GOOD’s CPT mayoral candidate has called on the city to stop hiding documentation pertaining to its winter readiness plan, alleging that the plan may not have even existed.
The GOOD party issued a statement on Tuesday, 21 September 2021, by the GOOD Cape Town mayoral candidate, Brett Herron, in which he accused the Democratic Alliance (DA)-led City of Cape Town of ducking and diving to avoid taking ownership of its alleged winter plan lies. Herron alleged that no plan was actually released by the city as no plan ever existed. This comes after he noted that the past winter had been particularly miserable for residents of the Cape flats who suffered unprecedented floods, blocked drains, sewers, potholes and infrastructure collapse. Usually put together suburbs were also affected by uncleared wastewater systems.
He also stated that in July, his efforts to consult the city’s readiness plan were not successful, leading him to launch a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application. Furthermore, it, according to Herron, had been refused. He concluded by calling the city to account to the residents.
See the post below.
— GOOD (@ForGoodZA) September 21, 2021
When was the winter readiness plan announced?
Herron noted that in March, the city announced that to help mitigate the loss of property and lives, Cape Town had released its annual winter readiness plan, focusing on maintaining the city’s stormwater system, including its pipes and ponds, amongst others.
How have floods affected communities in Cape Town?
Herron confirmed that he visited the homes that were impacted by the flooding, and observed homes flooded up to their windowsills as well as residents forced to use steppingstones to get from their gates to front doors. He further claimed that ill-maintained sewerage infrastructure also added to flooding.
How were Herron’s efforts to obtain the readiness plan met?
After submitting a PAIA application, Herron confirmed that a deputy information officer at the city had informed him that his application had been refused on a technicality, as the line department responsible had failed to submit it.