Levy is punitive

THE City of Cape Town or the DA cannot be held responsible for below-average rainfall over the past few years. But they can be for turning a deaf ear to the many timely warnings, and for their tardy response to a problem that anyone with a brain could see coming.

We expected more from the purportedly best-run city in the country.

We recently received a communication from the City of Cape Town informing us of a pending special drought charge, claiming the levy “is not punitive”.

I have no issue with the necessity to generate more revenue to fund interventions to increase capacity from alternative water sources, and to make up for lost revenue due to a halving in water usage in the city.

What I do take issue with is the method proposed to raise the revenues.

Like many in the city, we have reduced our water consumption – we use an average of 3 000 litres a month and have installed 9 000l of tank capacity, a pool cover, and pool backwash tank at a cost of about R25 000, among other measures. Having done this, I consider the proposed levy to be punitive to those consumers doing their bit.

COCT must be careful not to fly in the face of public opinion. Many feel that the new Cape Town logo was a total waste of money. The old logo was simple, and instantly recognisable, so why the need to change it?

Despite a public outcry, COCT went ahead anyway. We only have to look at the e-toll debacle. If people feel something is grossly unfair, they feel justified in refusing to pay, and even law-abiding citizens may contemplate breaking the law.

Surely a more equitable alternative to raise revenue is to increase the cost of water, so that those who use less will be rewarded accordingly and those who don’t bother will pay more. Either way, the necessary revenues will still be collected and everyone will have an added incentive to use less water. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Gavin Hillyard Somerset West