joburg rates boycott

Joburg Rates Boycott Suspended

2009-11-02T18:14:00.008+02:00

Dear Friends,

After much consideration, the founding members of the Joburg Advocacy Group, which has been running the Joburg Rates Boycott campaign for the past few months, feel it's necessary to suspend the city-wide action.

Firstly, it's clear to us that, while we have broad-based moral support, we don't have the actual support we need for this campaign to be a success.

We understand from the feedback we've received that many Joburg residents are reluctant to join a boycott of this nature for fear of retribution on the part of the city and, at the very least, don't want to become involved in yet another unsolvable bureaucratic nightmare. Most of all, many are concerned that the city will have the power to refuse the transfer of properties that have been sold if the rates are in arrears, regardless of the reason.

In addition to this, several residents have told us that they have previously been threatened with violence for taking action on other local government issues, and fear the same will take place if they join the boycott campaign. A sad indictment indeed.

In the same vein, we are also deeply concerned about how divisive the service delivery issue has become, and about how those divisions often develop along racial lines.

While we strongly feel that the relationship between the City of Johannesburg and its residents has, in many respects, broken down, we're concerned about undertaking a civil action that could possibly add fuel to this fire.

We're therefore advising signatories to this campaign to log complaints with the Presidential Hotline on 17737 or to contact the Minister of Cooperative Development and Traditional Affairs, Sicelo Shiceka with their service delivery issues as a first course of action. The minister's office can be reached on 012 326 4478, and letters can be addressed to him personally at Private Bag X802, Pretoria, 0001 (unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we haven't been able to obtain an e-mail address). These remedies, which were not in place when we launched Joburg Rates Boycott, are now available to residents who have been unable to resolve their service delivery problems at local level.

The Joburg Advocacy Group, as you know, has already been in touch with President Jacob Zuma about service delivery in Johannesburg, and has asked him to investigate the situation in South Africa's economic hub as a matter of urgency. The Presidency has advised us that this matter has been referred to the Minister, and we will vigorously follow up on the issue on behalf of the residents of Johannesburg.

We're also involved in a number of other projects on behalf of the city's residents, and you can keep track of them at Joburg Advocacy Group, where we'll post regular updates on service delivery and other issues.

Of course, the option of withholding rates for the non-delivery of services is one that is still available to all ratepayers.

The legal principle that allows for this is CONTRACTUS NON ADEMPLETI and, in common law, this allows for one party to a contract to withhold payment if the other party does not deliver goods or services as contracted. Residents in 22 municipalities across the country are currently withholding the payment of rates on this basis.

This kind of action is best done as a group, however, not only for the sake of impact, but to protect participants from retaliation and/or frivolous legal action on the part of the city.

So, if this is a course of action you'd still like to consider, we suggest that you either form a community group yourself or join your local residents' association. If you're a paid up member of a ratepayers' association, residents' association or community group that, as a group, chooses to become a member of the National Taxpayers' Union, and if each household pays a membership fee of R20 per annum, the NTU will offer free advice and counsel in the case of legal action related to the legitimate withholding of rates for the non-delivery of services.

We believe rates campaigns can be very effective, especially as a means of setting legal precedent, but experience has taught us that they are best undertaken and managed at suburb level rather than at city level. This is because an action like this benefits from the infrastructure already established by residents' associations and, more importantly, residents feel they have more control over the action if it is initiated and managed locally.

We deeply regret the fact that the city-wide Joburg Rates Boycott campaign hasn't proved to be viable, but assure Johannesburg residents that we will continue to do everything possible to make sure that we can all live in a clean, safe, healthy and well-run city.

Letter to Supporters

2009-10-18T10:11:00.012+02:00

See "CAMPAIGN UPDATES" in the sidebar for all the latest news

Click on the "SPEAK UP" label in the sidebar to find out about direct actions you can take to improve service delivery and governance in Johannesburg

Dear Friends,

Debate continues to rage at local level about the feasibility and effectiveness of a rates boycott campaign, and about the genuine possibility of retaliation - both bureaucratic and physical - against potential participants.

In light of this - and the fact that only 44 people have committed to the boycott after several months of campaigning - we are faced with having to decide between proceeding with an action of this nature, abandoning it altogether, or looking at alternatives that don't effectively give an already inefficient and unaccountable metro more power over residents than it already has.

One of the alternative actions that has been suggested is a class action lawsuit against the metro based on the breakdown of the contract between local government and residents, specifically citing the fact that charging for services and not delivering them is, in effect, theft.

Another alternative is to test the constitutional responsibility of local government to deliver the services it not only charges for, but is elected to deliver (although, as we all know, voters can't choose their representatives directly, but simply have to put up with whomever is "deployed" by the respective political parties). Precedent has recently been established in the Constitutional Court that South Africans may exercise their democratic rights not only through the ballot box, but through the courts as well.

Yet another alternative is a "name and shame" campaign that will publicly highlight actual instances of poor service delivery and/or corruption, which will be run online, and which will hopefully have the support of the local media.

Finally, in recognition that there have been moves at both local and national level to address the service delivery issue, we could instead consider establishing an active Citizens' Liaison Committee, that would work with local government to identify and solve problems relating to governance and service delivery, reporting back publicly, both online and through the media.

Either way, this is going to require support on the ground from participants - we'll need people to talk to their local residents' associations, to volunteer to do fundraising etc. The only solution to the governance and service delivery issues we're all facing will be through active participation. While we at the Joburg Advocacy Group can provide a strategic context for these actions, and both knowledge resources and practical support, we can't do this alone.

If we don't have that kind of support, any action - whether it's a rates boycott campaign or a Citizens' Liaison Committee - will be dead in the water.

Let us have you thoughts on these issues - please post your comments here so that everyone can participate in the debate.

Thanks and all the best.

Comment On Green Paper "Improving Government Performance"

2009-09-04T15:12:00.007+02:00

Government has just released a Green Paper entitled "Improving Government Performance", and is asking for comments from the South African public. This is a chance to really have your say.

Check out the document at
http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/learning/gov_performance.pdf and mail your comments to mamothe@po.gov.za in The Presidency.

Don't just "shut up and out up", speak up!

Mail President Jacob Zuma

2009-09-04T11:10:00.003+02:00

O the irony! The launch of the new Presidential Hotline, due on 1 September, has had to be delayed by two months because it's not ready to start taking calls. The hotline is being set up to handle service delivery complaints, so this kinda says it all!

Needless to say, press coverage hasn't even mentioned the fact that there's been a delay - see http://ewn.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=20910, for example.

NOW FOR A BIT OF PEACEFUL DIRECT ACTION.

Mail the president at President@po.gov.za and tell him (a) what you think about the service delivery problems in Johannesburg and around the country, and (b) how disappointed you feel about the delay with the launch of the presidential hotline.

Copy us on joburgratesboycott@telkomsa.net so that we can keep a record of all mails going out from members of this campaign.

Don't just "shut up and put up", speak up!

Tell John Robbie

2009-08-31T11:09:00.015+02:00

TalkRadio 702's John Robbie often chats about service delivery and governance issues on his morning drive show from 06:00 to 09:00 weekdays.

Tune in to his show, phone in to comment on the issues, and tell listeners about our campaign.

Don't just "shut up and put up", speak up!

More about John and his show at TalkRadio 702. The station broadcasts in the Greater Johannesburg/Gauteng area.

Speak Up on Toxic Water

2009-08-31T11:00:00.005+02:00

Joburg Rates Boycott has written to 20 residents' associations across the city to advise them of the toxic water crisis the city is facing from acid mine drainage or AMD.

We're also asking all residents in the Metro to lobby their local residents' associations and community groups to call for a PUBLIC FORUM at which this issue can be discussed with the city and all other interested and affected parties. It directly affects the lives of 11 million people living within the city's boundaries and, indirectly, many more. As importantly, the potential for environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity is huge if this matter isn't addressed as a matter of urgency.

Don't just "shut up and put up", speak up!

Be The Change: Clean City Summit

2009-08-30T18:08:00.011+02:00

Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi said that if one wanted to see change in the world, one had to be that change. And here's a chance to be part of the kind of change we want to see in Johannesburg.

The city will be hosting a Clean City Summit on Wednesday 9 September at the Wanderers Club, and all Joburg residents are invited to attend. To reserve a seat, click through to Pikitup or call either 011 712 5200 or 011 784 0602.

If you can't attend, please take the time to go through to the web site and leave your suggestions and ideas. Be part of a new beginning in the City of Johannesburg.

Don't just "shut up and put up", speak up!

Some Good News

2009-08-28T10:39:00.009+02:00

Yesterday, The Times reported that ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe had "read his party’s councillors the riot act, warning that their lethargic performance could cost the ruling party at least two metropolitan areas in 2011".

OK, Mantashe's action was motivated by self-interest, and by the fear that the ANC could take a beating at the next local elections, but at least the ruling party is starting to pay SOME attention to the issue of service delivery:

He urged councillors to take recent service delivery protests seriously: 'We must not philosophise about problems. If we are dismissive of these communities ... if that is the attitude, we are going deeper and deeper into problems'.
Mantashe said the ANC was 'not performing optimally'(no kidding ...).
Problem is, the party intends getting ANC councillors to assess themselves on the issue:

In an attempt to flush out the bad performers, the ANC would send questionnaires to all its local government representatives before December as part of their performance assessment ahead of the 2011 elections.
"The assessment should cover a lot of issues, the activity of every individual councillor around the country: Do you attend council meetings without fail? Do you participate in the committees of the council? Do you make the difference there?
"Do you attend caucuses of the ANC? Any councillor who does not see the ANC caucus as important does not do his or her work … Do you report back to your constituency? Do you hold public meetings?
"If you are not doing that as the councillor of the ANC you are a liability to the ANC," he said.
Still, the good news is that this assessment process will be taking place before the end of the year. Let see where this leads ...

More at The Times.

What the City Isn't Telling You About Toxic Water

2009-08-25T07:13:00.017+02:00

When a member of our Facebook group brought up the issue of toxic water in the city (see Tide of toxic water poses health risk), we had no idea what to do. Then came an invitation from the National Taxpayers Union to attend a water conference for interested and affected parties, which gave us the opportunity to follow up on this issue, and to find out more about what was being reported in the media.

In short, the Witwatersrand Mining Basin, which comprises the Western Mining Basin, the Central Mining Basin and the Eastern Mining Basin, is filling up with rainwater as old shafts are being abandoned and runoff is no longer being pumped out of them.

This doesn't seem like too much of a problem until you hear that the water is dissolving the cobalt, zinc, arsenic, cadmium and uranium in the basin, creating a toxic cocktail that has the pH of battery acid (between 2.2 and 3.6 according to water activist, Mariette Lefferink, and as reported by the Federation for a Sustainable Environment). This is referred to as ACID MINING DRAINAGE or AMD, and it affects surface water, ground water and the soil for thousands of years. IT'S ALSO RADIOACTIVE.

And, according to an article published in The Citizen on 16 August, "The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has linked long-term exposure to Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) to cancer, skin lesions and mental retardation".

The article also advises: "The acid water further undermines underground rock formations, and could conceivably cause sinkholes on the N14 or undermine the stability of buildings ... and acid water eating away at underground rock threatens the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage site".

Now, here's the thing:

About 11 million people live over this radioactive lake, which is now starting to "decant" or flow to the surface. The Western Mining Basin is currently decanting at a rate of 60 mega litres per day, enough to fill 240 Olympic-sized swimming pools, and the Central Basin is expected to start decanting from a shaft in Benoni in January 2012. Much of the current decant is flowing into rivers and streams, and so onwards through the river system to the rest of the country. Any future decants will do the same.
The immediate plan is to start pumping water from the Western Basin into the Central Basin to stem the current decant on the West Rand, which is really just like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The next plan is to "reclaim" excess water from the Witwatersrand Mining Basin, and to recover the cost of "purifying" this water by selling it to the Rand Water Board for consumption by the city's residents. But, as respected scientist, Dr Anthony Turton said at the water conference, "no water treatment removes 100% of impurities 100% of the time", so how will residents know what is in their drinking water?

Our problem with all of this? No-one is consulting the 11 million people living above the mining basin about how to manage what Dr Turton referred to as "the single largest environmental crisis South Africa has ever faced".
Now we understand that the issue of AMD is a legacy issue, but how it is being managed NOW is a governance issue, and we're really concerned that the city has neither formally advised residents of this threat nor put mechanisms in place to consult with them about it.

As we understand it, this is in direct contravention of not one, but several provisions in the Constitution, and we've asked Constitutional law expert Professor Pierre de Vos to give us his opinion on this.

In the meantime ...

WHAT THE CITY ISN'T TELLING YOU (3): There is no formal process in place to advise the city's residents of the Acid Mining Drainage (AMD) threat, or to canvas their opinion on how it should be managed.

REPORT ANY PROBLEMS WITH POLLUTION - ESPECIALLY WATER POLLUTION - AT www.pollutioncontrol.co.za.

What the City Isn't Telling You About Rates

2009-08-25T06:51:00.015+02:00

When a resident contacted us to point out that rates and refuse collection tariffs had gone up recently, and this was the first she had heard about it, we looked into the issue.

In summary, the city has to propose an increase in rates in its annual budget, and this has to be approved by the council before it can be implemented.

A quick trawl of the news media brought us to an article in The Times on 20 May (see Budget would push up Joburg rates), which stated:

Johannesburg residents will spend much more on rates and taxes if mayor Amos Masondo’s proposed budget is accepted by the council.
In his budget speech for the 2009-2010 financial year, Masondo proposed widespread hikes in rates and taxes across the board.
Property rates were expected to go up by 18 percent (from revenue of R3,89 billion in 2008-2009 to R4,106 billion) and electricity service charges would increase by 30 percent (from R5,56 billion in 2008-2009 to R6,909 billion).
and ...

Business property tariffs would also increase from the prevailing 1,2 cents in the rand to 1,54 cents in the rand ..."
(Parks Tau, member of the mayoral committee for finance and economic development) said the city was keen to engage with residents and businesses on issues of rates and taxes.
Problem is: ratepayers weren't consulted about this, and were only advised about "the annual increase" by means of a small notice at the bottom of their monthly bills (we know, we're ratepayers too). And, although the city is apparently "keen to engage with residents and businesses on the issues of rates and taxes", there has been no official response to our petition asking for consultation at suburb level on rates and service delivery issues.

WHAT THE CITY ISN'T TELLING YOU (2): There is no formal process in place for consulting with ratepayers about increases in rates or engaging the people of the city on the issue. Also, according to city policy - and as advised by Councillor Victor Penning - there is no quid pro quo as far as rates are concerned i.e. you must pay your rates, but have no right to expect service delivery in return(!).

What the City Isn't Telling You About Service Delivery

2009-08-25T06:38:00.008+02:00

Yesterday, when we were copied on an e-mail to the city by a frustrated resident, one of our founding members mailed the addressees, which included councillors and city officials, with the following question:

"What exactly is the procedure if complaints made through Joburg Connect and Joburg e-Services have not been addressed, and neither the Ward Councillor nor Urban Management is able to take any effective action to address them. Where does the buck stop? What redress do residents have in a situation like this?"
No-one - and we mean no-one - could give us a straight answer.

As the city has budgeted for R4.106 billion in rates revenue for the current financial year, what redress do ratepayers and residents have if they cannot get service delivery problems resolved by any means? This, after all, is a fiscal and fiduciary issue here, as well as one of service delivery.

WHAT THE CITY ISN'T TELLING YOU (1): There is no integrated and formally or centrally monitored process for dealing with legitimate complaints about service delivery.

Boycott Start Date Re-Scheduled to 1 January 2010

2009-08-24T07:24:00.022+02:00

When we launched this campaign three weeks ago, our intention was to deliver our petition about service delivery to Mayor Amos Masondo on 1 September, and to begin a rates boycott on that day.

However, very soon after the campaign was launched, informal feedback began to indicate that there was a high level of fear about actually signing up for the boycott, although support for the action itself was strong. Since then, informal canvassing and polling - not only of the campaign's supporters, but of ordinary ratepayers and residents as well - has indicated the most significant of these fears are that:

Participants will have their lights and water cut off, and will be stonewalled by the city in such a way that they won't be able to have them switched on again
Participants stand the risk of having their houses attached for non-payment of rates
Participants stand the risk of incurring legal costs they can't afford
Participants will experience intimidation, both institutional and informal

We've listened to these concerns and, in a very short space of time, have worked hard to confirm ratepayers' rights, and to advise Joburg ratepayers and residents that:

It's perfectly legal to withhold the payment of rates for poor or non-existent service delivery in terms of the legal principle CONTRACTUS NON ADEMPLETI
As it is legal to withhold rates in these circumstances, it is illegal for the city to take credit control action against participants if only rates are withheld, and payments are maintained for the actual consumption of electricity and water
It is similarly illegal for municipalities to cut off the supply of electricity in order to recover rates arrears in any circumstances, let alone in the case of a legitimate rates action. To do so is in direct contravention of the Electricity Regulation Act (No. 4/2006)
Participants have access to free legal advice and counsel in the case of frivolous or illegally-constituted actions on the part of the city resulting from their participation by becoming members of their local residents' associations and community groups, and by lobbying these groups to become members of the National Taxpayers Union, through which they will have access to the support of the NTU's Legal Aid Fund.
Municipalities across the country are making no attempt to recover the approximately R40 billion in arrears owning to municipalities for electricity and water actually supplied to certain individuals and communities, and that legal action against participants in a legally-constituted campaign may be seen as discriminatory and partisan in light of this, and therefore open to legal challenge.

Nevertheless, given the confrontational nature of the response to our campaign from both certain councillors and the city's official spokesperson, Virgil James, we feel it would be irresponsible to start the boycott itself until ratepayers have had the opportunity not only to canvas support for the campaign on a broader basis (the more people who sign the petition, the less possible it will be for the city to adopt a "divide and rule" approach), but also to ensure that they are covered by the legal protections available to them.

We also feel that, as a campaign, we need to be able to notify as many residents' associations and community groups in the Joburg Metro as possible of these issues, and of the rights and remedies that any of their members who may choose to participate in the action have.

We are therefore re-scheduling the start of the boycott itself for 1 January 2010, and intend asking for a new start in the city of Johannesburg on that day instead of on Spring Day. At that point, the boycott will proceed regardless of the number of participants.

After all, we all know what happened when David took on Goliath ...

N.B. We note with regret that we have not received any response to correspondence related to this campaign addressed directly to President Jacob Zuma, as well as to Mayor Amos Masondo (through the City of Johannesburg Director of Communications, Gabu Tugwana) and the Premier of Gauteng (through the Province's press office). We will be launching a direct action addressed at these three leaders later this week.

Please watch the site for details.

Statement of Intent

2009-08-21T07:45:00.018+02:00

First published Friday, 14 August 2009 (see update below):

Since we launched Joburg Rates Boycott a little less than two weeks ago, it's become clear that the issues affecting the daily lives of the people living in the City of Johannesburg (the Joburg Metro) are more deeply rooted and extensive than even we had anticipated.

So the founding members of the Joburg Advocacy Group, which runs this campaign, are taking a step back to reassess the initial initiative, including its goals, objectives and guiding principles.

For now, however, we'd like both our supporters and other interested and affected parties to be aware of our intent in founding and running this campaign, which we outlined in correspondence to a residents' association in another part of the country this morning:

Joburg Rates Boycott is an independent, non-aligned advocacy campaign, working for social justice for all of the ratepayers and residents of Johannesburg, based on the principles outlined in the Constitution. It is a project of the Joburg Advocacy Group, which has been established to deal with issues of governance, both in the Joburg Metro and, where appropriate, on a broader basis.

With this campaign, we aim is to unite around the issues, and to work with both our supporters and all interested and affected parties to find solutions to the serious service delivery problems affecting the everyday lives of the people living and working in the Metro.

The campaign is open to participants regardless of political affiliation, and we will advocate for everyone equally. And, although it is addressed to ratepayers, who have the power to withhold the payment of rates in the case of poor service delivery, it is intended to ultimately help everyone living in the city.

We hope to be able to create a model from which ratepayers and residents in other municipalities - large and small - can learn, and which they will be able to use in order to advocate at community level.

On a broader level, the founding members of the Joburg Advocacy Group are working to put together a clearly worded constitution, which we'll publish as soon as possible. Within the framework of that, we will work vigorously to address the many issues affecting the lives of the people living in the Joburg Metro, and will share information freely with other advocacy groups, community organisations, residents' associations, taxpayer unions, individual residents and interested and affected parties.
We are also in the process of forming a community organisation in terms of the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32/2000; Sections 16-22), which will open up an official channel of communication between ourselves and city's administration, as we strongly feel that open, publicly-reported dialogue is vital to finding workable solutions to the problems and challenges we all face.

Further, we want to make sure that the people of Johannesburg can use the group - and this campaign in particular - to make their voices heard in local government as well as in the public domain, and hope to create a channel we can use for this purpose within the provisions of the Act - for the greater good of all.

In summary, our aim in running this campaign is to unite behind the issues rather than to polarise; to work hard to build a safe, clean, well-run city that can be enjoyed and celebrated by all who live in it; and to hold both city councillors and city workers accountable to the people they are either elected or employed to serve.

NOTE: We feel it is important to emphasise that Joburg Rates Boycott is NOT a non-payment campaign. Participants will be depositing the rates portion of their city accounts into an independently administered trust account, where it will be held in trust until the city agrees to the five service delivery criteria we have defined in our petition.

We encourage residents who are not necessarily ratepayers to take part in the discussion about service delivery, either by e-mailing the campaign, or by joining our Facebook discussion group.

We also encourage residents who do not have access to computer facilities to participate through their community and residents' associations in the city, with whom we are establishing regular contact. At ground level, we are currently disseminating information about the campaign informally in our own neighbourhood, and are encouraging other participants to do the same.

Update (Friday, 21 August 2009):

The Joburg Advocacy Group, which runs this campaign and several others, has had a lot to consider in formulating its constitution, not least the best methods available to protect Joburg Rates Boycott supporters in the event of intimidation and/or frivolous or illegally-constituted legal action on the part of the city.

We also want to allow for the possibility of working with a number of different partners to address such issues as water quality, which straddle municipal boundaries. So it's taking longer than we first expected to put together a constitution, but we'll publish one as soon as we feel we have a better handle on all of the issues.

For now, our Statement of Intent fully outlines our goals and objectives for this and the other campaigns we run, and stands as our founding document.

The Problem With the Word "Boycott"

2009-08-18T08:04:00.022+02:00

Since we launched our action on 3 August, there's been a lot of debate about the use of the word "boycott" in our name. We used it because we felt it conveyed a very clear message, and demonstrated that the campaign draws on a long history of protest in South Africa.

HOWEVER, interested and affected parties have since made us aware that, although the word itself doesn't necessarily imply a non-payment action, this has come to be its accepted meaning in the South African context.

And, while we support the right of any party to a contract to withhold payment when goods and services are not delivered as contracted (according to the common law principle of CONTRACTUS NON ADEMPLETI), we feel that, in a civil context, this needs to be managed very carefully due to the impact non-payment can have on the ability of a city, province or nation to function effectively.

Our intention, therefore, is to withhold the payment of rates in protest against poor service delivery in the Joburg Metro, and to deposit these into an independent trust account until we can get a commitment on five well-defined service delivery criteria from the city.

It is NOT our intention to bankrupt our city, or to engage in a fruitless standoff, but to find solutions to the serious problems that the people living in the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) have to confront every day.

Residents feel they have exhausted every option available to them to deal with service delivery problems. And, in the face of a blatantly dismissive and, let's say it loud and clear, inefficient administration, feel we have not only the civil right but a duty to use the only tool now available to us to register our protest and to force an unaccountable bureaucracy to listen to the people it serves, as well as to deliver on its mandate in terms of the Constitution.

In short, we're campaigning for effective and accountable governance, and are holding elected officials and paid employees accountable to the people they serve. And, it should be said, we will vigorously oppose and publicise any attempts to intimidate participants by any means.

NOTE: This is a community based campaign aimed at improving service delivery for all people living in the City of Joburg. Please tell us what you think of the word "boycott" in our name by completing the poll in the sidebar. We're currently considering a number of alternative options, and would really value your feedback.

Posted by Lee Cahill

It's Illegal to Cut Electricity for Rates Arrears

2009-08-14T17:11:00.024+02:00

Well, folks, here's the answer to your fears about having your electricity cut if you withhold the payment of rates. The hardworking legal team at the National Taxpayers' Union have forwarded this mail from the National Energy Regulator of SA (NERSA) to member associations and interested parties. It was sent to Carvin Goldstone of the Independent on Saturday (Durban) after some pretty dogged questioning on his part (thanks Carvin!):

From: Ryna Boshoff
Sent: 12 August 2009 13:23

Subject: RE: Electricity cut for rates arrears: media questions

It is illegal for municipalities to disconnect electricity in order to recoup rate arrears.
Municipalities are establishments of statute (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996)). The same statute recognises that the operation of municipalities will be based on national legislation to regulate executive authority provided for in section 156 of the Constitution. The Constitution empowers the municipalities a legislative mandate to make by-laws. The Constitution went further to provide that where any by-law or provincial legislation is in conflict with national legislation, such a by-law or provincial legislation is invalid as long as the national legislation is operational.

Amongst the legislations that regulate the powers of municipalities provided by the Constitution is the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006). The Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006) provides for circumstances under which electricity can be reduced or discontinued. However electricity cannot be reduced/ disconnected if a customer is in arrears with regards to other accounts (i.e. rates, water).

The Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006) provides for the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) to issue conditions when granting a licence or when amending the licence. Compliance by a licensee is not limited to the licence conditions issued, also to the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006).

Whenever a licensee violates the licence condition issued or acts in violation of the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006), on receipt of complaint or at its own instance NERSA may bring the violation to the licensee to remedy the violation and if the violation is not remedied, the Energy Regulator may dispense with the matter. A variety of conclusions on dispensing with the matter are made available to NERSA e.g. imposing a fine of R2 000 000 (R2 million) a day, or 10% of the annual turnover, or revocation of the licence.

With regard to eThekwini Metro, if ever there has been such practice, it hasn't been brought to the attention of NERSA. Just to repeat in terms of section 156 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996): where any by-law or provincial legislation is in conflict with national legislation, such a by-law or provincial legislation is invalid as long as the national legislation is operational.

You may quote Mr Charles Hlebela, NERSA spokesperson.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

Kind Regards,
Ryna Boshoff

Media Relations Practitioner
National Energy Regulator of South Africa
Kulawula House
526 Vermeulen St.
PO Box 40343
Arcadia
0007
South Africa
Ryna.Boshoff@nersa.org.za
Tel: +27(0)12 401 4780
Fax: +27(0)12 401 4700
http://www.nersa.org.za/

So just let NERSA know if the city tries to cut off your power because you're withholding the payment of rates due to poor - or non-existent - service delivery!

Thanks to Ryna Boshoff of NERSA for this information, and to the NTU for disseminating it.

It IS Legal to Withhold Payment of Rates

2009-08-12T15:35:00.009+02:00

Following on DA Councillor Victor Penning's e-mail to Joburg Rates Boycott yesterday, we've consulted with the National Taxpayers Union, and taken legal advice on the issue of withholding rates.

In short, it's perfectly legal to withhold the payment of rates when the delivery of municipal services is either poor or non-existent.

The legal principle that allows for this is called CONTRACTUS NON ADEMPLETI, and we've been advised that, in common law, this allows for the withholding of payment by one party to a contract if the other party does not deliver goods or services as contracted. And, as we've already mentioned, residents in 22 municipalities across the country are withholding the payment of rates on this basis.

We've also been advised by The Northern Federation of Taxpayers that the "quid-pro-quo" clause Councillor Penning refers to "was entered into the rates policy put out by the City of Johannesburg early last year. The policy details the procedures and policies adopted by the City regarding the implementation of the property rates legislation. The Northern Federation of Ratepayers formally objected to this wording but we did not received a response".

In short, folks, these are scare tactics, and we shouldn't be put off by them.

That said, we're looking into reconstituting the Joburg Rates Boycott campaign, so that both the campaign and its supporters can benefit from full protection under the law. This'll take a few days, so please bear with us, but WATCH THIS SPACE!

Boycott and You Could Lose Your Houses, Says Councillor

2009-08-11T18:29:00.023+02:00

Jourg Rates Boycott gets to the heart of the services delivery issue

When Marc Ashton of Fin24.com posed the question "are South African consumers apathetic when it comes to taking on their local municipalities in terms of service delivery?", Joburg Rates Boycott decided to investigate the issue.

We were already aware of the fact that, despite a high level of interest in this campaign, very few people were coming forward to join the boycott. Informal feedback from ratepayers and residents had indicated that they were concerned about signing up for fear of intimidation - either passive of aggressive - by an unaccountable government bureaucracy.

Speaking strictly for myself, I believe no injustice can survive being brought into the light of public scrutiny, so I started to try and get to the bottom of what might be behind this fear. I put a detailed poll up on the site, and canvassed feedback, but few people responded even to this.

Then, late this afternoon, I received an e-mail from Councillor Victor Penning, the leader of the DA Caucus in the Johannesburg City Council - and all was revealed!

Councillor Penning, who volunteered this information, wrote to advise Joburg Rates Boycott of the possible consequences of a boycott, and people's fears were suddenly explained:

"While fully understanding the extreme frustration of (the) residents and ratepayers of Johannesburg due to poor service delivery, I must draw your attention to the serious dangers to participants of rates boycotts .

As the levying of rates is authorised by national legislation and specifically states that there is no "quid pro quo " (i.e. loosely: you pay and must get what you pay for), any participant could face court action by council, which could lead to a sale in execution of their property . This would result in the participant's home being sold to cover the cost of unpaid rates and service charges as well as council's legal costs .

As a councillor of nearly 9 years in Johannesburg, I know that the only real chance of getting better service in Johannesburg would be to change the government of our city. There is a general municipal election in 2011 .

We currently have very highly paid officials heading up our Municipal Owned Entities (MOEs) and some departments, who are either ill-equipped or just plain incapable of running these companies or departments. At least some of these appointments are probably based on political alignment rather that business and technical competencies.

The track record of these executives is blatantly clear from the poor service and lack of accountability of these organisations and departments .

Please give this matter a great deal of thought before urging residents to join a boycott unless they are fully informed of the risks involved."

My response to this was that, if this is indeed the case, IS THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS CONSTITUTIONAL?

Needless to say, in one fowl swoop, we've managed to get to the crux of the whole service delivery issue. It seems municipalities are simply not accountable, either practically, legally or ethically, to the people they serve, and the elected officials in local government are either unable or unwilling to take any meaningful action in the face of this.

In the case of a rates boycott, what it boils down to is this. Law abiding residents who have exhausted every means possible to address service delivery issues, and who, to the best of my knowledge, are well within their rights to withhold payment for services that are not being delivered, stand to lose out if they use the best means available to them to protest against this situation - and stand to lose BIG!

A house is the single largest investment most individuals will ever make, and it's a lot to put on the line, representing as it does not only a lifetime's work, but financial, personal and family security. This especially if municipalities can hide behind legislation that the average ratepayer or city resident knows nothing about.

The question that we then need to ask ourselves in a situation like this is whether there is room in a democracy for legislation of this nature - and whether it shouldn't be challenged on a constitutional basis.

As importantly, do civil disobedience campaigns have no standing in our democracy? Is taking to the streets, trashing Councillors' houses and torching their cars the only means desperate people have of making their voices heard? Frustrated as Joburg ratepayers may be, we nevertheless have access to communications resources - and municipal services, it must be said - that poor people don't have. What is to be done if one lives on the equivalent of only $2 (R16) a day, as approximately 40% of South Africans do?

In the short term, where does that leave the Joburg Rates Boycott campaign?

Well, there's an argument to be made in favour of converting our locally-based campaign into a national campaign to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation Councillor Penning refers to. This would take a lot of hard work, money and commitment, so we're asking our supporters what they think about this.

Write in on joburgratesboycott@telkomsa.net and tell us, or join our Facebook discussion group and have your say.

This is YOUR campaign. Tell us where you'd like it to go.

P.S. In case you're not familiar with it, this is the preamble to our Constitution:

We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to -

Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;

Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;

Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and

Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.

May God protect our people.
Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.
God seen Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa.
Mudzimu fhatutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika.

Posted by Lee Cahill, Johannesburg

Joburg Rates Boycott News Flash!

2009-08-11T08:23:00.008+02:00

Check out "Campaign Updates" in the sidebar to get the latest information about the Joburg Rates Boycott

News Flash! 4 August, 09:23: A media release announcing the launch of the Joburg Rates Boycott has been sent to a wide range of media. Read it here or click on the title to see a full-sized version on scribd.com: Joburg Rates Boycott - Launch Media Release

News Flash! 7 August, 07:44: Joburg Rates Boycott has sent a letter to President Jacob Zuma about service delivery problems in the City of Johannesburg. Read it here or click on the title to see a full-sized version on scribd.com: Joburg Rates Boycott - Letter to President Jacob Zuma

News Flash! 9 August, 11:17: WE ARE NOT ALONE! The National Taxpayers Union has supplied us on our request with a list of member towns currently in dispute with municipalities across the country. Residents in 22 of these are withholding the payment of rates. Let's take our lead from the villages and towns that have already initiated action. There are about 400,000 rate payers in the City of Joburg. GET WITH THE PROGRAMME, PEOPLE! Sign the petition if you want to see a change in your city.

About the Joburg Rates Boycott

2009-08-03T07:00:00.089+02:00

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE WHAT A SMALL GROUP OF COMMITTED PEOPLE CAN ACHIEVE

As I write this, myself and a number of my neighbours in Kensington, Johannesburg's largest suburb, have been without electricity for more than four days (106 hours to be exact). Personally, I've reported this four times (reference numbers 1898239154, 1898247902, 1898286317 and 1898329424 if anyone would like to check), and my neighbours have reported it several times as well.

Every time I call to follow up on the issue, however, I'm advised that it's been resolved and that, if I still don't have power, I need to log a new complaint.

Temperatures since last Wednesday, when the power went down at around 21:00, have been of the coldest this winter, and neighbours who are pensioners, or who have babies and young children, have been left to endure the blackout as best they can while this comedy of errors unfolds. And that's not to mention little inconveniences like the fact that those of us who work from home have been unable to run our businesses, or that ordinary working people have had to bin thousands of rands' worth of frozen foods, which have defrosted and have had to be disposed of.

Now I'm a reasonable person, and I know things can go wrong. But this is just the latest on a long list of service delivery problems we've experienced in Kensington, some of which have taken literally years (yes, years) to resolve, and some of which remain unresolved.

And, believe me, I've tried it all to get service delivery problems sorted in my neighbourhood. I've made more complaints through the Joburg Connect call centre than I care to remember, I've logged literally dozens of online complaints on the Joburg e-Services web site about everything from street lights to storm water drainage and sanitation problems, I've written to The Star's Metrowatch on many occasions, and have been in touch with Councillor Carol Milner (Ward 66) about service delivery issues so often I've lost count.

While Councillor Milner and the good people at The Star have done their very best to assist, the truth is that, like individual residents, they find themselves largely powerless in the face of a careless, disorganised, indifferent and arrogant bureaucracy. Even Councillor Milner of the opposition DA, who is one of the most tireless workers I know, seems to have little or no power to effect any meaningful action.

Now, here's the thing. If a service provider contracts to provide certain services and charges for those services, but doesn't deliver them, this is fraud, if not outright theft. The buyer, needless to say, has the right to withhold payment until the services are delivered according to contract which, after many years of this blatant flouting of the law by the City of Johannesburg, I now intend to do. Because, it seems, people don't matter to the City of Joburg, but money does.

Do the math with me for a moment.

I pay R236.67 in rates every month, which amounts to R2,840.04 a year. I have a small house, so this is probably at the lower end of the scale, and many people probably pay much more.

According to some estimates, there are about 4 million people living in Johannesburg (many put the number much higher than that). If only 20% of those are property owners, this means that there are about 800,000 rate payers in the city. If we can get just 1% of those - 8,000 people - to withhold the payment of rates until the council has agreed to certain well-defined service delivery targets, we estimate that the city will lose revenue of at least R24 million a year, if not more. And, just as a bonus, a lot of useless bureaucrats would be without jobs.

So my neighbours and myself have formed a citizens' advocacy group, and we've put together a petition, which we intend to deliver to Mayor Amos Masondo on SPRING DAY, 1 SEPTEMBER. We're inviting all other ratepayers in the city to sign the petition, agreeing to withhold payment of rates from 1 September until such time as agreement can be reached between ratepayers and the Council regarding on-going service delivery problems.

And, just for the record, this isn't just about people who are fortunate enough to own property - it's about everyone living in Johannesburg, because everyone suffers from the lack of service delivery equally. It's just that ratepayers are in a position to make a difference where it hurts - in the city's coffers.

The residents of Johannesburg want a new beginning this spring. We want our city to live up to its promise of being "a world class African city" - and to prove that these aren't just words! We want the Mayor and the city's administrators to pay attention, and to do what it is they're employed and paid to do. They're representatives of the people, and we want our voices to be heard.

Lee Cahill
Kensington
Johannesburg

Update: The power was restored just before 21:00 on Monday, 3 August - nearly 120 hours after it had gone down. Action was taken on the issue only after I had asked the Joburg Connect call centre to record that myself and my neighbours would be launching a rates boycott campaign in direct response to the power cut and other on-going service delivery issues. Get all the details under CITY POWER, one of the topics featured in our Facebook discussion group.
About me: I was born in Johannesburg, and have lived in the city all my life. I'm an independent communications consultant, freelance writer and editor, and work from my home in Kensington, which I've owned for 21 years.

What KIND of Boycott?

2009-08-03T06:59:00.010+02:00

In broad terms, a boycott is defined as the refusal to have dealings (with a person, company, organisation, government body etc.), or to refuse to buy goods or services as a means of protest. It is a compelling tool for groups who would otherwise be powerless in the face of large economically powerful businesses and bureaucracies.

Boycotts can, however, take many forms, so it's important to accurately define how Joburg Rates Boycott fits into this spectrum.

Essentially, this is a campaign to withhold the payment of rates until the city delivers the services for which it is charging - and is therefore contracted to deliver - in a committed, efficient and effective way.

Mindful of the financial pressures currently being experienced by many municipalities, and of the fact that an irretrievable loss of revenue could have major knock-on effects for residents, this is NOT a non-payment campaign, though.

The intention is for participating ratepayers to withhold the payment of rates to the city by depositing what is owed by them into a trust account - set up and administered independently - until such time as the city is prepared to uphold its contractual obligations to ratepayers and residents (more about this in "How Will It Work?" below).

That said, it is our understanding that the city has the resources it needs - both financial and human - to effect the proper delivery of services to its residents, but that this is not being done due to poor administration, a lack of political will, a culture of impunity, and the evident belief that the city is not accountable to its ratepayers or residents.

Experience has borne this out all too often, and it is for this reason that our advocacy group has organised this boycott. Arrogant and unaccountable bureaucracies have no place in a vibrant, meaningful and effective democracy. It is time for the people of Johannesburg to send out this message loud and clear.

We intend to hold elected officials and paid employees accountable to the people they serve.

How Will it Work?

2009-08-03T06:58:00.016+02:00

1. On 1 September, Joburg Rates Boycott will hand over a copy of its petition to the city's mayor, Amos Masondo. To sign this petition, and to join the rate boycott, click through to it HERE, or use the link at the top of this page.

The campaign will also notify the Johannesburg City Council by means of a registered letter that signatories will be withholding the payment of rates until the criteria defined in the petition have been met.

2. From that day, signatories will commit to withholding the payment of their rates until the conditions outlined in the petition have been met.

3. As Joburg Rates Boycott is a peaceful direct action constituted within the framework of the law of South Africa, petitioners should not be in arrears with the Council when they join the campaign. The intention is to withhold the payment of rates by legal means, and then to pay these over to the Council if and when the campaign is successfully completed (see 4 below).

4. Participants are therefore asked to take the following steps from 1 September (we'll remind all signatories by e-mail):

They are advised to pay for their services (electricity, water, sewage and refuse removal) in full and on time.
They are advised to pay the rates they will be withholding into a trust account currently being set up by Joburg Rates Boycott, using their city account numbers as reference. This will be administered by an independent party, and payments will be held in trust in this account until the campaign ends. Details of both the account and the administrator will be made available to participants at the end of August.
The city will be supplied with a list of payments made into this account every month as a good faith measure.
When the dispute has been successfully resolved, the rates deposited into the trust account will be paid over to the city and credited to individual ratepayers' accounts. Interest earned on deposited funds will be paid back to individual depositors after administration costs have been met. A full statement of account will be available to any participant at any time on request.

4. As informal feedback from residents has indicated that they are concerned about signing the petition for fear of reprisals, such as having their lights and water cut off or their properties attached for the non-payment of rates, the campaign has consulted The National Taxpayers' Union, which will advise and assist should any incidents of this nature arise.

Should you experience any intimidation for participating in this campaign, please advise us immediately on joburgratesboycott@telkomsa.net.

5. The campaign will be brought to an end once normal service delivery has been restored, using the measurement criteria specified in the petition. All signatories will be consulted on key issues throughout the campaign, as well as on the decision to bring it to an end.

Behind the Boycott

2009-08-03T06:30:00.009+02:00

Spiritual and political leader, Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi developed his philosophy of satyagraha while he was living in South Africa at the beginning of the last century. Literally "firmness in the truth", satyagraha means resistance to injustice through peaceful direct action.

Gandhi launched his still-evolving philosophy on what was to become a very meaningful day for us in the 21st century, 11 September. On that day in 1906, during the Indian community's campaign against the Asiatic Registration Act, Gandhi called for the new law to be resisted by non-violent means (see more at South African History Online). During the next eight years, he used this method in a number of resistance campaigns, which culminated with the passing of the Indians Relief Bill on 30 June 1914.

Returning to India in 1915, Gandhi went on to use satyagraha to campaign for Indian independence from Great Britain, a goal that was eventually achieved in 1947.

The ANC, which is the party in control of the City of Johannesburg, celebrates Gandhi and his achievements on its web site (click through to ANC web site), but fails to see the irony in this, perpetuating as it does a culture of careless impunity, which is a real injustice against the very people it is meant to serve.

It is only through the power of many people standing up for what is right that a situation like this can be dealt with. Silence will get us nowhere, and working within the system has patently got us nowhere.

Let's take our lead from Gandhi, and use the power of peaceful collective resistance to deal with the issue of non-delivery in the City of Johannesburg.

Satyagraha meeting, 1908

Read more about satyagraha here:
Satyagraha in South Africa by Mohandas K. Gandhi
Satyagraha: Gandhi's Concept of Non-Violence by Savita Singh

What Political Parties Have to Say

2009-08-03T06:00:00.002+02:00

The City of Joburg is run by an ANC-dominated council, so the issue of service delivery has a political dimension to it too, and is about more than just roads, streetlights and drains. It's also about holding elected officials accountable to the voters.

Check out what some of the opposition parties have to say about poor service delivery in the country:

COPE - Click through to read the response of the party's parliamentary leader, Mvume Dandala, to this year's State of the Nation address. He concluded his speech by saying: "As we have said many times over, the problem in our country has never been policy. The state of our nation is that of despair when it comes to service delivery". Exactly.

Democratic Alliance - Click through to read a statement in response to recent service delivery protests, in which MP Anthony Trollip says: "The Democratic Alliance is deeply concerned over the wave of service delivery protests that have erupted in municipalities across South Africa, as well as the ANC Government’s response to these protests". We are too ...

IFP - On the IFP's site, click through to Press Statements in the sidebar, and select the statement dated 31 July 2009. Here IFP leader Mongosuthu Buthelezi argues that poor service delivery is a systemic problem, saying that "the only lasting solution to the service delivery crisis will be to re-evaluate the entire local government system and how it operates". We couldn't have said it better ourselves!

Independent Democrats - Click through to read this response to service delivery protests, issued earlier this year, in which ID Gauteng MPL Khosi Mncedane says: "the rate at which service delivery protests are taking place across Gauteng is an indication that local governance has failed, and that an improvement is needed in the monitoring systems which regulate service delivery". Our thoughts exactly ...

UDM - On the UDM's site, click through to Let's TALK in the sidebar and go to Issue 2, which gives an excellent overview of the service delivery issue. UDM leader, Bantu Holomisa, argues that "service delivery isn't simply something that Government does - it is a constitutional imperative"; something that is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. You go, Bantu!

You can also click through to the ANC's latest press statement on the service delivery protests to get an idea of what the party has to say about the issue. National Spokeperson, Jesse Duarte says: "The African National Congress (ANC) has a deep understanding of the seriousness and impact that lack of service delivery has in the lives of the people". Ummnn ... really?