Amazon could pull the plug on new SA headquarters

Nerfherder said:
There are actual EIA that say why its a bad idea. If you live in the area then its obvious.

Consider even after they reclaimed the land back in the 30's they did not develop it. Its been vacant for a good reason and got little to do with the history of the area.
Click to expand...

Then show me the way so that I can read up on it.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Then show me the way so that I can read up on it.
Click to expand...
This article has links to all the EIA's but either the site is down or links incorrect:
www.dailymaverick.co.za

Cape Town River Club: It’s best to trust the experts on the development's impact on kingfishers and biodiversity

The developers of the River Club in Cape Town have objected to a Daily Maverick article which claimed that the development was a potential ‘biodiversity bomb’ that posed a ‘threat to a variety of bird…
www.dailymaverick.co.za www.dailymaverick.co.za

Read this though... covers most of the reasons why this was a terrible idea.

Before the flood: What’s really going on at the River Club, and why it’s in the wrong place - Observatory Civic Association

While Cape Town competes for global investment, and sustainable development is needed to drive inclusive economic growth and social and spatial transformation, the controversial River Club mixed-use development is in the wrong place. Here’s why. The controversy around the recently approved River...
obs.org.za obs.org.za

Olver writes that “the consultant initially hired by the City came under significant pressure — from both the City and provincial authorities”, and that there was pressure for the consultant “to amend their technical reports, which advised against the (River Club) project as it was conceived, on the grounds that it was located on a floodplain, which also happened to be of great historical significance”.
Click to expand...
He continues: “When they refused, their contracts were not renewed and the plan was put on hold.” A new consulting company was then appointed and developed a revised draft local spatial development framework, which appears to post-rationalise and accommodate the River Club development within the Two Rivers Urban Park. There have also been concerns raised about the price and manner in which Transnet sold the River Club into private hands and then on to the current developer.

Environmental authorisation for the development was granted by DEA&DP on 20 August 2020. However, 40 appeals were lodged, including by the South African Astronomical Observatory, the city’s Environmental Management Department and Heritage Western Cape, the latter two on the grounds that the decision violated provisions of the National Heritage Resources Act and the National Environmental Management Act.
Click to expand...


That the long and the short of it. Don't complain about the ANC corruption and then say this is OK.
 
Nerfherder said:
This article has links to all the EIA's but either the site is down or links incorrect:
www.dailymaverick.co.za

Cape Town River Club: It’s best to trust the experts on the development's impact on kingfishers and biodiversity

The developers of the River Club in Cape Town have objected to a Daily Maverick article which claimed that the development was a potential ‘biodiversity bomb’ that posed a ‘threat to a variety of bird…
www.dailymaverick.co.za www.dailymaverick.co.za

Read this though... covers most of the reasons why this was a terrible idea.

Before the flood: What’s really going on at the River Club, and why it’s in the wrong place - Observatory Civic Association

While Cape Town competes for global investment, and sustainable development is needed to drive inclusive economic growth and social and spatial transformation, the controversial River Club mixed-use development is in the wrong place. Here’s why. The controversy around the recently approved River...
obs.org.za obs.org.za





That the long and the short of it. Don't complain about the ANC corruption and then say this is OK.
Click to expand...

From the first article you posted,

Trust the experts

Over the course of the pandemic, it has become somewhat of a public mantra that we should “trust the experts” and “trust the science”. This does not only apply to epidemiology and virology – it applies to the environment and biodiversity, too.

It is unfortunate that a small but vocal group of people who are unhappy that their opinions were validly dismissed by the competent authorities during the development approval process are trying to discredit the legal process that culminated in the approval of the River Club project and are hiding behind bad science to do so.

It is also unfortunate that they are now seeking to misinform the public on the basis of these grievances in articles published on public platforms.

The expert reports submitted as part of the River Club’s environmental impact assessment are publicly available here. DM
Click to expand...
 
I just swept through some of the other articles and looks like all the links are dead. None of the EIA's are available online anymore.
 
While EI possibly played a role earlier on, the current situation is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt at what could be a rather big payday for some.

The question to be answered here is - what is the ideal outcome the GKKTC (or those who helped them get to this point) want?
 
Nerfherder said:
You just asked for links to the EIA, yes the article is pro the development.

You asked why it was controversial - There are two articles with opposing views, indicating some controversy.
Click to expand...

I am sure that there are many and a variety of opposing views on this development, irrespective of whether one view was an accredited survey. At the end of the day, the ecological aspect will play second fiddle to the heritage aspect.
 
Kola-CT said:
While EI possibly played a role earlier on, the current situation is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt at what could be a rather big payday for some.
Click to expand...
Ya, the problem is that they joined causes with the Khoisan bunch hoping it would bolster it but in the end made it weaker.
When one of the groups "sold them down the river" by taking a kickback.

What a circus.

Like a said earlier - was a hard lesson to learn.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
I am sure that there are many and a variety of opposing views on this development, irrespective of whether one view was an accredited survey. At the end of the day, the ecological aspect will play second fiddle to the heritage aspect.
Click to expand...
yes and that is unfortunate.

interesting to me is that no one has ever heard of these groups using the site for any kind of heritage activity (like they imply) but there are several groups of Shembe that use the site for religious ceremonies every week.
Funny how they haven't had a say in this at all and happily carry on with their business in among the construction now.
 
LazyLion said:
To indicate that it's sacred to them.
Click to expand...
Makes more sense that sacred land would be untarnished ? Its the Khoisan not the Romans

To me, if someone dug a hole and found beads, bones and some arrows then that would be enough to justify this mess.
To date nothing like this has happened - as far as I know.
 
At the very least they should have a historical marker or keep out sign or something.
But the fact that there was absolutely nothing there weakens their claim significantly.
 
If it was me in charge I would have told the a-holes to get stuffed long ago and moved my building somewhere else
 
dualmeister said:
Was looking at the construction site yesterday and wondering about this. The land has already been built on. The canal is dredged and they have started the bridge.

Will Amazon "deconstruct" what has been done so far?
Click to expand...
Leave for the anc cadres to handle.....they are the experts at destruction and decolonisation.
 
Pull the plug and say Fk it...
You guys see this on Carte Blanche...Pointless doing anything here anymore...Everyone wants a piece of pap pie.,...

 
  • Angry
Reactions: J&B
Nerfherder said:
and now we are stuck with a giant unfinished building.... and a river that is even more wrecked.
Click to expand...
The developer took a calculated risk by moving on site. They knew full well that a review application will be brought. Fact of the matter is the site is sensitive environmentally and has heritage significance. I will rather not speak about certain things on a public platform but as a hint go back a number of years and look at the disposal of this once publicly owner property. All is not what it seems.
 
Maybe they can move to Rondebosch Common has far more space it is only being used to run on or around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X