Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /usr/www/users/gekcowzfca/wp-content/themes/simplicity/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160

GEKCO SURVEY RESULTS 2012

 

 

GEKCO Survey Results 2012

 

 

Given the growing pressures being made upon the area by the Province with regards road and highway requirements, the City and local developers with regards urban densification, rates reclassification and revaluations etc, the GCA registered Greater Kyalami Conservancy (GEKCO) took it upon itself to seek a mandate from the community to protect the current semi-rural-equine lifestyle enjoyed by many and what has been believed to be the overtly desired lifestyle.

Between the 18th and 25th October GEKCO ran a public online survey open to all who live in the greater Kyalami area as defined by the GEKCO boundaries in order to ascertain the needs and want of its constituents. The following Table 1 shows the breakdown of the respondents at a Residents Association level and also under which the entire GEKCO region falls.

Table 1: Resident Association Respondents

 

Residents Association

No Plots

Vacant Stands

Total for survey purposes

No of Responses

% of RA

% of Area

Sun Valley

158

28

130

33

25.4%

9.92%

BPOF

319

6

313

56

17.9%

23.87%

Blue Hills Country Estates *

91

5

86

3

3.5%

6.56%

Heathcliff *

22

22

1

4.5%

1.68%

KEROA & Kyalami Ridge

330

19

311

86

27.7%

23.72%

Carlswald

150

0

150

14

9.3%

11.44%

Saddlebrook *

116

2

114

7

6.1%

8.70%

Glenferness

207

22

185

42

22.7%

14.11%

1,393

82

1,311

242

Surveys completed (%)

18.46%

 

Interpretation of Table 1

  • There were a total of 242responses (after 2 sets of similar IP addresses and 3 sets of responses from the same physical address were filtered out). This represents 18.46% of the inhabited properties that make up the GEKCO (representation) area which statistically validates the survey as being representative of the area.
  • While there may be arguments in that only people interested in equine or open space issues would be likely respondents, we distributed the survey invitation through the Residents Associations and also provided a post box drop inviting each and every resident to take part in a general area ‘needs and wants’ survey so as to keep the survey invite as ‘unbiased’ as possible. Everyone with access to the internet had an invitation and opportunity to respond.
  • The % of RA column shows the percentage response or each designated RA area i.e. 17.9% of Beaulieu’s 313 residents responded to the survey.
  • The % of total area column shows the responses as a percentage per area of the total number of responses i.e. Beaulieu residents made up 23.87% of all responses.
  • The three ‘incorporated estates’ within the GEKCO area designated by the asterisk in the table above (Blue Hills Country Estates, Heathcliff & Saddlebrook) have a low representation due to standing electronic communication problems and also that the residents are already set in their interpretation as enclosed ‘laagers’ and ‘stand-alone’ systems.
  • Percentage response from the larger associations (Sun Valley, Beaulieu, Kyalami and Glenferness in numbers and area) is 18% or higher which is very representative of the open space and equine neighbourhoods.
  • Carlswald’s limited response is due to the survey owner’s late delivery of the survey to this area. The results have however been incorporated into the total results as being significant.
  • KEROA and Kyalami Ridge have had to be amalgamated for this purpose due to some confusion with regards the responses as to which suburb of Kyalami AH the respondents lived. (Cross checking against other address variables is possible but will take too much time and effort at this point in order to differentiate their responses)

 

Methodology

 

“SoGoSurvey” (http://www.sogosurvey.com/ ) was utilised to facilitate, compline and interpret the survey.

 

 Survey Title: Greater Kyalami Area Needs Analysis (Take 3)
 Start Date:17-Oct-12
 End Date:25-Oct-12
 Invitations Sent:25 (RA & Distribution ‘centres’)
 Delivered:24
 Bounced: 1
 Completed Responses:242
 Response Rate: Public Survey

 

Where possible, SoGo’s reports and graphic representation have been used. However, some resultant data was not conducive to this methodology and manual excel based manipulation has been utilised for interpretation. The base data is electronically saved and available to any person or organization that questions these results. Please note that all personal contact details that have been provided to authenticate validity to take part in the survey are private and confidential and are NOT available to 3rd parties.

 

Given that there was an 18.46% response, where required to extrapolate data to show total numbers as examples, we have semi-prudently utilised a multiple of 5 times (as opposed to 5.42 times which is statistically valid.)

 

Survey Results

1.     Question 1 collected and collated personal information such that duplicate inputs could not be allowed. The ‘SoGo’ system checked for duplicate IP addresses and I also cross checked against duplicate names, addresses and e-mail addresses

1.e. The question asked which electricity provider serviced the property: City Power or Eskom and the results showed that 83% of the area is serviced by ESKOM directly

 

(However – closer inspection of the base data suggests that some residents may be confused as there are singular reports of City Power service in various unrelated properties of Saddlebrook, Kyalami and Beaulieu and they may be tenants who do not know any better.)

2.     Do you own the property you reside on or are you a tenant? (Select one option)

 

Results show that 85.54% of respondents owned the properties. It is important to note that while some of the tenants were living in cottages on the properties, there were also tenants renting entire properties when looking at the address detail. Tenants were included as full representative respondents where owners had not responded for the same property.

Due to the time constraints and lack of budget, a full survey to include the needs and wants of other local residents; namely grooms and domestic workers etc has not been taken into account but they are represented in some questions that will follow so as to include their working livelihood and relevance in this area as answered by the employers.

3.     What is the total size of the property? (Select one option)

 

Results:

Of those 10 respondents that answered ‘Other’, they all have properties between 1.2 and 1.6ha – i.e. greater than 1ha.

Interesting to note is the use of sectional tile use in the ‘estates’ (<8500m²) and the relatively small usage of the minimum subdivision allowed under the current (accepted RSDF rules) of 1 Morgen.

A very rough calculation (sum of above responses divided by 242) shows the average size of respondent properties to be in the region of 19 000m² (just under 2ha)

4.     Do you believe that urban densification (develop more units per ha than current) will improve the value of your property and enhance your lifestyle?

 

Results:

90.5% of respondents believe that urban densification will NOT release material value or enhance their lifestyle. The corollary thereof is that by far the majority of residents extol the value of ‘open space’ over and above that of urban densification.

 

5.     If you had the absolute deciding choice on the matter and given that the current average property size over the entire Kyalami AH area is +/- 1.5ha (15 000m2), (average calculated from Q3 above looks closer to 19 000m²) what is the minimum sized subdivision you would like to see applied to the area for development purposes or to preserve the area as semi-rural?

 

            Results:

80.9% of the respondents would like to see the minimum subdivision size to be equal or greater than the current subdivision limit (general RSDF without sectional title abuse) of 1 Morgen

68.18% of respondents would like to see the minimum subdivision size restricted to 1ha (10 000m²) OR

Only 32% want to see greater subdivision of 1 Morgen or smaller

Again, this question solidifies the desire for or to preserve open space.

6.     From Q5 above, what is the maximum development density (residential dwellings/ha) you would like to see applied to the area? (Select one option)

 

            Results:

80.17% of respondents would like to see the urban densities restricted to the current RSDF specifications of 2 units per ha or less. (General consensus of units does not include staff quarters or stables and is considered to be a house and cottage or similar)

This result shows that higher urban densities are not generally desired

7.     The following question relates to agricultural land use – please just choose one main element.

Note: Livery, is to keep horse on the property (own or commercial), ‘spelling’ is to keep horses under medical or special care and ‘stud’ is to keep horses or animals for specialist breeding purposes

7.a. I utilize my land to produce for personal consumption:

            Results:

22.7% of respondents keep their own horses on their properties – this figure is contradicted later but as only one answer could be used, and equine choice may not have been the first choice.

36.78% produce vegetables for self-consumption

These are significant results but could have been asked more clearly.

 

7.b. I utilize my land to produce for sales to the public (semi commercial):

Results:

14.46% of respondent are commercially (make a living in one way or another) connected to the equine industry

7.44% of respondent are commercially (make a living in one way or another) connected to vegetable growing. This may include the many nurseries in the area as well.

The overall result is that the open space of the area is mainly for personal use.

7.c. I want to utilize my land to produce for commercial use to:

 

Results:

20.25% or respondents in the area want to make more of a ‘living’ out of the equine industry (from 12%)

16.5% would like to be involved in making a ‘living’ out of producing vegetables or plants over the 7.4% currently

There is intention to be more self-sustainable going forward.

Question 7 shows that there are a proportion of respondents that are a) in a position to be self-sustainable and b) would like to be more self-sustainable with regards both the equine and food production related sectors

8.     The following questions relate to municipal services:

8. a. Is the main access road to your property tarred?

 

Results:

62.4% of the respondents live on tarred roads.  However, as a percentage of the area this is misleading as the largest areas (Sun Valley, Bridle Park) and large portions of Kyalami A.H. are untarred.  A full analysis of kilometers of road surface would be required for an accurate depiction of the area.

8.b. Would you like your access road to be tarred?

 

Results:

From 8a, 55 out of the 91 (i.e. 60.43%) respondents whose roads are currently not tarred responded that they do NOT want their roads to be tarred in the future.

 

8.c. Do you have municipal water borne sewage?

 

Results:

Simple – 93.8% of local residents do not have water borne sewage and rely on septic tank systems. (However, upon further investigation it has been discovered that there are absolutely NO instances of water borne sewage and that the respondents may have thought that a flushing toilet was evident of ‘water borne seage’)

 

8.d. Do you have street lights?

 

Results:

97% of locals do NOT have street lights and where there are street lights, they were installed by the ‘estate’ and not by the City.

 

 

8.e. Do you want street lights?

 

Results:

The majority of locals do not want street lights (as it detracts from the rural aesthetic of the area)

 

8.f. If on a JRA dirt road, are these roads maintained adequately?

 

Results:

83% of those that live on dirt roads do not believe that they are maintained adequately by the JRA

 

8.g. If on a JRA tarred road, are these roads maintained adequately?

 

Results:

79.6% of those that live on tarred roads do not believe that they are maintained adequately by the JRA

8.h. Do you have a municipal water connection? (JHB City Water)

 

Results:

A surprising 10% of local residents do not have JHB City water connections.

8.i. Are your road verges maintained (cut and cleaned) adequately (at least twice per annum)?

 

Results:

57% of locals do not believe that their road verges are adequately maintained by the council.

 

8.j. Do you have a borehole on your property?

 

Results:

70.66% of locals have boreholes (From 8h, 10% rely on boreholes for all their water requirements)

 

8.k. Do you have adequate road storm water drainage?

 

Results:

53% of local residents do not believe that they have adequate storm water management along their roads.

 

8.l. Would you support a community wide recycling initiative?

 

Results:

96.3% of all residents would like to see more done to promote recycling.

 

8.m. Would you like to install energy or water saving devices in your home?

 

Results:

Similarly, 95% of locals would like to install energy saving devices in their homes.

9.     The following questions are related to Municipal rates classifications and valuations bearing in mind that that we do largely not receive the services or amenities (tarred roads, water borne sewage, street lights etc) that other “residential” classified areas receive and that we do have larger and mostly equestrian aligned properties

 

9.a Is your current municipal valuation overvaluing your property?

 

Results:

53.7% believe that the City is overvaluing their property. Some of the 22% of the residents that do not have a view on this are most likely to be the tenants (14%) who have not seen the valuations and some who are genuinely not aware of the value of their property

 

9.b Does this area require a new municipal classification that reflects the land use better

 

Results:

A strong 67% of local residents believe that this area should be classified under a separate classification to better reflect the special land use and open space requirements.

Again –the undecided or not sure answers can be ascribed to tenants.

 

9.c Should smaller “developed” properties within the area then be classified as residential?

 

Results:

The results to this question are unfortunately inconclusive due to the high ‘undecided’ response.

A true ethical response should reflect that if a property is not part of the open space, agricultural or equine nature of the area then it should be classified as residential because rates classifications must reflect land usage and if the property is predominantly a residential home then it should be rated as such.

10.  The following questions relate to cell phone masts

10.a Do you have a cell phone mast erected on your property

Result:

Only one respondent (0.41%) reported having a cell phone mast on their property

10.b Do you have a cell phone mast on an immediate adjoining property?

Result:

20 (8.26%) reported having cell phone masts on immediately adjoining properties

10.c Would you like to have a cell phone mast erected on your property?

Result:

7 (2.9%) reported that they would have cell phone masts erected on their property

10.d Do you believe Cell phone masts emit electro-magnetic fields that are detrimental to your health?

 

Results:

An overwhelming 72.7% of respondents believe that cell phone masts are potentially dangerous and detrimental to one’s health

 

10.e Should the ‘location’ of cell phone mast positions be better controlled?

 

Results:

An overwhelming 81% of respondents believe that cell phone mast positioning should be better controlled and co-ordinated.

11.  This question relates to public servitudes:

11.1.               160 (out of 242) respondents do not have servitudes on their properties

11.2.               32 have already given land to bridle trails (Beaulieu)

11.3.               8 have servitudes for driveways and access points

11.4.               22 have ESKOM servitudes across their properties

11.5.               12 have servitudes in favour of the K56 or PWV9

11.6.               13 are unsure as to whether they have servitudes across their properties (tenants)

11.7.               3 have water or sewage servitudes across their properties. (Carlswald)

 

12.  Do you or your family regularly participate in any of the following outdoor activities in the Kyalami area? (Multiple answers are possible)

 

To read this graph: 54.55% or 132 of the 242 respondents (or their families) are involved in equestrian activities.

Note: This response will not add up to 100% as multiple responses were allowed in order to reflect multiple family disciplines.

 

13.  The following set of questions relate to the horse industry: Do you keep horses:

 

Results:

Of the other (14 responses) only one referred to turning old paddocks into an indigenous forest and the rest referred to specialist breeding or spelling facilities. These 13 responses are also equine related.

NB – This takes the number of respondents who are in the equine industry to 131 or 54.13% of the area’s land use requirements are equine related.

 

14.  How many horses are stabled on your property?

14.1.               98 respondents answered that they kept horses on their property (40.5%)

14.2.               They kept a total of 567 horses (Average of 5.8 horses per property)

14.3.             Extrapolated (x5) to approximate the entire community we can believe that there are approximately 2 835 horses in the area. It must be noted that some of the larger stable yards(50 horses or larger) did not respond – ICB, Sun Valley Stables, Manor d’ Or, Langeni, Riba Stables, Ascot, Burlington and a few others.

 

15.  How many grooms are employed?

15.1.               A total of 227 grooms are employed at an average of one groom per 2.5 horses

15.2.               Extrapolated (x5) to approximate the entire community we can believe that there are approximately 1 135 grooms employed in the area

15.3.               From below, the average salary is R2 518. (While not requested in this survey, it is generally accepted to supply rations and board for grooms)

16.  Equine Costs – The 98 respondents who answered positively to keeping horses on their property were asked what their average costs per month were for each of the cost centres listed on the LHS

Results:

These results may be underestimating the actual costs because a reality check shows that the average feed bill calculates out to be approximately R 1 359 per horse when in reality it is closer to R 2 300 per horse (i.e.R78m per annum)

 

 

 

17.  Please rate the following set of spatial or environmental concepts according to your own ‘needs or wants’:

17.a  Retaining the “rural equine nature” of Kyalami

 

      Results:

199 or 82.23% of respondents agree that keeping the rural-equine sense of place for Kyalami is very important to them

 

17.b  Tarred Roads

 

      Results

            The inconsistency of answer here compares to that show in the cross question 8b.

 

17.c  Street lights

 

      Results

62% reported not wanting street lights in Q7c. This result is corroborated in that 64% say it is of little value to them in this question.

 

17.d  High density development

 

      Results

      90% of local residents believe that high density developments are of little value to them.

 

17.e  Conserving the local wetlands, fauna & flora

 

      Results

91.7% of residents believe that it is very important to conserve and preserve the local wetlands, fauna and flora

 

17.f  High speed broadband internet connectivity

 

      Results

            78.5% value better internet connectivity services in the area

 

17.g  Public sporting venues

 

     

Results

There is little value placed upon public sporting venues for the area

 

17.h  Local medical facilities

 

      Results

It appears that the community is not too perturbed that there are few medical facilities in the area

 

17.i  Public or state schools in the area

 

      Results

Given the relative affluence in the area and the ready availability of private schools in the area, the community appears to have little value for new state schools to be built in the area.

 

17.j  Water borne sewage

 

      Results

66% of the residents are content with the current septic tank systems

 

17.k  Better value for your rates paid to the City

 

      Results

The vast majority of the area believes that they are overpaying for non-existent services to the area.

 

17.l  Improved SAPS visibility

 

      Results

The vast majority of the area would like to see more SAPS action and visibility in the area in the pursuit of crime prevention

 

17.m  By-law enforcement with regards illegal land usage (no commercial rights)

 

      Results

86% of the area surveyed would like to see the City (JMPD) more active in controlling illegal land usage – especially with regards commercial activities

 

17.n  By-law enforcement with regards illegal signage

 

      Results

80% of residents believe that the JMPD should be more proactive in combatting illegal signage and public displays of “spam”

 

17.o  Stricter control over EIA’s (environmental impact assessments) and ROD (records of decision) for developers

 

      Results

94% of local residents believe that there should be stricter legislation and control over EIA’s and the policing of ROD’s in the area

 

17.p  Convenience or accessibility to the workplace

 

      Results

No definitive conclusions to be drawn

 

17.q   Country lifestyle

 

      Results

The overwhelming majority (97.11%) desire the open space and country lifestyle currently experienced.

 

17.s   Releasing value from their property

 

      Results

60% of respondent believe that they need to be able to retain and release value in their property and given the overwhelming desire for open space; it must be assumed that value is interpreted as open space protection.

 

17.t   Retaining open spaces (large properties) and equestrian values for future generations

 

      Results

95% of respondents actually believe it is important to be able to leave a legacy of open space and an equine affiliated land use for the area.

18.  The following questions relate to ‘perimeter road closures’, restricting access and general security issues around the entire Greater Kyalami area i.e. perimeter of the R562, R55, Main Road, Knopieslaagte Rd and R511.

18.a   Do you believe that closing perimeter roads and restricting access does or will improve security?

 

      Results

The majority or residents believe that effective and efficient perimeter security management is of great value

 

18.b   Do you think that it is a feasible project to restrict access around the entire Kyalami area?

 

      Results

The majority or residents believe that such a project is feasible despite the size of the area and logistical issues to be overcome

 

18.c   Do you think such a move (a or b above) will add value to your property?

 

      Results

The majority or residents believe that such a perimeter security project would add value to their properties

 

18.d   Would you consider taking down your own fences if the external perimeter was made secure?

 

      Results

The majority or residents would not be comfortable with taking down their own fences if a secure perimeter was put in place.

 

18.e   Would you contribute to a secure outer perimeter plan as well as your own standing security plans?

 

      Results

The majority or residents would contribute to a perimeter security project (as well as provide for their own RA and or personal security initiatives)

 

18.f   Would a single security vendor be a better option than the multi-vendor approach currently utilized?

 

      Results

As slim majority of respondents believe that a single security vendor for the entire area would be more favourable than the multi-vendor approach currently utilized.

 

18.g   Would you support & sponsor a local high speed wireless network for internal security connectivity?

 

      Results

The majority of residents would support a local wireless network to co-ordinate all security camera and security needs. (Note – the residents would use the same network and sponsor the security aspect thereof)

 

Note: the follow are crime prevention related questions

18.h   Do you think that the SAPS are effective at crime prevention in the area?

 

      Results

The majority of residents do not believe that the SAPS are effective at crime prevention in the Sector 4 area

18.i  Do you believe that the Sector 4 CPF are effective in crime prevention in the area?

 

      Results

While many respondents are undecided, the majority believe that the CPF unit is effective in preventing crime in the area.

 

18.j  Do you believe that your security provider (e.g. ADT or TRS) is effective in crime prevention ?

 

      Results

The majority believe that their security company actually does prevent crime in the area (rather that offer reactionary response services)

 

18.k  Would you be prepared to sacrifice land or money to improve the Kyalami bridle trail networks?

 

      Results

In true community spirit, the majority of respondents said that they will offer land or financial support towards improving bridle/walking trails through the greater Kyalami area.

19.  Do you support the idea of highways (K56, PWV5 & PWV9) through the area?

 

            Result

The vast majority of residents do NOT support the building of new roads or highways through the area

 

20.  The following questions relate to the proposed PWV 5 & 9 highways

20.a  Would you prefer funding is spent on upgrading existing roads before building new roads?

 

      Results

A huge majority (97.11%) believe that any funding for roads in the regions should be spent on upgrading the R55, R562 and other current road arterials before being spent on new disruptive highways.

 

20.b  In your opinion, will these highways ultimately destroy the rural equine nature of the area?

 

      Results

The vast majority of respondents believe that any new K-roads or highways WILL destroy the rural-equine way of life in greater Kyalami.

 

20.c  Do you actually care if the rural equine nature of the area is lost or destroyed?

 

      Results

Yes – they do care if it is to be destroyed or not!

 

20.d  Do you believe that it is worth conserving the wetlands and stream valleys in the area?

 

      Results

Even more residents support saving the wetlands and stream valleys of the area than the equine sector

 

. 20.e  Do you think that these proposed highways will add value to your property?

 

      Results

The vast majority do not believe that any K-Road or highway development will add value to their properties

21.  With regards to wetlands:

21.a Do you have a wetland, natural watercourse or groundwater spring situated on your property?

 

Results

A surprising 23% of respondents have a wetland or watercourse on their property

 

21.b Do you believe that the City and GEKCO should be protecting these resources more vigorously?

 

Results

An overwhelming majority believe that our wetlands should be protected more thoroughly and vigorously by both GEKCO and the City.

 

22.  Please rate the following scenarios of personal freedoms & rights versus those of the collective community or City based impositions. This is very subjective and its purpose is to ascertain relative values on public versus private objectives

22.a The personal rights to develop carry more weight than established RSDF based property size and density prescriptions (RSDF = regional spatial development framework based upon community inputs)

 

Conclusion: While not overly conclusive, the majority (48.76%) believe that communal rights override personal rights (22.73%) when it comes to land use rights issues

 

22.b I believe that I have more right to protect my investment in an established ‘agricultural holdings’ area over those that want to release value on their properties by increased densification development and rezoning the area as a result

 

Conclusion: This is the same question as in (a) above but asked differently which shows that where there is a common need or want, it carries more weight over an individual’s right to change community zoning laws etc.

 

22.c I believe that the City has the right to move the urban edge as it sees fit to meet social challenges without consulting the residents and owners of the area

 

Conclusion: This result shows that the respondents believe that community and individual rights weigh very strongly over those of the City

 

22.d I believe that a full referendum of the area should be required before it can be rezoned to higher density development (move the urban edge) in order to protect current individual’s rights

 

Conclusion: This response again shows that the respondents believe that the City needs to consult and reach consensus before summarily changing land use rights and other issues of importance to the ratepayer.

 

22.e I believe that a full referendum should be required before my property can be summarily reclassified from agricultural holdings to another.

 

Conclusion: From (d) above, the residents believe that any form of rates reclassification requires consultation and consensus – not summarily assigning new conditions by the City.

 

22.f  I believe that keeping horses for pleasure or sporting purposes constitutes the need for a specialist “agricultural holdings” zoning

 

Conclusion: Following from the above theme, the respondents believe that this area is unique and as such deserves a separate classification that supports its value for open spaces and also its contribution to the City’s sporting and ‘Green’ credibility.

 

22.g  I believe that developers that buy up ‘cheap’ agricultural land have an overriding right to get the City to support their efforts for higher density developments and move the urban edge accordingly.

 

Conclusion: From (a) & (b) above, individual rights should not be allowed to sway the City or Province to support land use and rezoning applications over the rights of the neighbours and their ‘sense of place’

 

23.  Please rank in order of importance what you believe to be the biggest threat to this community that makes you contemplate leaving

Responses

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Rank 6

Weighted Rank (Score)

City densification policy and the threat to my values on open spaces &/or the equine industry

77

55

36

27

20

23

1

(1025)

High municipal rates relative to services received

33

62

66

37

26

14

2

(949)

Security

64

30

30

37

37

40

3

(879)

Lack of say in the development policy (RSDF) of the area as I believe that this process is flawed or largely ignored by the City

36

48

45

43

28

38

4

(859)

Tired of subsidising ‘poor’ areas when our services are just as lacking

7

29

37

44

70

51

5

(658)

Lack of ‘normal’ City services

21

13

23

49

56

76

6

(618)

(Did not answer)

4

Total Responses

242

 

  • The results above show that the current “threat to lifestyle and sense of place” is the biggest reason that if allowed to continue, will force the respondents to look to move to ‘pastures greener’.
  • Security may not be as high on the list as expected as it reflects good security management is currently in place.
  • ‘Normal city services and amenities’ are not a high priority for local residents.

 

Any comment, request or response to this survey can be taken up with Andrew Dicks at andrew@ilizwe.co.za

 

Appendix A – Free Comments & Concerns

This is the response to the last question which allows the respondents to reflect on their own major concerns.

  1. Rates & Taxes. My property is largely overestimated regarding market value. No services for Residential A zoning! (We were Agricultural).
  2. Billing system CoJ is a disaster and nobody takes note of query
  3. I am abhorred by the apparent ease with which developers like Century buy up land and before anyone is aware of it, we have walled in security estates with all the attending infrastructures pushed in,
  4. The protection of our natural environment and the preservation of our way of life (a place of tranquillity on the urban edge where we’re able to pursue activities such as horse-riding, mountain biking)
  5. Instead of destroying this green lung, the City should look how to expand it – turn Leeukoop Prison grounds into an Enviro “NY central park” for outrides, walking, biking, hiking, picnics, lake, sport
  6. Crime – its pushing out the people who will fight for all the other important factors like land zoning classification, rates etc. Crime is killing what we have faster than anything else I believe.
  7. Need to prevent roads developments
  8. Need to prevent densification in any way
  9. Need to prevent development of open land into housing projects
  10. Closure of Bridle Pass to non-residents during rush-hour periods.
  11. While we do not keep horses or are involved in the Equine industry, we are a registered Kennel and Breeder of Alaskan malamutes Dogs. This is our primary reason for living in Kyalami, we need space.
  12. Beaulieu is not a residential area therefore residential municipal rates do not apply. A proper survey needs to be conducted. Findings published. Residents have been rail roaded unconstitutionally.
  13. Preventing the mega highways from carving up the area
  14. Wetlands and endangandered fauna and flora should enjoy attention. Environmental issues and wishes of residents must be adhered to.  Unrealistic valuations and high rates & no services by council
  15. Feedback and communication with residents should be more often and more informative.
  16. A market based evaluation of properties
  17. Poor municipal management.
  18. Preserving the wetlands for the bullfrogs, the general area for wildlife, birds and habitat.
  19. Preserving wetlands for Bullfrogs and general wildlife, birds and habitat.
  20. Preserving wetlands and habitats for the bullfrogs and wildlife and birds
  21. Influx of people with alternate objectives and perhaps security.
  22. I know the lack of proper telecommunications ie.Telkom lines,3G,All Cell phone signals,iBurst,ADSL etc.& untarred roads, drives any person who will be prepared to pay decent property prices, away.
  23. no to the proposed highway
  24. Keeping the country equine flavour of the area, getting a special rates classification and getting the City to deliver services
  25. Up grading of existing roads and regular maintenance . Most points have been covered .
  26. We choose to live here because we have horses, the land is not cheap and we get no service delivery at all from the council.  Our one tarred road was taken up last year and never replaced with anything
  27. We bought our property in 2010. The Estate Agent Mike from African Properties failed to tell us about the K56 and K58 proposed roads. We were only aware of the PWV9. I am disgraced.
  28. Community spirit. Working towards common goals of preserving wildlife, security and lifestyle.
  29. Phew, security or lack of, we have paid rates and taxes for how long and still have to have our cars and horse boxes wrecked on the dirt road and bribe JRA to have it graded!!
  30. Preservation of our wetlands and habitats for the conservation of Bullfrogs and birds and wildlife
  31. Just bought a land in Glenferness
  32. POLUTION OF WETLANDS BY INCONSIDERATE LAND OWNERS ALLOWING GREY WATTER FROM THERE SEPTIC TANKS TO FLOEW INTO WETLAND. BEING CHARGED FOR SEWAGE WHEN WE USE SEPTIC TANKS
  33. PRESERVING THE WETLANDS FOR THE BULLFROGS, THE GENERAL AREA FOR WILDLIFE, BIRDS AND HABITAT
  34. Better and faster (glass fibre( internet, as we have no Telkom’s lines anymore since January 2009!
  35. TO PRESERVE THE AREA FOR WILDLIFE, BIRDS AND HABITAT.
  36. Joburg Council rates and electricity and water accounts are a total mess.
  37. Rates & taxes & classifications
  38. Stop destroying the rural / country lifestyle. Protect the environment, Provide some value for our service fees
  39. Need 2all stand together 2fight City from riding roughshod over all of us. They treat us as white elite &that we have such deep pockets. Much more direct say over densification. MUST protect open space
  40. Noise pollution from illegally operating church and conference centre
  41. Stop subdividing land. Focus not just on horses but also allow other animals e.g. chickens. Do not want tar roads since it’s not maintained. Dirt road causes less damage than potholes+broken tar sides.
  42. The ridiculous rates. Our property value has doubled, as well as % increase on top of high property value. On top of this, refuse removal has increased and service is lacking all round.
  43. I think a fair balance between medium density & open equine properties can work. There are many that want to enjoy our quiet lifestyle but don’t want to own horses. Let them pay for the privilege.
  44. Rezoning and revaluing of  property in our area and lack of services
  45. Question 4 has 2 conflicting questions. Development will increase value but NOT enhance my lifestyle. Perimeter control will not improve security, but WILL improve lifestyle. All properties must pay.
  46. Security and maintaining the country feel
  47. Very important is the protection of the Wildlife and Wetlands in the area.  We humans destroy everything and we have very little left of nature.  We need to conserver for our children!!!
  48. Security and the lack of by law enforcement and road upkeep
  49. Would like to retain the agricultural character for the area and thereby support a “green belt” in Kyalami
  50. I do believe that the VERY busy rds. i.e. Walton/7th/H.Galuan small businesses can operate but within limits/specified framework. They form a buffer between the very busy roads & residential area.
  51. When we bought our land out here, it was to give our children the freedom of space and a country life we had as children. We have protected our environment on our property and live a green lifestyle.
  52. Over development and to high rates and valuation
  53. Resident inclusivity and communication. Timeous action and response where needed when requested.
  54. The residents within a specific area should have the first say in any changes made to that area, people move to a specific area for very specific reasons and those should be protected.
  55. The general area for wildlife, birds and habitat.