Warwick Bruce Chapman

This article has been superseded by Detailed eThekwini Ward Maps

The Ward Demarcation process ahead of the 2011 Local Government Elections has been completed. While we have serious concerns about the process and whether the Municipal Demarcation Board complied with the criteria for demarcating wards outlined in the legislation, the outcome is now final and we’re getting on with it:

I. Listing of Voting Districts per Ward
II. Map of all wards in eThekwini
1. eThekwini Ward 1
2. eThekwini Ward 2
3. eThekwini Ward 3
4. eThekwini Ward 4
5. eThekwini Ward 5
6. eThekwini Ward 6
7. eThekwini Ward 7
8. eThekwini Ward 8
9. eThekwini Ward 9
10. eThekwini Ward 10
11. eThekwini Ward 11
12. eThekwini Ward 12
13. eThekwini Ward 13
14. eThekwini Ward 14
15. eThekwini Ward 15
16. eThekwini Ward 16
17. eThekwini Ward 17
18. eThekwini Ward 18
19. eThekwini Ward 19
20. eThekwini Ward 20
21. eThekwini Ward 21
22. eThekwini Ward 22
23. eThekwini Ward 23
24. eThekwini Ward 24
25. eThekwini Ward 25
26. eThekwini Ward 26
27. eThekwini Ward 27
28. eThekwini Ward 28
29. eThekwini Ward 29
30. eThekwini Ward 30
31. eThekwini Ward 31
32. eThekwini Ward 32
33. eThekwini Ward 33
34. eThekwini Ward 34
35. eThekwini Ward 35
36. eThekwini Ward 36
37. eThekwini Ward 37
38. eThekwini Ward 38
39. eThekwini Ward 39
40. eThekwini Ward 40
41. eThekwini Ward 41
42. eThekwini Ward 42
43. eThekwini Ward 43
44. eThekwini Ward 44
45. eThekwini Ward 45
46. eThekwini Ward 46
47. eThekwini Ward 47
48. eThekwini Ward 48
49. eThekwini Ward 49
50. eThekwini Ward 50
51. eThekwini Ward 51
52. eThekwini Ward 52
53. eThekwini Ward 53
54. eThekwini Ward 54
55. eThekwini Ward 55
56. eThekwini Ward 56
57. eThekwini Ward 57
58. eThekwini Ward 58
59. eThekwini Ward 59
60. eThekwini Ward 60
61. eThekwini Ward 61
62. eThekwini Ward 62
63. eThekwini Ward 63
64. eThekwini Ward 64
65. eThekwini Ward 65
66. eThekwini Ward 66
67. eThekwini Ward 67
68. eThekwini Ward 68
69. eThekwini Ward 69
70. eThekwini Ward 70
71. eThekwini Ward 71
72. eThekwini Ward 72
73. eThekwini Ward 73
74. eThekwini Ward 74
75. eThekwini Ward 75
76. eThekwini Ward 76
77. eThekwini Ward 77
78. eThekwini Ward 78
79. eThekwini Ward 79
80. eThekwini Ward 80
81. eThekwini Ward 81
82. eThekwini Ward 82
83. eThekwini Ward 83
84. eThekwini Ward 84
85. eThekwini Ward 85
86. eThekwini Ward 86
87. eThekwini Ward 87
88. eThekwini Ward 88
89. eThekwini Ward 89
90. eThekwini Ward 90
91. eThekwini Ward 91
92. eThekwini Ward 92
93. eThekwini Ward 93
94. eThekwini Ward 94
95. eThekwini Ward 95
96. eThekwini Ward 96
97. eThekwini Ward 97
98. eThekwini Ward 98
99. eThekwini Ward 99
100. eThekwini Ward 100
101. eThekwini Ward 101
102. eThekwini Ward 102
103. eThekwini Ward 103

Note: A response was received from the MDB’s Robert Willemse acknowledging this submission:
“All submissions will be considered by the Board. In terms of the Structures Act, 1998, the Board may confirm, withdraw/vary a delimitation. The final decisions of the MDB will be gazetted after 19 August 2010.”

A further response from Robert relating to when these Demarcations will be reflected in the IEC data follows:
“The MDB already submitted some of its ward delimitations to the IEC – to empower the IEC to prepare for the 2011 elections.
All wards, including the final wards for eThekwini, will be submitted to the IEC by 1 Sept 2010. The MDB will consider all recorded objections by 19 Aug 2010.”

Summary: DA in eThekwini objections to 1 July gazetted ward demarcation proposals

The DA submitted proposals with the key intention of reuniting fragmented communities and during the consultation process reminded the MDB that it has a legislated mandate to do the same. We are disappointed that despite this the second round of MDB proposals do not address the issue of several communities split between multiple wards.

We’ve just completed a very successful FIFA Soccer World Cup tournament in our country which has helped unite our people. Coming out of the event, where we’ve all seen what government can do if it sets its mind to it, the one thing we have common agreement on is the prioritisation of service delivery, something our Government has been emphasising of late.

All proposals tabled should thus seek to improve service delivery and therefore the more practical the shapes wards have and the more easily recognisable the ward is to the surrounding communities, the more effective the ward councillor will be able to be.

The proposals tabled by the DA, ANC and the original MDB proposals do not require the splitting of any Voting Districts. Further, the DA proposals succeed in reuniting several communities which had been split over multiple wards in both the old and new MDB proposals and the ANC proposals.

It is our contention thus, that of the three sets of proposals, the DA’s proposals are most compliant with the legislation and most likely to result in an improvement in service delivery. Wards which are as closely identifiable with communities as possible will thus greatly simplify the process of finding the correct ward councillor when a community member is in need.

We are concerned that the MDB has accepted only one of the DA’s proposals which seeks to reunite fragmented communities and particularly the basis upon which such selective application has been made. Our proposals for wards 12 and 14 which intended to address the KwaNdengezi community being split in two were accepted, yet proposals in other areas such as Verulam which arguably had more merit were not.

Warwick Chapman and Geoff Pullan
Democratic Alliance Demarcation Coordinators, eThekwini Muncipality

FORM MDB5 (Download)

WARD DELIMITATION
OBJECTION IN TERMS OF ITEM 5(2) OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MUNICIPAL STRUCTURES ACT, 1998

Name of municipality: eThekwini
Code: ETH
Name of aggrieved person/institution: Democratic Alliance
Contact person in case of an institution: Warwick Chapman and Geoff Pullan
Address: c/o City Hall, Durban
Tel. number:  N/A Cell number: 083 7797 094 and 083 6959190
Email address: ward18@ethelkwini.org and geoffpullan@iafrica.com

We hereby object to the delimitation of the boundaries of the following wards:

We request the Municipal Demarcation Board to consider the following alternative proposals:

Ward	Preferred VD listing	Motivation
102	43362288        1983 43360725        2422 43360736        2155 43362042        2624 43360624        3117 43360635        1121 43362222        3110 Total:                16532	In the case of ward 102,  VD 43350049 contains the land upon which the significant Cornubia housing development will take place.  Cornubia is planned to contain over 70000 individual housing units[1] which are to be built between this election and the next. We thus expect Cornubia to become either a ward of its own, or more likely, several new wards once completed.  The DA’s proposal for this area caters for this eventuality and ensures that the splits can be executed easily without producing oddly shaped wards as would result from the other proposals. Lastly, our proposal for ward 58 succeeds in keeping the airport and beachfront communities in a single ward while not affecting the unity of the Verulam community which we consildated into Ward 60.
35	43350016        3603 43350049        1893 43350050        2800 43350027        3435 43350038        3986 Total:                15717	In our proposals, we specifically structured wards 102 (above), 36 (MDB accepted our proposal) 35, 34 and 11 such that they observed the very significant boundary that is the N2 national highway.
34	43360455        2030 43360466        1400 43360444        2618 43360499        2792 43360398        2790 43360477        3190 43360488        1444 Total:                16264	In our proposals, we specifically structured wards 102 (above), 36 (MDB accepted our proposal) 35, 34 and 11 such that they observed the very significant boundary that is the N2 national highway.
11	43360589        2378 43360523        2160 43360501        2468 43360512        1068 43360590        1131 43360602        2659 43360613        2202 43362211        2045 Total:                16111	In our proposals, we specifically structured wards 102 (above), 36 (MDB accepted our proposal) 35, 34 and 11 such that they observed the very significant boundary that is the N2 national highway.
30	43371413        3513 43371424        2926 43371828        7159 43371390        4555 Total:                18153	In the gazetted proposals, Cato Manor is split between wards 29, 30 and 101.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, the Cato Manor community is avoidably split into 3 and thus in contravention of this requirement.
31	43360242        2208 43360286        1182 43360275        2051 43360231        1477 43360219        1592 43360118        1449 43360264        2561 43360309        1731 Total:                14251	Using the very recognisable boundaries of the N3 national highway into the City and the road which runs along the top of the Berea, Ridge Rd, our proposals structured a very recognisable and easily defined set of wards. Because the Berea comprises high density residential areas immediately adjacent to one another, it is even more important to have very clear boundaries separating wards.  For this reason we tried to make use of the most recognisable boundaries in the area. We are convinced that service delivery is assisted when a community can easily identify their ward councillor.  Conversely, it is easier for ward councillors to provide a service when the area they serve is easily identifiable.
32	43371244        6603 43371301        2590 43371288        1942 43371299        1639 43371985        2014 Total:                14788	As above
26	43360017        2886 43360040        3047 43360028        3047 43360039        2223 43371255        5514 Total:                16717	In the gazetted proposals, the CBD is split between wards 26 and 28.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, the CBD community is avoidably split into 2 and thus in contravention of this requirement.
27	43360073        2044 43360062        2839 43360185        2763 43360163        1724 43360174        3114 43360196        1190 43360208        1940 Total:                15614	In the gazetted proposals, the North Beach community is split between wards 26 and 27.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, the North Beach community is avoidably split into 2 and thus in contravention of this requirement.
28	43360107        2698 43360130        1746 43360084        3298 43360095        2402 43360141        2491 43360152        2269 Total:                14904	In the gazetted proposals, the CBD and parts of Musgrave are lumped into the same ward.  These are vastly distinct communities and while our proposal above addresses the CBD issue, this proposal deals with the Musgrave and Greville communities which are split by these proposals.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, these communities are avoidably split and thus in contravention of this requirement.
29	43370502        2673 43370388        3762 43371491        1360 43371480        2666 43371839        2617 43371435        2510 Total:                15588	In the gazetted proposals, the Chesterville is split between ward 29 and 24.  These are vastly distinct communities and this proposal and our proposal below for ward 24 seeks to remedy the proposed situaiton.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, these communities are avoidably split and thus in contravention of this requirement.
18	43390504        3533 43390964        441 43390571        4015 43390515        5502 43390560        2361 Total:                15852	In the gazetted proposals, the Pinetown community is split between ward 18,  21 and 16.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, these communities are avoidably split and thus in contravention of this requirement. Our proposal seeks to reunite the entire Pinetown community under a single ward 18, and removing the significant Westville portion currently in ward 18.
24	43390784        1562 43390076        2479 43390201        2956 43390212        2217 43390526        3518 43390087        4189 Total:                16921	In the gazetted proposals, the Westville community is split between wards 18, and 24.  The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, these communities are avoidably split and thus in contravention of this requirement. Westville is a very distinct and identifiable community which is current split across wards 18 and 24, proving counter-productive when community members seek to identify their councillor.
52	43361524        1746 43361535        1308 43361838        2008 43361849        1608 43361850        2195 43361861        1998 43361872        2555 43361883        1145 43361894        2118 Total:                16681	We see no reason whatsoever for the changes made to the wards 52, 53, 55 and 57.  The changes are limited entirely to that group of four wards in that the VDs have been shifted from one ward to an adjacent other until the knock-on effect has been neutralised. It would appear that the changes are unnecessary and split existing communities.
53	43360129        3701 43360253        1084 43360927        1597 43361287        6627 43361760        1448 43361940        1007 43361951        2009 Total:                17473	We see no reason whatsoever for the changes made to the wards 52, 53, 55 and 57.  The changes are limited entirely to that group of four wards in that the VDs have been shifted from one ward to an adjacent other until the knock-on effect has been neutralised. It would appear that the changes are unnecessary and split existing communities.
55	43360792        946 43361333        1401 43361344        1392 43361366        1237 43361399        2178 43361401        1678 43361489        2385 43361669        1966 43361670        1480 43362008        2419 Total:                17082	We see no reason whatsoever for the changes made to the wards 52, 53, 55 and 57.  The changes are limited entirely to that group of four wards in that the VDs have been shifted from one ward to an adjacent other until the knock-on effect has been neutralised. It would appear that the changes are unnecessary and split existing communities.
57	43361557        2769 43361681        3596 43362154        2145 43362165        3689 43362176        2405 43362187        1008 43362244        1123 Total:                16735	We see no reason whatsoever for the changes made to the wards 52, 53, 55 and 57.  The changes are limited entirely to that group of four wards in that the VDs have been shifted from one ward to an adjacent other until the knock-on effect has been neutralised. It would appear that the changes are unnecessary and split existing communities.
60	43350140        1229 43350072        1600 43350139        1595 43350487        353 43350151        2369 43350195        418 43350162        1658 43350173        2619 43350184        1821 43580820        2701 43584026        467 43584037        736 Total:                17566	The DA’s proposal for Verulam was one of the most important in our package of 53 proposed.  In all the other proposals tabled, the town of Verulam was split over multiple wards for no reason we can readily ascertain.  The legislation as well as the DA’s proposals seek to reunite the fragmented community of Verulam under a single ward councillor.  We thus request some explanation why our sensible proposals have not been accepted.
9	43400078        4088 43400450        2000 43400405        3188 43400797        3693 43400810        996 43400854        798 43400865        2336 43583171        931 Total:                18030	While our proposal for ward 9 did result in an elongated ward, it must be understood that the Hillcrest/Waterfall community resides on either side of Inanda Rd M33 which extends from the east to the west along the length of our proposed ward. Further, assuming the revised split estimate tabled below is accepted, we propose that in order to reduce the fragmentation of the Hillcrest community, the northern portion of the split VD (43400450) be moved to Ward 9 from ward 10, the Hillcrest High School VD (43400078) be moved back into ward 9 from ward 8, the portion of the split Forest View Primary VD (43400393) be moved into ward 10.  The intention would thus be to create a ward which extends the length of the M33 Inanda Rd. The Act specifically requires that in performing demarcation you avoid the fragmentation of communities.  Patently, this community has been avoidably split and thus the current proposal for ward 9 is in contravention of this requirement.
10	43400045        4404 43400067        5056 43400393        2689 43400438        2368 43400809        813 43400843        883 Total:                16213	In order to reunify the Hillcrest Community as described above, VD 43400393 is required to move into this ward.
9 (VD Split)	43400450 (Hillcrest Library Activities Room) The new proposal included in the MDB’s gazetted proposals to split VD 43400450 (Hillcrest Library Activities Room) in two provides an opportunity to address to an extent the elongated nature of our ward 9 proposal.  We do, however, dispute the accuracy of the estimated number of voters in each part of the split VD. Considering the orthographic overlay below showing location of residential areas, the proposed split for 43400450 is more likely to be 2000 in the northern portion and 137 in the southern portion (and not 1000 and 1137 respectively).  The northern portion contains all of the residential dwellings in the VD and the southern portion only a few farmhouses and rural dwellings.
6/91	Since the 1 July gazetted eThekwini proposals include the splitting of a few VDs, we would like to bring the the attention of the MDB a very unweildy VD which results in a very strangely shaped Ward 6.  43400146 (Kwamyeza School) has an extremely unfortunate shape and sufficient voters (3333) that it should be split into two or preferably three more sensibly shaped VDs.  The Voting Station is in the south eastern end of the VD (Emalangeni) and thus voters in the north west (Moya) are much closer to other VDs. We would thus propose that 43400146 (Kwamyeza School) be merged with 43400540 (Dept Of Works) and then split into 3 new VDs something along the lines of the rough diagram provided below.

I confirm that:
    each cluster of voting districts form a contiguous ward;
    the number of voters in each ward fall within the minimum and maximum of voters allowed per ward;
    the proposed ward boundaries comply, in general, with the criteria.

SIGNATURE

NAME AND SURNAME

DATE

At the meeting called by yourselves, on 7 May 2010, no consensus was reached on ward boundaries.

The MDB officials then spelled out the procedure from there on. Within 7 working days the municipality was instructed to call a meeting of all those who had proposals for ward boundaries within eThekwini. [Within a further 14 working days the MDB would advertise the last proposals for comment and objection.]

This next meeting was called for 13 May 2010 at 11h00. Regrettably the ANC did not attend, and Dr Sutcliffe [municipal manager] stated that the ANC were happy with their own proposals and did not want to consider proposals from other parties. The DA, MF, IEC and municipal officials were present. Nadeco arrived as we were leaving the room.

It is a pity that the ANC were not present, as we had wanted to propose accepting a few of the ANC suggestions. We had hoped that this spirit of concilliation could be translated into better service delivery to the people. Unfortunately the meeting was aborted, so we can only present our further proposals and arguments to you [MDB] directly.

SUGGESTIONS

Wards 5, 6, 91
We looked at the figures and came up with another option for these wards, which is better geographically but still splits communities. This will then give the MDB the following options…
MDB original proposals
ANC proposal
DA [amended ANC option]
Moving VD 43400146 from ward 6 to ward 91
Moving VD 43400551 from ward 91 to ward 6
In a spirit of conciliation we would accept the ANC proposal, or the slight amendment if the ANC preferred that.

93, 94
The ANC proposal is only slightly different from the DA proposal, one VD 43580279 is moved from 94 to 93.
In the spirit of concilliation we accept the ANC proposal.

52, 53, 55, 57
This proposal looks like gerrymandering, and we feel that the MDB proposals are acceptable.

66, 68, 75
We looked intensely at including the Nizam Road community with the Bluff, but were unable to do so without compromising other wards in the area. Our intention of keeping the harbour together with the Bluff [ward 66], and the refinery with Wentworth [ward 68] is because these communities are directly impacted by both activities.
It is our contention that ward councillors for 66 and 68 need to be able to influence these heavy industrial uses for the benefit of the adjacent residential areas.

58. 59, 60, 61, 62
The ANC proposals for the area try to put Verulam’s CBD into one ward, but fall foul because they split our new “mighty fine airport” into two wards. This will make for very disjointed areas for the ward councillors to service. Also a portion of the ANC proposed ward 61 is almost surrounded by ward 62.
Our proposal is to keep the communities of Tongaat beach and Waterloo together with the airport, as they are the most affected by the King Shaka airport. One ward councillor would then have the responsibility of the airport and the residents it affects.

11, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 102
The ANC and DA agree with 2 wards in this area. [36, 37]
We have managed to reduce the length of ward 102, which will make service delivery for that ward councillor easier.
We have also managed to prevent the N2 Highway from dividing most of the wards in this area.

13, 84, 100
Our proposal makes wards 13 and 84 urban and leaves ward 100 as predominantly rural. We feel this means the ward councillors would then be able to deal with service delivery issues in a more focused way. We think this has accommodated the IFP’s proposals

8, 9, 12, 14
The ANC agree with two of our proposals here. [12, 14]. We would ask the MDB and IEC to consider splitting VD 43400450, Hillcrest Library, as it is large and difficult for voters to get to the one polling station.

16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 63, 92
We only have consensus with the ANC on our proposal for ward 23.
For the others we have followed the principle of creating wards that are easier for ward councillors to manage, in line with our goal of improving service delivery.

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 101
We have no consensus with the ANC on any of these wards.
We have endeavored to not “split” wards with the N3 Highway, and in so doing have created geographically manageable wards for the councillors.
Service delivery by municipal officials tends to be divided up along geographical lines, so our proposed boundaries more closely mirror those of council departments.

76, 87, 88, 89, 90
Our ward 76 proposal has been agreed by the ANC.
We have tried to unite the Umlazi communities and sort out odd shaped wards, again to assist ward councillors to provide a better service to the community.
Isipingo now falls into one ward.

69, 70, 74, 75
Generally, as much as we tried – we were unable to accommodate the MF proposals. The numbers just wouldn’t allow their ideas/wishes to work.

Kind regards,
Geoff D A Pullan
083 695 9190

For immediate release

The ANC today did not arrive at an important meeting intended to build consensus on the differing ward demarcation proposals of the various parties in the eThekwini municipality. The City Manager, Dr Mike Sutcliffe, informed the parties present that the ANC had stated their proposals were non-negotiable and as such they saw no need to attend the meeting. As a result, the meeting was called off.

The implications of the unwillingness to negotiate by the ruling party are serious for the ward demarcation process ahead of the 2011 Local Government Elections. As political parties we have the responsibility to ensure that collectively we decide the best ward demarcations for the City and do not leave this task entirely to the Municipal Demarcation Board.

The process started late last year with the Municipal Demarcation Board releasing a set of proposals which included the additional 3 wards in eThekwini and catered for movement of voters within the municipality. The MDB proposals by their own admission are “desktop” in nature, and thus political parties and residents were requested to provide comment and, if necessary, counter proposals.

If negotiations around these proposals facilitated by the Municipal Manager failed to result in consensus, then the MDB will attempt to facilitate such consensus itself. This is what happened last Friday in the City Hall when the MDB hosted all political and other interested parties.

ANC Proposals ‘non-negotiable’
Unfortunately no consensus was reached. The ANC presented their proposals along with a declaration that they were non-negotiable. The DA requested that no party be allowed to take such a position and that in the 7-day period granted by the MDB for consensus to be reached, the City be required to host negotiations.

All parties were invited to a meeting today, Thursday 13 May, hosted by the City Manager with a view to all parties reaching a compromise on as many of the proposals as possible.

In the spirit of consensus building the DA had already considered the proposals tabled by other parties with a view to accepting those where we felt the best interests of the people had been upheld.

During the MDB meeting on Friday 7 May the DA motivated our proposals and explained how they seek to reunite the many communities which are split across wards in eThekwini. The ANC tabled proposals which it said intended to “integrate communities” and accused the DA of trying to preserve white areas.

The DA feels it important to acknowledge that there is a difference between the legislated mandate of the MDB not to fragment communities and the stated intention of the ANC that they seek to integrate communities.

Westville and Chesterville
To use the example debated during the Friday 7 May MDB meeting, there is no longer such as thing as a “white suburb” as was argued of Westville by ANC MP Belinda Scott. Any person wishing to move into Westville simply rents or purchases there and moves in. A look at the demographics of the schools in the area and will show that Westville is already an integrated community.

When someone from Chesterville moves into Westville, they leave one community and join another, furthering integration. Integration is not achieved by lumping parts of one community with another in a ward.

It is obvious from the ANC proposals, such as their Ward 52 proposal that their input is frequently less about integration and more about introducing voters which will strengthen the hand of the ANC come election time.

The facts are simple:
1. The legislation governing ward demarcation seeks to avoid the fragmentation of communities
2. The ANC is proposing fragmentation of further communities under the guise of “integration”

Legal Provisions
The 2009 Legal Provisions for Ward Delimitation document stipulates on page 3, item 4.b:
“The need to avoid as far as possible the fragmentation of communities.”

The MDB itself clarifies the question of what a community is on its website under the section Criteria for Delimiting Wards (page 3 of the PDF):
“The need to ensure that residents who think of themselves as a community are able to vote together and are able to participate in ward committees together. It is not always possible to ensure that communities are kept together in the same ward, but, as far as possible, boundaries have been drawn in such a way that individuals can vote and participate in local government together with people they see as their neighbours, and with whom they share common interests and concerns.”

Service Delivery
The ANC is using a populist political argument here to cover up the gerrymandering they are attempting through their proposals. They are not trying to pursue some altruistic integration of communities. All they are trying to do is win as many wards as they can by fiddling the system as effectively as they can regardless of how it runs against the law.

Ultimately, as part of a drive to improve service delivery, we must empower councillors to become specialists at dealing with the needs of their particular communities. The needs of the people in a community like Westville and Chesterville, for example, are very different and require a different set of competencies and knowledge from their councillor.

The DA proposals are designed reunite communities and correct some of the anomalies in the ward demarcations as they stand and in the proposals tabled by the MDB and the ANC.

By refusing to negotiate on the proposals, the ANC is displaying contempt for the institutions of this democracy. The DA will be writing to the MDB to further motivate our proposals and emphasise the positive impact they will have on improving the delivery of services to the various communities in eThekwini.

Enquiries
Warwick Chapman
083 7797 094
ward18@ethekwini.org

The Municipal Demarcation Board met with all political parties on Friday 7 May in the City Hall. At this meeting the ANC stated that its proposals for the 2011 ward demarcation were non-negotiable. The DA requested that no party be allowed to take such a position and that in the 7-day period granted by the MDB, the City be required to host negotiations whereby consensus can be reached on as many of the counter proposals as possible.

We were invited to the meeting on today on Monday 10 May and release the following statement indicating our support for this meeting:

The DA will be in attendance at this meeting. In the spirit of consensus building we are reviewing the proposals tabled by other parties with a view to accepting those where we feel the best interests of the people have been upheld.

As political parties we have the responsibility to ensure that collectively we decide the best ward demarcations for the City and do not leave this task entirely to the Municipal Demarcation Board.

The DA feels it important to acknowledge that there is a difference between the legislated mandate of the MDB not to fragment communities and the stated intention of the ANC that their proposals seek to integrate communities.

To use the example debated during the Friday 7 May MDB meeting, there is no longer such as thing as a “white suburb” as was argued of Westville by the ANC MP Belinda Scott. Any person wishing to move into Westville simply rents or purchases there and moves in. A look at the demographics of the schools in the area and will show that Westville is already an integrated community.

When someone from Chesterville moves into Westville, they leave one community and join another, furthering integration. Integration is not achieved by lumping parts of one community with another in a ward.

It is obvious from the ANC proposals, such as their Ward 52 proposal that their input is frequently less about integration and more about introducing voters which will strengthen the hand of the ANC come election time.

The facts are simple:
1. The legislation seeks to avoid fragmentation
2. The ANC is proposing fragmentation of further communities under the guise of “integration”

Regarding the legal provisions as well as the MDB’s own guidelines:

The 2009 Legal Provisions for Ward Delimitation document stipulates on page 3, item 4.b:
“The need to avoid as far as possible the fragmentation of communities.”

The MDB itself clarifies the question of what a community is on its website under the section Criteria for Delimiting Wards (page 3 of the PDF):
“The need to ensure that residents who think of themselves as a community are able to vote together and are able to participate in ward committees together. It is not always possible to ensure that communities are kept together in the same ward, but, as far as possible, boundaries have been drawn in such a way that individuals can vote and participate in local government together with people they see as their neighbours, and with whom they share common interests and concerns.”