times Media group, owners of the Sunday Times.”

          He said that while they had previously printed supplements for the Sunday Times they had been printing the main body of the paper for the last three and half years.

          So that’s why the Sunday Times and every other paper in South Africa together with all their editors find The Citizen’s lucrative blight on the media is far too hot to do anything about.

          It is even being ignored by the South African Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a media finance body, that once told a judge that “Publishing misleading  advertising is intrinsically harmful to consumers” and that it was “only the ASA that monitors the advertising industry as a whole and responds to complaints speedily and effectively.”

          So “effectively” that it also lies because when I submitted complaints to it about these dubious ads in The Citizen it refused to consider them (ridiculous asa).

          I have no doubt that if a different kind of business was being run contrary to the public interest the Sunday Times would not hesitate to set its investigation reporters onto it in keeping with its motto: The paper for the people.

Siqoko claimed in that anniversary report that his paper “will remain non-aligned.” But no doubt that does not apply in the case of The Citizen because they are all in bed together.

And those who sleep together stick together.

Regards

Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who exposes media LIES when nobody else will.  

P.S. In the past I tried to get comment from secretive media baron Terry Moolman, Caxton’s majority shareholder, but I got nowhere. (caxton bosses duck dubious advertisng issue)                                                                                         

SUNDAY TIMES LOTTO JOURNALISM - HOW IT WORKS

Dear Newspaper Readers,

Pravin Gordhan

          The Johannesburg based Sunday Times is using lotto journalism with increasing regularity. This is in spite of the fact that the Editor Bongani Siqoko told us last month, as part of a whole page apology about its so called “SARS rogue unit” expose`, that they had got “some things wrong” and one of the reasons was they “overly relied on our sources.”

          This didn’t stop the paper doing exactly the same thing this last Sunday to boost its sensational front page splash Pravin ‘arrest’ shock.

          How what I have dubbed “lotto journalism” works is this. The paper decides on the most sensational line for the story and then gives you, the reader this regardless of the facts by using anonymous “sources.”

The apology 3 April 

          The most glaring example of this was in its latest episode of its “rogue unit” saga that has been going on for two years. It was about how Pravin Gordhan South Africa’s current Minister of Finance and eight other former South African Revenue Service officials, who were said to have been members of the “unit,” were about to be prosecuted for “espionage.”

          The paper claimed that the unit, which was supposed to have illegally spied on tax payers among other things, was formed when Gordhan headed SARS as its Commissioner.

          In its last Sunday edition the paper quoted the National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Luvuyo Mfaku as saying: “It is incorrect that a decision has been made to prosecute anyone. The matter is still under investigation.”

Sunday 15 May

          Keeping that bad journalism cliché “don’t let the facts spoil a good story” well and truly alive the paper then covered itself both ways by falling back on its unreliable “sources” with this:

          “But highly placed NPA sources confirmed that national director of public prosecutions Shaun Abrahams ‘is ready to prosecute.’”

          That made Mfaku out to be a liar.

          The reliability of the Sunday Times’ “sources” was exposed a day later on the Monday when The Times, a daily in the same Times Media stable as the Sunday Times, came out with Reprieve for Gordhan as its front page lead.

          It quoted Abrahams, the man the Sunday Times inexplicably could not get hold of, as saying: “It is completely incorrect to say that anyone is going to be arrested or even faces arrest.”

          The Sunday Times story which ran from the front page onto page two contained allegations and information in no less than seven statements from anonymous “sources” and stated as fact that “Gordhan is being accused of breaching the Intelligence Act for his role in the formation of the ‘rogue unit’ when he headed SARS.”

Monday 16 May

          The trouble with relying on these is that anyone can sit in an office and make up quotes from “sources” to make a story more sensational. And if the paper is ever called upon to prove in court the allegations made by one of these anonymous people it would not be able to do it because journalists conveniently have a long standing tradition of never revealing their “sources.”

          Siqoko emphasised this aspect in that whole page apology, which must have been some kind of record, when he wrote that it was their responsibility “to build, sustain and protect a relationship with our sources.”

          As the Sunday Times and The Times have now given us conflicting versions of the story one of them must be lying.  And my “sources” tell me it is the Sunday Times.

Van Loggerenberg

          In that whole page apology on April 3 2016 that I mentioned earlier Johann van Loggerenberg, SARS Group Executive, Tax & Custom Enforcement and Ivan Pillay, the Deputy Commissioner, both of whom the paper had accused of being part of the “rogue unit” were allowed to have their say under the banner headline: Finally we agree to lay to rest the controversy surrounding SARS and the Sunday Times even though both of them had resigned from the tax department.

          Van Loggerenburg’s statement was headed: ‘Rogue’ unit never broke the law and was very effective. And Pillay’s one put the case against the Sunday Times in a nutshell with: The ‘rogue unit’ narrative was a great disservice to public interest, and made up of lies and distortions.

Pillay

          On the other side of the page under Our response the Editor Siqoko sort to justify this huge climb down as being an “amicable settlement.” He confessed that in the 30 or so reports that had been in the paper so far about the unit they had got things right but had also got some wrong and had also given incomplete information.

          He blamed their unnamed “sources” for some of the problems and conceded that they had stated some allegations as fact.

          What he wrote about the investigation in general gave the impression that the newsgathering short-comings of the paper were a lot more serious than just the ones that had occurred in this inquiry

          “The SARS story has given us an opportunity to take a closer look at our news-gathering and production processes,” he told readers.

          “We have found some serious gaps. Efforts are being made to close these.”

          In a block at the end of his response he stated that “an amicable settlement’ had been reached with the two men “in respect of various matters before the Press Ombudsman” and in terms of this all Ombudsman (presumably the complaints the two men had made) matters would be withdrawn by all parties. Van Loggerenberg had also agreed not to institute any civil claims against the paper.

          “The settlement is considered full and final and on this basis no further actions will be taken.”

          This latest Sunday Times report names Van Loggerenberg and Pillay as being among the ex-SARS employees likely to be arrested. It now raises this BIG QUESTION: HAS THE PAPER BROKEN THE SPIRIT OF THE AGREEMENT, AT THE VERY LEAST, BY TARNISHING THE IMAGE OF THE TWO MEN ONCE AGAIN, THIS TIME EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY THAN BEFORE?

          Far from laying to rest the controversy surrounding SARS and the Sunday Times this has made it a lot worse, especially if it turns out to be “made up of lies and distortions” as Pillay labelled the earlier reports.  

          According to the story the Hawks, the country’s top investigative unit, had handed over a case docket to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for a decision to prosecute.

          Since the beginning of the year the paper has published quite a few apologies for not getting both sides of the story in various reports and it now appears to have done that again.        

          Van Loggerenburg was quoted as saying he had “done nothing wrong”

 and would co-operate with any investigation.

          There was no mention of Pillay having been contacted and of the other people named two were said to be “unavailable”, another one “did not respond to questions,” while “Gordhan’s office declined to comment.”

None of the three reporters (why you need three for one story is beyond me) doing the investigation appear to have even tried to speak to the other three men named.

As this was not any run of the mill story I would have thought the Sunday Times would have been more circumspect than usual, especial in view of the history, to make sure it go everything absolutely right.

          If Gordhan was to be arrested it was expected to plunge the country into a new financial crisis similar to what happened when President Zuma axed Nhlanhla Nene, who had only been in the Finance Minister’s job for seven months. He was replaced with little known, small town mayor David van Rooyen, before being shifting four days later.

Van Rooyen had his cabinet post swapped with Gordhan, the Minister of Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs at the time.

          Even two of the Sunday Time’s own reporters were not happy with the paper’s handling of this long running investigation. Pearlie Joubert resigned after taking it to task when Phylicia Oppelt was still in the Editor’s chair for what she believed was the unethical way the probe had been conducted. This was denied by the paper.

          Piet Rampedi, who with other reporters had gathered evidence of what the paper claimed showed that SARS had spied illegally on taxpayers, took to Twitter under the user name Mr. Putin to slam the agreement that was made with the two tax men.

          “Yes ST’s bleeding commercially. But we're so desperate 4 adverts & 2 please Gordhan that we sell editorial integrity,” was one tweet followed by:

          “Despite a self-serving deal between ST & criminal suspects I believe our stories were factual and can prove in court.”

          As you can imagine these outbursts are hardly likely to advance their journalist careers. Rampedi is also no longer with the Sunday Times.

          To be fair to Siqoko he only became the Sunday Times Editor at the beginning of the year, so the majority of the “Rogue unit” stories were published under his predecessor Oppelt, who was moved “up stairs” as the saying goes.

          Did the way this SARS intrigued was revealed have anything to do with this? My “sources” are mum on that.

          Regards

          Jon, The Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman

P.S.  See also: jonas story & lotto journalism; is sunday times aiming for junk status;     sunday times needs truth drug

             

          

LIFE'S Ha! Ha! COMEDY MOMENTS COURTESY SUNDAY TIMES; LIFE HEALTHCARE & NMC CONSTRUCTION

Dear Readers,

Behr

Sunday Times: Impressed with an article that took up almost a whole page in the May 8 edition I decided to compliment the author Mike Behr.

Headlined Oxford scholar’s snub ‘last straw’ for waitress it was about the  R145 000 ‘tip’ raised on social media for White, Cape Town, café waitress Ashleigh Schultz after she was humiliated to tears by Ntokozo Qwabe, a Black, Oxford Rhodes Scholar.

He bragged on Facebook that instead of tipping her he had written on the bill: “We will give tip when you return the land.”  This was a reference to the Blacks’ belief that the Whites had taken all the best land when the all White, apartheid South African Government was in power.

His snide remark backfired when the online collection raised more money for Ashleigh than she would be able to earn for years working as a waitress. Aged 24 Ashleigh was two when the White Government was replaced with a Black one so that’s how absurd Qwabe’s demand was.

Unlike some of the reports in the Sunday Times Behr’s article did not have his email address at the bottom so I phoned the News Desk in Johannesburg and asked the woman who answered for his contact details. The conversation then went like this:

          “Who is Mike Behr?”

          “He wrote almost an entire page of your paper this week.” (The staff on the News Desk, the hub of the paper’s news gathering, should surely know who their current writers are).

          “Oh he must be a freelance. Hang on a minute. 
          You must phone our Cape Town office."               

So I did and there Denise Nelson gave me his cell phone number. She added she only knew him as a freelance photographer and didn’t have an email address for him.

When I phoned Behr I almost also got a snub as well.You would have thought I was chasing him for something like debt or an outstanding parking ticket because he seemed so angry.

          “I’m phoning about that article you wrote in the Sunday Times about the waitress,” I told him.

          “Who are you?” he demanded. So I gave him my name.

          “Who gave you my number?” he snapped back.

          “The Cape Town office.”

          “Well they shouldn’t have.”

          
I was trying to do the opposite of what that Rhodes Scholar had in mind by praising Behr. Don’t worry I’m not so upset by Behr’s reaction that it warrants another online collection.

He only mellowed when I told him I thought his report was excellent and that was why I had contacted him.

His off-hand behaviour was surprising considering he has written for newspapers and magazines for three decades, winning several awards in the process.

One thing is certain however it was definitely not a great advertisement for the paper that had just used him. 

Life Healthcare Hospital Group: My wife had been treated at their Kingsbury Hospital in Cape Town.

Shortly afterwards I received an email saying they had selected her to provide them with feedback about her experience.

          “Please click here to provide feedback,” it said.

So I clicked and got ….

          “Survey. Thank you for attempting to complete this survey, 
          unfortunately this survey cannot be found.”

It was just as well that it wasn’t a ruptured appendix that she had been in for.

So I phoned the hospital and asked to speak to Denis Scheuble, the Chief Operating Executive – Coastal, whose name appeared at the bottom of the email with no direct contact details.

          “Can I speak to Mr Denis Scheuble?” I said.

          “Is he a patient,” the woman on the switchboard replied (Top executives at big firms should make a point of ensuring that the staff below them, particular ones on switchboards, know who they are).

When I explained that he appeared to be one of their top executives she gave me the number of the Johannesburg head office where I finally got hold of him. He apologised saying:

          “We had some problems with this at the beginning of the year, but we thought we had sorted it out.”

I told him that my wife had been very happy with the service she got and the survey was back as it should have been a day later.

NMC Construction Group: It claims to “take pride in setting the construction standard” and at a site office next to a road it is building in Cape Town a notice says: “Safety induction is compulsory before entering this site. We trust that you will partner with us and comply with our safety standards.”

With all this emphasis on site “safety” it’s a pity this didn’t extend to the warning signs it put up on Kommetjie Road near the Masiphumelele township where its road works have been going on for what seems like forever.

View before the sign was moved (left) & afterwards (right)

One of these almost completely blocked the view motorists had of traffic coming from their right as they came out of the car park of the family business of Rodgers Fruiterers.  Michael, one of the owners, told me they had been trying for months to get the sign moved – ever since it was put up.

Front of the sign before it was moved

They got so desperate with the lack of action from the authorities that they even considered chopping the sign down, but abandoned this as they were worried they would get into trouble.

I don’t shop at Rodgers very often but after going there recently I realised that this huge sign, just a few meters from the entrance to their premises was an accident waiting to happen.

As one of the local ‘things must be right’ busy bodies I went to NMC’s office not far away and there the site engineer promised to have the sign moved to a safe position.

Low and behold that’s exactly what happened three working days later. But one still has to ask why the Cape Town City Roads and Traffic Departments don’t ensure that hazardous signs like this are not erected on our roads in the first place.

Let’s face it I can’t be everywhere.

   Regards,
   
   Jon, a Consumer Watchdog
   who is wagging his tail because
   he doesn't often get such quick results.                
                    
   

                        

SOUTH AFRICA'S SUNDAY ECHO'S RUGGER BUGGER UP

Dear Newspaper Readers,
          A month ago almost to the day the new Editor of the Johannesburg based Sunday Times Bongani Siqoko told us in a whole page apology that the story in question had “given us an opportunity to take a closer look at our news-gathering and production.”

          “We have found serious gaps,” he confessed and he promised that efforts would be made to close these.

April 3 2016

          He appeared to be only referring the Sunday Times’ investigative and news gathering shortcomings as these were the areas involved in the so called “SARS (South African Revue Service) Rogue Unit” expose` that prompted this massive about-face.

          This was published after the Press Ombudsman (that’s my better half) had ruled that the reporting had been “inaccurate, misleading and unfair.” (sunday times needs a truth drug).

          But I would have thought that what happened in these areas would have made him take a closer look at the paper in its entirety especially as it had carried an apology of one form or another almost every week since he took over as Editor at the beginning of this year(sunday times aiming for junk status).

          This might have avoided today’s Sports section clanger that announced, once again, that nobody seems to read the whole of the Sunday Times before it is allowed on the streets.

          On Page 17 of today’s edition the report of the Lions vs Hurricanes rugby match by Sbu Mjikeliso, which was the second most prominent story on the page, was headlined: Lions given a real whipping by the Canes.

1 May 2016 Page 17

          Then three pages later on the back page (The main Sports page) the lead headline proclaimed: LIONS GIVEN A REAL WHIPPING.

          And there the echo of Mjikeliso’s story was WORD FOR WORD.

1 May 2016 and in the middle of the page
at the bottom it said: "More Super Rugby
Action: Page 17"

          It’s a long time since I last worked on a newspaper and I know they are going through tough times, but do they still have a Sports Editor and general sub-editors?

If that is the case where were they when such an obvious echo was allowed to fall through the pages in spectacular colour as well – at that well known journo’s club, THE PUB perhaps?

          Last year the paper’s main front page lead echoed in a similar fashion onto the front page of the business section or Business Times as it is called.

          Siqoko can’t be blamed for that as the Editor then was Phylicia Oppelt, who got moved “upstairs” as the saying goes.

          You have to ask if changing editors has helped. Could there be something wrong with the management at Times Media the owners of the Sunday Times.

          Regards

          Jon, The Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman.

P.S. Just as well he’s too poor to buy more than one paper, you might be thinking.

P.P.S. See also:Special protection for media lies

IS CAPE TOWN WASTING MORE MONEY ON A RUBBISH DUMP CLOSED 30 YEARS AGO

Dear Cape Town Ratepayers,

          This is a continuation of my Cape Town’s never ending money dump investigation (The money dump).  

            Hundreds of thousands of rand have just been spent on heavy earth moving equipment to shift the sand dunes around at Witsands at the site of a rubbish dump that was closed more than 30 years ago.

          The Cape Town City Council has splurged an average of R500 000 a year on this over the last 10 years according to Johan van der Merwe the Councillor in charge of Environmental Planning.

          The dunes adjoin a popular surfing beach on a scenic route not far from Cape Town on the road to Cape Point.

          Here I reveal how the additional R150 000 the City has just spent on net fences to keep the sand in place is another huge waste of money because this is not the best or the most economical solution. 

          A lot of sand has been taken out of the middle of the area and dumped to form a ridge about a 100 metres wide parallel to the beach.

          The Council then employed Vula Environmental Restoration, a firm of dune restoration specialists, to erect five kilometres of net fencing along this ridge to keep the sand in place in a area notorious for very strong winds at all times of the year.

          In the past the use of brushwood had proved a dismal failure. 

          Now it seems this netting, which is an even more expensive method, will be another huge waste of tax payer’s money.

          All the experts I could find on the internet were unanimous: This is only a temporary solution.

          This is what one had to say: “There are various methods of sand dune stabilization. All of them, but one, are considered temporary. The permanent sand dune stabilization is afforestation.”

          So my idea of having the area covered with the fast growing Port Jackson willow, which the man on site in charged of the Vula netting project laughed at, would seem to be the best solution (See my first report The money dump) I went to Witsands after the first big blow had occurred a day after the net web had been completed and it was down in several places.

In others the sand was nearly covering it. When this happens the nets are no longer any use as a sand trap according to Dr William “Bill” Woodhouse a Professor of Soil Science who worked for the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

An authority on the stabilisation of coastal dunes Dr Woodhouse and another professor developed a new superior strain of American beach grass to trap sand on this type of dune.

His conclusions were that vegetation was the best, most economical way of stabilizing dunes on a permanent basis.

          In several places between the rows of netting nearest the Witsands beach rubbish, like glass and plastic was showing above the sand. This had either been exposed by the wind or it could have been brought in with sand when it was moved from further inland to form the ridge.

          Various types of non-biodegradable waste were also visible on top of the sand at what appears to be the heart of the old landfill site. It looked as though too much sand had been taken off this area to build up the ridge next to the beach. Organic rubbish has long since rotted away.

          On 13 March I emailed pictures to Councillor Johan van Merwe. These were examples of what the netting looked like after the first strong wind and I asked him what he thought it would be like in six months or a year’s time.

          I included other pictures of rubbish on the surface.

          I also pointed out that although Witsands was designated as a free running beach for dogs little or no provision had been made for them to get out of this web of nets even though I had been told this was the case. I added that I believed dogs could easily get trapped inside it and then it would probably be pushed down.

          I asked for his comments and have yet to get an answer.

Rows of net fences

Almost dead and buried

Fencing falling over already

Plastic and glass showing between the rows

Rubbish on  the surface further inland from
where the nets are

          Regards,

          Jon, a Consumer Watchdog and Cape Town ratepayer who hates seeing his money squandered in this way, on an old rubbish dump of all things, when the poor are regularly protesting violently against lack of basic services.

THE JONAS STORY & LOTTO JOURNALISM AT THE SUNDAY TIMES

Dear Bongani Siqoko Editor of the Sunday Times,

          When you are trying to bring down South Africa’s President and generally picking on the rogues and incompetents of this world it’s incumbent upon you to ensure that your paper’s reputation for accuracy and fairness is as immaculate as reasonably possible.

          But you can’t do this if the inadequacies of your staff are such that apologies become a regular feature of your paper.

          Since I began following this “sorry story” your paper has carried an apology of some kind almost every single week since  20 December last year(http:sunday times aiming for junk status)

          Most of the biggest ones were forced on your paper after a Press Ombudsman ruling while the less prominent ones were made voluntarily.

          A disturbing thread that runs through far too many of them is that your reporters don’t get both sides of the story and yet your paper is still prepared to publish them.

          Surely you must have been told in the early stages of your career that getting both sides of the story is an absolute must as it is one of the basic rules of journalism.

By not doing this your paper not only increases the risk of making a serious error but it also stands accused of being grossly unfair

          Then too it bolsters the old saying: “Don’t get the other side in case it spoils a good story.”

6 March: Got Gordhan's wife's
name wrong this time

          I accept that it takes a bit of time before complaints to the Ombudsman Johan Retief are finalised so the subject of his recent rulings can’t necessarily be laid at your door as you only became the Sunday Times Editor in November last year.

          Still I assume you must have taken note of them. You were already in the hot seat on 20 December when the following admission was included in your paper’s apology ordered by the Ombudsman after a complaint from Previn Gordhan the Minister of Finance.

          “We accept we were in breach of the Press Code for failing to seek Gordhan’s comment ahead of publication.”

          Having accepted that, your paper keeps on doing it.

          On 14 February in one of your increasingly common Matter of Fact voluntary apologies there was another admission that the person involved “was not asked to comment.”

          It was the same story on 21 February when the ironically named Matter of Fact told us that you had not given the person concerned “an opportunity to respond to the allegation.”

          And today 20 March the headline on Page 2 cries out “Ombudsman finds we failed to let parliament reply.”

          Even your lead story last week headed How Gutptas shopped for new minister showed that not getting both sides of the story appears to have become habitual on your paper.

          Alright you got away with it this time and only you and the reporters concerned will know if it was good luck or careful planning.

Jonas

 

          As you know this sensational political splash was based on nothing more than a series of unnamed “sources” - a very dubious form of journalism. It told readers that members of the Gupta family had offered the Deputy Minister of Finance Mcebisi Jonas the Finance Minister’s job held by Nhlanhla Nene.

             The significance being that the Gupta family are known to be very close to President Jacob Zuma and the meeting when this was supposed to have taken place occurred days before Nene was fired by Zuma.

          Your story again showed up the calibre of your own reporters by admitting that your paper was beaten to it by the London Financial Times and this is what sparked your interest in it that week.

          Your paper claimed the controversial meeting took place on 27 November last year, so while your ace scribes were sleeping the Financial Times was digging up the dirt on your turf from half a world away.

          In the old days of Fleet Street journalists got instantly dismissed for missing a big one like this.

13 March: In the Business
section. You would think
that there they would know
the difference between dollars
and rands 

          To get back to my original complaint; the Gupta story revealed that “numerous attempts to get comment from Jonas were unsuccessful yesterday.”  That could only have meant it was on Saturday, your publication day.

          That clause in the Press Council’s Code of Conduct was conveniently forgotten and like your paper has done often recently the story was put to bed without anybody speaking to the Government Minister who was the main focus of the report.

          If as you claimed you were piggy backing on a Financial Times story why was it that your reporters left it to Saturday, the last minute as it were, to try and get hold of Jonas.

          Some cynics might have said your reporters never spoke to Jonas in case he spoilt the big story of the week, like all the people that were named, by denying that he had ever been made the controversial offer.

          You would have thought that by having three of them Thanduxolo Jika, Qaanitah Hunter and Sabelo Skiti on the job at least one of them would have been able to locate Jonas.

          As it turned out a few days after your report was published Jonas publicly admitted that the story that the Guptas had made him the offer was true.

          BUT IT DOESN’T ALTER THE FACT THAT THE STANDARD OF JOURNALISM ON YOUR PAPER LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED.        

          I wonder if the shareholders of Times Media, the owners of the Sunday Times, are happy with this lotto journalism. It’s lucky when you hit the jackpot, but when it’s played in a national Sunday paper with millions of readers it can cost a fortune in defamation damages when the wrong number comes up.

          Regards,

          Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who gives the other side.        

P.S. See also: http:press councils special protection