Public Voices Ignored, Heritage Disregarded, Value for Money Unproven

GOOD Statement by Suzette Little, GOOD Deputy Secretary-General & City of Cape Town Councillor:

The City has pressed ahead with the sale of the Good Hope Centre while claiming the transaction represents value for money. That claim now demands far closer scrutiny.

The reported sale price of R135 million translates to an effective R129.3 million once the R4.7 million in recent upgrades, funded by the public, is taken into account. At the same time, provision has been made for a further R100 million in outer-year allocations linked to the site. On its face, this raises serious questions. How does disposing of a strategic inner-city asset at that level, after recent public investment and future budget commitments, amount to financial prudence?

But this is not only about numbers.

The Good Hope Centre is a recognised heritage structure and an architectural landmark. Its dome is part of the visual and cultural identity of Cape Town. During public engagement, residents and heritage advocates raised concerns about its status and called on the City to reconsider the disposal in light of its historic and civic significance. Those calls appear to have been brushed aside.

Heritage status is not decorative. It carries obligations. It requires careful assessment, consultation, and protection. When a public asset of this nature is sold without fully accounting for its cultural value and preservation responsibilities, the City risks treating history as an inconvenience rather than a public trust.

Equally troubling is the broader social context. More than 400,000 residents remain on the housing waiting list, many for decades. Public submissions urged the City to reconsider whether well-located land and facilities such as this should be leveraged to address spatial inequality, affordable housing, community facilities, and trading opportunities. Those concerns were clear. They were documented. They were repeated.

Yet the City proceeded.

Value for money cannot be reduced to a line item on a spreadsheet. It must consider long-term public benefit, opportunity cost, and social impact. In a city grappling with land scarcity, selling a centrally located public asset without demonstrating why alternative public uses were not viable does not reflect careful stewardship. It reflects haste.

The City must now answer:

• Was a full heritage impact assessment undertaken and made public prior to the sale?
• How were public objections weighed in the final decision?
• Why were calls to pause and reconsider dismissed?
• How does this transaction advance the interests of the 400,000 residents waiting for access to land and housing opportunities?

The pattern is what concerns residents most. Public submissions are invited, objections are lodged, heritage concerns are raised, and then the decision proceeds unchanged. Consultation becomes procedural rather than meaningful.

Cape Town’s public assets belong to its people. They are not surplus inventory to be disposed of while communities wait for land, facilities, and dignity. If the City is confident that this sale meets the constitutional standards of transparency, accountability, and cost-effectiveness, it should release every valuation report, every feasibility study, and every record showing how public input shaped the outcome.

Until then, the claim of value for money remains unproven.

This sale is more than a transaction. It is a measure of whether public trust still carries weight in this administration. Right now, many residents believe it does not.

It’s a community asset and iconic building at the heart of massive development pressure. Public assets belong to the people of Cape Town and Geordin Hill-Lewis must decide if he’s a public servant or a property trader. If he wants to be a property trader he must trade with his own properties and not the peoples’ properties.

R135 million is a bargain and needs an investigation.

GOOD Public Safety: GOOD prioritizes public safety and effective crime prevention strategies.

Read More at the Source