Breaking the echo chamber in the city bowl and beyond
FREE COPY
NOVEMBER 27 - DECEMBER 16, 2019
Dedicated to fairness, accuracy, editorial integrity, and the use of the Oxford comma, Mother City News strives to be a newspaper you’ll enjoy reading. Page 4 Company’s Garden Restaurant: Time the great leveller
Page 4 Sauvignon Blanc: The Chameleon Grape
Page 7 From plastic bottle… to plastic bottle
Sold down the river
Province and City push for River Club development on sacred land
Pave paradise… Khoi Khoin representative Tauriq Jenkins surveys the site where a massive commercial, residential, and retail development comprising buildings up to ten-storeys high, is proposed on the River Club site in Observatory. The site is ground zero for the first displacement of indigenous people by South Africa’s waves of colonisers. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks/GroundUp
Steve Kretzmann
I
t was apparent during the heritage appeal tribunal hearing dealing with a proposed massive development at the River Club in Observatory, that the City and the Provincial governments are being led by the private developer. Commercial interests are calling the shots,
rather than fitting into existing long-term frameworks, and the actions of provincial and local authorities over the last four years reveal they have been trying to change their own development frameworks so that the developers can pour concrete. Appellant number one in the ongoing appeal against an existing two-year heritage protection order invoked to provide Heritage
we like what we write
thecritter.co.za
Western Cape the opportunity to investigate formal protection for the land under threat, is the developers Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust. Appellants two to four are the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP), provincial Department of Transport and Public Works, and the City of Cape Town. However, their reasons for appealing the
provisional protection remained unheard at the tribunal hearing on 21 November, because the day was spent hearing their arguments for a postponement of the hearing of their appeal.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2