Senior legal advisers this week said the Green Point ratepayers’ association bid to stop construction of the controversial R3,7-billion 68Â 000-seater Green Point stadium is based on strong arguments and could succeed, in part because the city has failed to submit several independent reports to the public for evaluation.
The Green Point Common Association (GPCA) asked a group of senior advocates to look into the merits of their case should they decide to take the city council to court in order to stop the building of the stadium. In a 48-page legal opinion they were advised that they have a fighting chance. ‘If you have a scale with a dead loser on the one side and an unambiguous clear victor on the other, the GPCA’s case is over the 50% mark. It’s a persuasive case, but it’s not a sure winner. It’s definitely strong enough to go to court,†the GPCA’s chairperson, David Polovin, said this week.
Polovin and the GPCA, a volunteer ratepayers’ association, have been at loggerheads with the city council for almost two years now in order to stop construction of the stadium in Green Point.
A senior 2010 official in the office of Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool said this week that if the GPCA decides to go to court ‘Cape Town will have to kiss hosting a semi-final game goodbye — We will simply not have enough time to fight the case and then start building afterwards. We are now in the do-or-die phase. Construction of the Green Point stadium has to begin right now. Even if the GPCA lose their court case, the time delay will set us back so much that it will be impossible to complete the stadium in time for a semi to be hosted in Cape Town,†said the official, who preferred to remain anonymous.
Polovin said the GPCA will not litigate purely as a delaying tactic. ‘We will not bring a dilatory action against the city — we’re sure that the courts will fast-track any case brought against the city concerning the stadium in any case,†Polovin said.
A member of Polovin’s committee said this week that the GPCA was divided on whether to proceed with legal action. ‘The committee is split around the issue of litigation — the public will have to decide. We are not against the 2010 Soccer World Cup — We are against this very expensive stadium which South Africa doesn’t need, which Cape Town doesn’t need, which we can’t afford and which will not benefit the majority of Capetonians,†a member of Polovin’s committee said.
The stadium’s estimated cost of R3,7-billion is 54% more than the city council’s original budget. For every month that tenders aren’t awarded to start building, the cost of the stadium increases by R2-million.
The Mail & Guardian has learned that one of the ‘fatal flaws†which may bolster the GPCA’s legal chances was the city’s decision to withhold the two independent reports evaluating all the sites identified for possible development of a stadium for the 2010 event. These reports, which are in the possession of the M&G, should have been available to the public as part of the participatory discussion processes.
‘The city have been saying all along that Green Point is the best and only option for a stadium. We have been asking the city how they reached this decision. Where are the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] and economic studies supporting this view? The problem is that the public participation process was never done properly. The public was excluded and couldn’t even see the commissioned reports. The reports don’t find that Green Point is better than the others. This was a fatal flaw the city made,†said a member of the GPCA who did not want to be named.
Spokesperson for the 2010 World Cup Project Team at the city council, Pieter Cronje, said he is confident that the EIA process was not flawed. ‘We didn’t take legal short-cuts and we’ve complied with legal requirements. EIA regulations stipulate that only alternatives which are feasible and reasonable have to be subjected to the EIA scrutiny and public participation processes.â€
The reports and their findings
Both reports commissioned by the city asked for the assessment of all five potential 2010 stadium sites — Culemborg, Newlands, Green Point, Wingfield and Athlone.
The concluding remarks of the first report, prepared by Bayette Development Consulting, rank Newlands stadium as the cheapest, but say that its developmental impact is low. Athlone stadium also ranks well on cost and does very well on developmental impact.
The report says that the Green Point site is expensive and has a low developmental impact and it was only rated because of the potential private sponsorships which could help with financing.
The second report, from iKapa Enviroplan, found that the Culemborg site rated highest because of its proximity to tourist facilities, its ability to showcase Cape Town and its accessibility by public transport.
Newlands was identified as the next best alternative to Culemborg — it was also identified as the least costly option to the city — while Green Point ranked third, its main disadvantage being the costly infrastructure works that would be required to make it more accessible to the public.
The Athlone site was ranked last because of its inability to accommodate a 68Â 000-seat stadium.
The city then commissioned a third study, done by Cape Town’s executive director for service delivery integration, Mike Marsden, which found that Green Point is the only feasible venue for a 68Â 000 semifinal given the time constraints. This report suggested Newlands as a fallback option.