OPINION: When I read an article in this newspaper about the municipal manager encouraging businesses to take ownership of Kimberley’s CBD, I can say without a hint of sarcasm or irony that I applauded that move on the municipality’s part, writes Lance Fredericks.
LAST week, when I read an article in this newspaper about the municipal manager encouraging businesses to take ownership of Kimberley’s CBD, I can say without a hint of sarcasm or irony that I applauded that move on the municipality’s part.
Some may become cynical and speak about how long the municipality allowed things to slide for the problem to become this big, and throw other pennies into the plate.
I am not saying that criticism and cynicism are out of place. I cannot make that call, seeing as I never attended the meeting in the City Hall and therefore all the information I have at my disposal to make positive or disparaging comments will be based on the summary that was published last Friday.
I was, however, privileged to have contact with someone who did attend the meeting; someone who worked in the corridors of power at one time and who had spent their days and working hours trying to not only keep the city from falling apart, but actually develop, and even thrive.
In the course of our conversation, I asked this person if it would be OK for me to see if I could get their opinions published in the newspaper. They replied in the affirmative, but asked to remain anonymous, so I will use a gender-neutral name ‘Alex’ to identify the person.
Here’s what I can remember from that conversation.
I asked Alex what they thought of the call for city businesses to take ownership of the CBD.
“It’s not good to have the municipality suddenly waking up and forcing everyone to comply and ‘take ownership of the CBD’,” Alex started. “They should take ownership of their responsibilities first.”
Then added, “All the degradation of leaking water and sewage pipes, litter and waste matter all over, potholes rivalling the Big Hole are obvious problems.”
It was obvious that Alex was frustrated. “Storm water drains should be cleaned and maintained. The list goes on and on,” Alex said.
I interjected: “Yes, those things are obvious; I am sure that the municipality is well aware of all these issues. But what about the call to take ownership of the CBD? Isn’t that the issue at hand?”
“But that’s the point I am trying to make,” Alex replied. “Leadership is critical. Just as a father is the head of his home and leads by example, so should the municipality have to lead by example.”
I played the devil’s advocate. “What if, just what if they don’t know how to fix things,” I asked.
It’s as if Alex was waiting for that question. “There are many people who know what to do; people with experience in these fields in the city, and a history of methods that succeeded. If the current management is struggling to survive, never mind keeping pace, then find those experienced people and offer them even short-term contracts. Get them to assist with training and setting up relevant systems.
“I say this,” Alex added, “because the same by-laws apply to the present Kimberley that applied in the past, but the warm-bodies – those who need to implement and enforce them are not the same, and don’t seem to be as committed.”
I wanted Alex to fill in more detail on what they seemed to be trying to say in such broad strokes. “So how will such training or orientation help the situation,” I asked.
“In old Kimberley, that old system made use of building inspectors who were responsible for specific areas of the city,” Alex replied.
“They knew the regulations and by-laws and were able to issue fines to property owners for non-compliance. For example, owners received warnings about rubble on pavements in front of their property; they were told to remove the mess within a week or receive a fine.”
Alex looked squarely at me: “You tell me if it worked?” Then proceeded, “Building plans required onsite inspections. Hence inspectors were on the move in their area, constantly monitoring everything and taking pride in their work while competing with peers for the best possible results; it’s as if there was a competition to see which section of the city looked the best and was running the smoothest.
“Kimberley needs a good role-model to get back to its original splendour,” Alex said, “And the Kimberley of yesteryear is the best example on which to model itself today.”
“But do you think that this call to take ownership will work,” I pressed Alex.
“It can,” Alex said with a sigh. “But, first of all, the municipality should take the lead and be seen to be functioning properly. Only then will the public and businesses take the municipality seriously, and only then will they take action, because then they will have a glimmer of hope that things are coming together at last.”
Alex, however, had that one parting shot. “This wake-up call may very well be 28 years too late,” I was told. “This state of degradation would not have been seen, had the old system been in operation.”
On a personal note, I do not doubt the municipality’s intentions for a moment. Yes, a lot of rot has crept in and there are people who have regularly dropped the ball. But here and there, bit by bit parts of the city are being fixed, patched and mended.
Then, with the municipal manager’s call to businesses to step up, the humility to admit that they cannot fix this problem alone is heartening. I sincerely hope that more and more people will come on board to get the ball rolling.
It saddens me, however, that no matter how much the municipality or the businesses invest in cleaning up our city, nothing will improve if the people in our city, from the CBD to the suburbs, from residents to visitors and on through squatters don’t shape up and stop dropping litter everywhere.
If there were incentives for cleaning up or consequences for breaking down, I think that things could make a turn for the better.
At least I hope so.
