Letter to the Editor: Completion of cliff path a worthy cause

By Maarten Wessels, Eastcliff

‘Tired of Hypocrisy’ asked for my comment in his/her letter of 24 March (Let’s Talk about Cliff Path extension). The author raises questions around property rights and funding. Both issues are irrelevant to the project and appear purposefully designed to cause confusion.

Firstly, the 13 erven situated along this 850m stretch of coastline all stretch down only to the high-water mark. The cliff path connection is proposed to take place below the high-water mark, in other words on public land. My understanding is that an independent, professional environmental impact assessment (EIA) is in process, as well as other steps required by the relevant authorities to assess the feasibility of the project.

The positioning of the path means no property owner’s legal rights will be infringed. It may be true that these properties have to date enjoyed a virtually “private” seashore by default, but due to poor access and not because they ever owned or had any private right public land below the high-water mark. The difficult terrain conveniently keeps out all but the most able-bodied visitors.

So to answer the question posed by ‘Tired of Hypocrisy’: I have no idea how many of these property owners support the connection of the cliff path on public land adjacent to their properties. I expect that some would prefer the status quo of “private” access. However, seeing as their legal property rights, inherited or not, are unaffected by a path outside their erf boundaries, their vote carries no more or less weight than every other resident of Hermanus – or indeed, every member of the South African public. I certainly have no say over who walks on the pavement outside my house, or even that there is a pavement, and neither can these property owners claim special rights outside of their erf boundaries.

Click on the newspaper below to read more (see page 6).