Tuesday 31 July 2018
Fencing Off Palliser Rd Park
Please leave any comments/objections/replies you may have regards the issue of removing vagrants from Palliser Park by installing a fence at a cost of R180 000. Most of this cost will be carried by the road closure and its members. Details of this issue were emailed to all Edenglen South residents on our mailing list.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great idea to close off the park. Who will have keys and access to the park once closed off?
ReplyDeleteThe affected resident will have the keys and control access to the park.
DeleteI think this will be a waste of money and time. The rubbish guys will continue doing what they are doing and will break the fence or tunnel underneath it. They are not going to stop doing this as it is their only source of revenue. We will end up with the same problem but will now be continually spending more to keep repairing the fence.
DeleteIf the mounds and other hiding places/holes are not removed in the park the recyclers will continue to operate there.
DeleteThere are only 420 contributors in the enclosure who are already carrying all the free-riding non-contributors. Enclosing this park will have little or no impact on the majority of Edenglen residents. I don't understand how this could even be a discussion.
DeleteIf it benefits existing members I agree for sure it should be done but I'm not interested in agreeing to this if it benefits non paying residents as members we are already covering those who refuse to pay towards the closure
ReplyDeleteIt looks like only two residents will benefit from this. Agree about assisting non paying members.
DeleteI agree, it should only be done if the '2' residents and the other non-paying residents in that area join the ESRC. The old folks cannot give capital towards the project and then walk away. It has to be maintained 24/7 which costs!
DeleteThe 2 residents concerned are members of the closure.
DeleteThe affected residents (2 off) will have keys to the park and they will bear the cost of any maintenance required for the park.
ReplyDeleteAnd when they move on / out?
If the new owner does not agree to carry the cost of maintaining the park then the road closure members will have to pay for it.
DeleteI am happy to make the necessary contribution if all members contribute and commit to this. If this is not done, everyone will eventually suffer due to depreciating real estate values.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good idea in terms of value for the area and protection of our elderly.
ReplyDeleteWhat about making a fitness zone for all residents to enjoy? We do not have one in our area.
Happy to contribute.
I love this fitness area idea!
DeleteI am one of the effected members (and a contributor) and we have tried all in our power to resolve this. It is not only affecting us. Anyone staying in Edendale road East of close to it will notice the recyclers with their trolleys and they just through the dustbins out, or collect the material and throw it over the fence. It will not benefit only us - but this will stop the recyclers as they will have to walk to the boom to do their recycling - which mean a big portion of the enclosure will benefit. Will also prevent land claim as the land will be under care and maintenance of the road closure. Please think about this as it will benefit a lot of people and not just 2.
ReplyDeleteYou have my sympathy but I do have a question. These guys will not stop recycling so where will they end up doing exactly what they are doing now? Will they then move to the entrance of Palliser and Wagenaar (there is lots of open space there) and the owners of the homes at this intersection now have a problem?
DeleteThere is rules that prevent them form sorting and leaving there recycling material by the gates - always have been. The park can benefit all residents - suggestion of a fitness zone, kiddies play park, bird sanctuary all can be considered providing there is funding assistance.
DeleteI was unaware of this rule. With these guys I don't think you can enforce many rules. That is why the feel free to sleep and do their business in the park - all illegal. So they will move a few houses down from the booms. In your opinion where do you think they will go to do their recycling ?
DeleteI think it can only add value to all of us if it can be used by all of us. I would support if it
ReplyDelete* is always open every day (say from 6:00 to 20:00)
* has access from Edendale and George Fajans to encourage through traffic
* is flattened to remove hiding places
* has a path through it to encourage dog walkers, runners, cycling kids etc
* is easy to maintain and is regularly mowed by the closure
The effected resident has agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of the park, this includes mowing. There are to be no operational costs for the closure, hence no increase in monthly subs.
DeleteThe suggestions regards the park for dogs and fitness are terrific. This will only happen if a resident or group of residents get together and implement. Suggesting is easy the hard part is working to implement. I think the committee does enough and I wouldn't expect them to do this anyway. Unless we as residents get together as a community and work on it, nothing will come of the good ideas.
DeleteThink it is a great idea. As long as no non contributing members can gain access or benefit. For money, it might be an idea to open it to dog owners as a place for them to let their dogs run, especially the complex owners but for a small fee. Say R10 or something. Not completely sure on logistics...
ReplyDeleteIt is unlikely that we would be allowed to exclude anyone from the park as it is a public space. The suggestion of fees is a great idea but someone would have to be prepared to run with and administer.
DeleteI highly disagree with this expense. All the bordering houses have to secure their own walls and not the enclosure pick up the tab. Should they want this then the affected complex should raise a special levy to fund this.
ReplyDeleteIf any concession owing to aesthetics, the 50% / 50%
I live on the boundary of the closure and have had a few people jumping over my wall. Please can the committee extend the height of my wall and put an electric fence on top. Thanks
DeleteNo, but if we hear the alarm at your house we'll send a reaction unit!
DeleteYou are the early warning to all of us living safely in the middle of the enclosure.
Taking one for the team!!
A communal park is the responsibility of the council. This needs to be driven through the correct channels to be legally compliant and as public land. You cannot close off public land and make entry conditional or controlled. The rubbish collectors distribute their recycling everywhere in the closure. This will not solve for that. To be quite honest the old age home should have been contributing to the closure as they have been enjoying the benefits.
ReplyDeleteThere is a council policy for a business, resident or group to adopt a park. I will send out the policy soonest.
Delete3.1 CAMPAIGN CRITERIA
Deleteo Participants need to be registered businesses within the boundaries of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.
They have indicated that they are happy for residents to apply. Final approval is not guaranteed.
DeleteI have had a quick look through the policy document. There are limited periods for which you can take on the park. After 2-3 years council could terminate the deal and take over all our hard work in the park and then we end up spending all this money and end up back at square one! No guarantees!
DeleteI think its a good idea in terms of increasing security, and I like the idea of making it open to the rest of the enclosure for their enjoyment / use. However, I'm concerned that the money will be taken out of the reserve which has been set aside for other important enclosure related expenses. I'd also like an estimate as to the cost of maintenance, should the resident who has agreed to maintain the park move elsewhere. I also feel very strongly that if the old age home wants the enclosure to erect a fence that they should contribute towards the enclosure... even if its at a reduced, pensioner's rate.
ReplyDeleteIn our discussions with them we did offer a reduced pensioners rate.
DeleteI agree that adding the park to the enclosure will add value to the area as well as help with security, however:
ReplyDelete1. The park should not be locked and open to all residents of the enclosure (i.e. the key should not be held by the resident and the existing fence removed)
2. The old age home must contribute to the enclosure. They have a cheek wanting to benefit from the enclosure but not contribute.
I also think the capital reserve should not be touched (or as little as possible). An event(s) can be organised (by the affected residents) to assist with raising the funds.
Good suggestion about raising capital. In the past we have found initiatives like this are generally not successful. It needs to be driven and supported well by the residents.
DeleteIn our discussions it was felt that removing the existing fence would not change anything. The recyclers would remain in the park which would be inside the enclosure.
I think a Movies in the park family day would be great. We would definitely support something like that. Can we not look into a recycling setup that will prevent these guys going through garbage? they walk up to the bin and take all recycled goods and move on. simple in theory. I know its a bit of a toss up between them and Mpact but worth looking into.
DeleteR180 000 is a lot of money. From the emails we get we can see that things are very tight in terms of contributions. I know we delayed the upgrades to the huts because of this. What things would have to be put on hold to put the fence in? Is there not some other way we can spend this so that the entire suburb benefits rather than everyone living at the end of Edendale Rd?
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. The number of contributing members appears to be dwindling while the costs of running the enclosure will continue to climb. I think the funds should remain to keep the enclosure running as it is and for any unexpected maintenance/repairs etc.
DeleteI don't support spending R180,000 on the proviso that the old age home start contributing. They have been getting free benefits for +-15 years and now that they can get a R180,000 benefit they are willing to start contributing? I'm sorry but that is too little, too late.
I completely agree with Michael. Only a portion of Edenglen residents contribute to the enclosure and now R180 000 which can and should be used for maintenance is to be utilized for enclosing a park which is outside of the enclosure. A previous comment requested that if the park is enclosed, it should also be available to non-contributors! The issue of this park is not the responsibility of those contributing. If this goes ahead, I shall consider stopping my contribution and just enjoy the benefits like so many other non-contributors in the enclosure!!
DeleteR180,000.00 sounds like a lot
ReplyDeleteAccording to the last info sent out:
"For several months current contributors number 420"
R180k = R428.57 per contributing house
Hi, are you suggesting a special levy?
DeleteI don't disagree with a special levy, making the area look better and being a safer place is in EVERYONE'S interest
Delete"The old age home have indicated they will make a capital contribution"
How many residents live in the old age home?
There are 35-40 units. We don't know the total number of residents in each unit.
Delete420 contributors + 35 OAPs
DeleteR180k / 455 = R395.60 each
Non contributors will obviously benefit as well, as always. I'll continue giving them glaring looks when I see them.
The money could be used for upgrades to infrastructure e.g. huts, number plate recognition, cctv within the suburb - these initiatives would benefit all members (and non contributors). As mentioned, this money was set aside for legal, infrastructure and application expenses which can mount up very quickly. We also have noted that our levies collected this month were the same amount as this time last year so ultimately this money could be used as an operational contingency to keep the closure going.
DeleteI don't believe this is in EVERYONE's interest. I live on the complete opposite end of the enclosure, so will likely never go near the park to enjoy the benefit.
DeleteHi, great idea.
ReplyDeleteI think that it would add a lot of value to the enclosure and to the houses within. I think a special levy should be done as a once off. This would allow for the beautification of the park though the capital reserves. At +/-R400 a special levy it is not that expensive. There can be different options for the payment of this levy for those that may want a longer term.
I have the following concerns:
- What is the procedure for claiming the park. Would this not increase some form of council rent for the land and what other costs might this incur in the long run?
- All members that contribute to the fund should have access to the park via a key (It should be a benefit for the contributing members only). This may encourage others to start contributing to the enclosure.
- If it is open to all members, we should then be liable for the maintenance and not only the two residents.
But other than the above it is an awesome idea as the prospect of the old age home contributing is a good long term position.
So now the 420 contributors are to be saddled with a levy as well? Or do you think that all the non-contributors will kindly agree to a once-off levy to fence off a park outside of the enclosure?
DeleteI think we should send out a letter to all Edenglen residents to raise money for the park to be enclosed, we might be surprised by a few unexpected contributions :D
DeleteCan I suggest we rather ask for special contributions towards this project? I would rather we prioritize our stretched funds for maintenance of what is already in place and have enough reserves for the potential legal battles during closure renewal.
ReplyDelete1. I agree we should go ahead and fence off the park.
ReplyDelete2. I also agree that all households should pay a once off R400 special levy for this project.
3. We need to limit these rubbish collectors coming into our boomed off area if possible. How will the recycling initiative work if we are still allowing all the strangers trying to recycle as well?
4. On Tuesday this week I had to leave home at 05h45 and I couldn't believe how many strangers were walking around the area from my house to the boom at that time of the morning. I counted 16 rubbish collectors walking around and I am only 4 roads away from the boom.
5. A fitness park/dog walking/child biking park sounds fantastic for the area. Maybe residents can have "park walks" to raise funds or weekends to help layout/donate items (Jungle Gym for young children)for a fitness park.
6. The old age home needs to come to the party and pay the special once off levy as well. For years they did not contribute to the closure. R400 x 35 units = R14,000 they should contribute.
7. Lets all stand together and show that we can do this and support the closure please.
8. The Park should remain open inside the closure for all the residents and access not limited to the decisions of only the 2 residents by the park.
9. How many non-paying residents are there in the area now? Come on guys, PLEASE start coming to the party and stop with all the excuses for non-payment.
There are 600 homes in Edenglen South. 420 pay. We did a survey of the homes around the gate. Of 12 homes close to this gate 7 pay. As you know - the old age home does not pay.
DeleteI am happy for the idea except if it comes out of funds specially put away got contingencies.
ReplyDeleteI also think there should be fund raisers etc or once off fee.
Also, if not enough support, I know that the residents next to the park can offer to buy it as they did further up Palliser and it then becomes part of their land to do whatever they want with. Just another option to look into maybe.
We disagree with this expense as we don't believe it is the responsibility of the enclosure to pay for the cost thereof. The Old Age Home has never contributed and perhaps they could raise a special levy to fund this or what about the Old Age Home approaching the Council to purchase the ground and extend their facilities ?
ReplyDeletePresently there are too many non-contributors in the ESRC, so our vote is a - NO
Posted on behalf of Heather Hart
ReplyDeleteRe some of the above comments, yes of course the Metro should be maintaining the community park but sadly despite increasing rates, our service delivery levels are declining and our departments are either being hollowed out or in the case of our Parks dept infiltrated by radical unionists. So, the residents and I have really tried working with Parks (management very willing) EMPD (cannot be there all the time, no point in fining the recyclers because magistrate will never charge them) and Dept of Social Development (we just do not have an exit strategy for them) all to no real avail and thus the option of ‘adopting’ the park was put on the table. Essentially it means that if you maintain it, you can ‘manage’ it. But while it does not give you exclusive rights to it, we have more than enough evidence to show that the park is being abused and neglected to justify fencing it in.
Regarding the recycling project vs other recyclers, the reason for implementing the project was to get them ALL formalised, each having a certain restricted area to recycle from. That could still be done and while in terms of the road closure policy you cannot refuse entry to anyone, that is why Nellie Radebe was introducing it so that she could talk to them and get a kind of consensus. Unfortunately until this Metro tables a rational policy in this regard, like with the taxi industry, recyclers will continue to be laws unto themselves and we will have to try to find ways of mitigating their negative impact on our communities by maximizing the positive.
Once more the citizens of this country who pay a fortune in rates and taxes are expected to pay more for an issue that should be managed by government/council. There are dozens of vagrants in Edenvale, must we now take responsibility for sorting out all of them and the problems they create. Fed up!
DeleteThe Old Age Home as never contributed, so it's a NO from us. Also I believe the "OLD AGE HOME" is not really a home for the aged, it is a complex for over fifty fives, who are all probably still working and earning and can possibly find a way around this problem.
ReplyDeleteI definitely vote against this proposal. Keep the focus on our south security. We have that.
ReplyDeleteIf this proceeds - I cannot continue supporting the enclosure.
It would be more humane to pay for cleaning up the park - assisting poor industrious people serving our suburb
Why don't we all get behind the recycling initiative that was published in the latest closure email? I have heard that this is working well in other areas and that the company concerned takes on the recyclers, buys and removes their stuff from them. The removal of the recycling material would stop the mess being made in the park. If we did this there would not be much left in our bins for these guys to rummage through.
ReplyDeleteIf there was no closure the vagrants would still be there. Why is this a closure issue? At least the fence that is there has provided a degree of security that wasn't there before. I am against this proposal.
ReplyDeleteTotally against using "reserve" funds and once again subsidizing non-payers. Secondly IF this goes ahead, then access to the park by residents should not be limited by the fact that only 2 private individuals hold keys. Maybe the park could be opened or closed by Mamba at the same times as the gates. Plse keep in mind that recyclers - organised or not - are trying to make a living. They are not the criminal element. PATRIZIA TENNENT
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with Patrizia's sentiments. I do not support the intervention. The municipality is the responsible authority for parks and their management.The municipality should be petitioned to intervene and solve the problem presented by ratepaying residents.
DeleteI am in total agreement with Patrizia
ReplyDelete1. Our South goal for Edenglen is SECURITY – which we have achieved and not maintaining a park – or looking after plastic collectors etc
ReplyDelete2. IF WE want to do something beyond “our brief” like the plastic collectors – our brief is not to spend R180 000 fencing off. I deal will seminars at different levels and the consensus from this group of people is “We know how to jump your fences …. And how to enter your houses”.
3. If we want to help – Mrs Erasmus’ pictures tell the story of what is needed and give us the script: a. Designated area – which they will listen to b. Then a “small’ brick fire place which they need. C. some seating – which they need and 4. A porta toilet which they “NEED”. Her pictures tell the story. Where do these workers go to the toilet? Where can they ‘make a fire’? c. Where do they throw their rubbish.
Spending R180 000 on a fence for exclusive use is not our decision – and if it is – it will stir up anger and will simply “kick the can to the sidewalk”!! or to our next neighbours. It will not solve human problems.
I’ve said my bit. Regards and thank you and your committee for sometimes a thankless job.
The issues you raise in point three should be food for thought. Perhaps a more caring and less critical community is what we need.
DeleteThe old age home must become contributors if they wish to spend the money of the enclosure. Its that simple.
ReplyDeleteGood day all,
ReplyDeleteI live at the top of Granville Rd and so the park is a long way away from our house, but in saying that, it would be a valuable improvement to our suburb to have a clean and secure park for everyone.
I am not fully briefed on the history of the old age home and their hesitance to join the closure as paying members, but maybe this is the catalyst they need to get involved.
I would not be opposed to a small special levy to get the project completed and I do not think using the reserve funds is the way to go.
If the project is to proceed, then the park must be accessible to all the contributing members, one again being a catalyst to get some non-paying residents on board.
I have always though it would be a lovely idea to have a regular community get together, braai, tea, whatever the case and this could be a lovely venue for that purpose.
Perhaps as second phase of the project we could get a swing set and jungle gym erected further enhancing the attractiveness of an enclosed park for the suburb.
Thank you.
This proposal will not get my support.
ReplyDelete1. Unless all residents commit to separating and disposing of recyclable waste the problem will not go away. I recycle and the vagrants no longer even bother to open my bin. Fencing the park will simply shift the sorting of waste from the park to someone else's pavement.
2. I am totally against the use of the closures capital reserves for the fencing off of the park. This reserve has been built up over the years by contributing residents for the purposes of ongoing maintenance.
3. For a project of this nature there is no such thing as a "once off" contribution. There will be inevitable costs going forward. Once again the contributing residents will have to foot the bill.
4. Currently 420 residents support the closure of the entire area. Why should they also be expected to subsidize the fencing off of the park as well??
5. Embarking on a project like this risks alienating current contributors. This could ultimately put the future existence of our road closure in jeopardy!
Based on the above I will NOT contribute to the fencing off of the park and will cease contributing to the road closure should this proposal go ahead.
For some reason I did not receive the Survey email. Could someone please post the survey web address (URL) for me.
ReplyDeleteThank you
Send an email to edenglensrc@gmail.com. We will then verify your email address and resend the survey email.
Delete