‘Morally Confused’ Cape Town Budget Adjustments Rejected

GOOD Speech delivered during the City of Cape Town Municipality Council Meeting by Chad Davids, GOOD City of Cape Town Councillor:

Speaker, before we even talk spreadsheets, let’s name the truth this budget is trying to hide.

This City is financially rich on paper, administratively broken, and morally confused in its priorities. We have money in the bank, but clinics are not built. We have rising tariffs but failing service delivery. We have a growing safety budget, but a growing crime rate. And we have communities like Atlantis being told their public assets must be sold, while R180 million is being found for a wall along the N2. This is not a budget problem. This is a governance failure.

Speaker, a major concern is the continued underspending on capital projects, despite the availability of funding. We are told budgets are “record-breaking”, yet clinics remain incomplete, fire stations are delayed, housing developments are stalled, roads are unfinished, and community facilities are deteriorating.

The reasons given are familiar. Procurement appeals, poor contractor performance, weak project management, outstanding invoices, and internal capacity failures.

Speaker, these are not isolated incidents. They are systemic failures.

This undermines the intent of Sections 19 and 21 of the MFMA, which require that once Council approves a capital budget, it must translate into timely and tangible service delivery. Repeated roll-overs and deferred projects show this administration is not suffering from bad luck, but rather, it is suffering from bad systems. Financial strength that cannot build houses or clinics is not a strength. It is administrative paralysis.

Speaker, at the same time, the City reports over-recovery in electricity, property rates, fines, and other user-based revenue. This is being presented as a financial success. Let’s be honest about what this actually means.

It means residents were overcharged. It means tariffs were misaligned with real household incomes. It means enforcement was intensified while unemployment is rising. It means poor households carried a disproportionate burden.

Financial surpluses achieved through over-billing cannot be viewed as success when they deepen inequality and hardship.

Speaker, you cannot brag about a surplus while people are forced to choose between food and electricity. That is not fiscal discipline. That is regressive revenue extraction.

Speaker, the deeper problem is not just over-recovery. It is the tariff-setting model itself.

This City continues to approve above-inflation electricity, water, and property rate increases, while fully aware that large segments of our population are unemployed, living on social grants, trapped in informal housing and already in arrears.

And then this same City acts surprised when debt levels explode. This is not a credit control problem. It is a policy failure. You cannot design tariffs that people objectively cannot afford and then criminalise them for falling behind. That violates the spirit of Sections 95 and 96 of the MFMA, which require municipalities to collect revenue fairly, equitably, and realistically.

This tariff regime is not revenue protection. It is state-engineered indebtedness. It pushes families deeper into arrears every year, then punishes them for being poor. That is not sustainability. That is a debt spiral created by bad governance.

Speaker, while communities are being told there is “no money” for services, this City is preparing to sell off public assets.

Speaker, I want to address the situation at the Atlantis Thusong Centre, as it clearly illustrates this governance failure. The City has indicated that the property is subject to subdivision and rezoning processes, with the intention of excluding the existing Luberon ECD facility and “regularising” its use. We are also told that the remainder of the property may be transferred to a “suitable owner” for social services, pending engagement with the National and Provincial Government, with no timelines provided.

Speaker, this raises serious governance concerns. The Thusong Centre was established as a public service hub, not as a speculative asset awaiting third-party decisions. Yet today, there is no confirmed future use, no clear timeline, no certainty for the community, and no Council-approved outcome before disposal pathways are explored. This level of uncertainty undermines public confidence, weakens service continuity, and risks the erosion of public infrastructure by default rather than by democratic decision. The Municipal Systems Act requires meaningful public participation and clarity of purpose when public assets are repurposed or transferred. Uncertainty is not a plan. Deferral is not consultation. And silence is not accountability.

Speaker, a government that sells clinics, halls and service centres while funding walls and surveillance toys has completely lost its moral compass.

Speaker, we are also told that operating under-expenditure reflects “efficiency”. But in reality, it reflects non-delivery. Vacancies remain unfilled. Maintenance is deferred. Programmes are slow walked. Service rollouts are delayed. So yes, the budget shows “savings”. But in communities, those “savings” mean no clinic staff. No road repairs. No housing completions. No visible municipal presence. This creates a dangerous disconnect between financial performance and lived reality. Financial indicators are now masking service delivery failure.

Speaker, I must inform you that there is also a serious lack of transparency. One example is the reference to “interest received, allocation to donors”. Who are these donors? What is the legal basis for allocating public-interest earnings to them? Was this explicitly approved by Council? Does it comply with grant conditions and MFMA rules? Public funds and interest earned on them must be managed transparently and lawfully!

The absence of clarity here weakens oversight and creates compliance risks. This Council cannot exercise its constitutional role if critical line items are left vague or unexplained.

Speaker, I now want to deal with the contradiction at the heart of this budget: Safety and Security. We are told this is one of the largest Safety budgets in the City’s history. We are told more money is being poured into technology, units, and enforcement. And yet, crime remains out of control. Gang violence remains entrenched. Cape Town still hosts some of the most dangerous precincts in South Africa. At the same time, this City repeatedly goes to the national government asking for devolution of policing powers.

Speaker, let’s call this what it is- it’s an admission of institutional failure.

If the City cannot deliver safety outcomes despite billions being poured into local policing structures, then throwing more money at the same strategy is not bold leadership, Speaker; it is wasteful persistence. And now, on top of that, we are told R180 million must be found for a wall along the N2. A wall that does not stop crime. A wall that does not create jobs. A wall that does not build communities. A wall that does not reduce gangsterism. Somehow, this City cannot find equivalent urgency or funding for housing, clinics, fire stations, road upgrades and, amongst others, youth development.

Speaker, when a government builds walls instead of building people, it has already surrendered to failure. You cannot simultaneously claim: “We are investing massively in safety” and “We need National Government to fix this for us.” That is a strategic contradiction. It means residents are paying twice: once through City safety budgets, and again through national taxes, for outcomes that still do not materialise.

This budget continues to divert massive resources into security theatre while root causes like poverty, unemployment, spatial exclusion and broken infrastructure are left structurally untouched.

Speaker, while this adjustments budget meets the timeline requirements of the MFMA, it is reactive, not corrective. The same failures appear every year: underspending, procurement delays, vacancy savings, rolled-over projects, widening service backlogs, and rising household debt.

Yet there is no serious intervention plan to fix: SCM dysfunction, contract management failures, or internal capacity constraints. This adjustment process is becoming a compliance ritual, but not a governance tool.

Speaker, this adjustment budget reflects a City that is financially strong on paper but failing to convert that position into equitable service delivery. Revenue over-recovery is burdening residents. Tariff policy is pushing families into deeper debt. Capital underspending is delaying essential services.

Speaker, Safety spending is not delivering safety. Transparency gaps are weakening oversight. Without decisive intervention, this adjustment process will continue to record failure instead of correcting it.

As the GOOD Party cannot support a budget that:  

• Extracts more from struggling residents.
• Designs tariffs people cannot afford.
• Delays infrastructure and housing.
• Masks non-delivery as “savings”.
• Sells community assets like the Thusong Centre. Builds walls instead of building people.
• Pours money into safety while admitting failure and avoiding structural reform.

We reject this adjustment budget in its current form. We call for a governance reset, not financial window dressing. Because Cape Town does not need better spreadsheets. It needs better delivery, better accountability, and better justice for its residents.

Thank you, Speaker.

GOOD Manifesto on Transport Infrastructure: Advocating for improvements in public transport systems.

Read More at the Source