Rates: BCM, know the law

The headline “250% rates hike sparks battle with BCM” (DD, October 8) refers. We just need to indicate to BCM spokesperson Sam Ngwenya – who advised the Buffalo City Property Owners’ Forum (BCPOF) to “participate in the institutional IDP and budget processes ... rather than seeking private meetings” – that according to the Municipal Systems Act, the duties of a municipal council, in terms of section 4(2), are to “encourage the involvement of the local community”.

In terms of section 5(1) of the same act, the local community has the right to submit written or oral communications (a meeting) and what’s more, has a right to a “prompt response”.

The BCPOF have a right to meet with BCM to discuss the valuation process and the rates hike (and it cannot be linked to whether they have attended meetings of the IDP/Budget process or not).

The Buffalo City Ratepayers Forum are in total support of the BCPOF. We submitted a written complaint to the municipal manager on April 11 that the valuation process was indeed fundamentally flawed. As we have not received a response from BCM, we submitted another letter on August 17 requesting that our letter of April 11 be answered.

To date we have not received a response to either letter. How can this issue be resolved?

In terms of section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, any person may institute proceedings in court to judicially review an administrative action (such as a valuation or a rates hike) if they deem the action to be procedurally unfair or if they deem that it was influenced by an error in law.

However, in a case where an administrative action materially affects the rights of the public (like the BCPOF) an administrator (like a municipal manager) can hold a public inquiry or follow a notice-and-comment procedure to create an avenue to resolve the issue amicably. What will the response of the council and the municipal manager be?

– Christo Theart, Chairperson of the Buffalo City Ratepayers Forum