There’s a war going on out there. In addition to the assaults on the environment and heritage, there’s also a propaganda war. And truth is the main casualty. While the earthmoving equipment is busy destroying the integrity of the Riverine Valley, the developers are desperately seeking to refashion the public narrative because the public is not buying their arguments. In a series of articles, the developer’s spokespersons have attacked opponents of the development, claiming without any credible evidence that we are misinforming the public – a claim we debunked in Business Live on 20 July 2021 and in the Daily Maverick on 25 August 2021 with a clear set of arguments based on publicly verifiable sources.

However, on Monday, James Tannenberger, Zenprop director and spokesperson for the LLPT, continued his accusations of defamation in a 12-page letter warning of legal action if we continued “… with the publication of these false statements regarding the LLPT.” However, we are puzzled because the letter neither includes any evidence of defamation on our part nor shows that we have failed to provide factual evidence to support our arguments.

In fact, it is Tannenberger who makes claims that are not supported by the evidence. Here are some examples:

1.      “It is not true that the site has been nominated for provincial and national heritage status.” It is hard to credit how such a statement can be made in good faith. In February 2020, the LLPT were copied on the nomination of the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) for Provincial Heritage Status as is required by the National Heritage Resources Act. They even commented on it in the Press at the time and referred to it as a “private nomination.” They also were invited by Heritage Western Cape (HWC) to attend their Council meeting in July 2021 which was to discuss the nomination. It wasn’t a meeting to discuss whether to nominate the TRUP – it was a meeting to discuss the nomination. HWC decided the nomination should go to the South African Resources Agency (SAHRA) which SAHRA has confirmed (see image above). All of this must be known to Tannenberger. Yet he disputes there even was a nomination.

2.      “Objectors also claim the River Club property is viewed as sacred land by the First Nations, so the redevelopment will destroy their heritage. Again, the exact opposite is true.”  Which “opposite” is Tannenberger referring to? The land is recognised as sacred not only by First Nation Indigenous Knowledge holders but by HWC who stated in their Final Comments of February 2020 that “… it is a site which is recognized as a sacred place. The open, largely undeveloped floodplain is a tangible reminder of intangible heritage.” Even Cape Town’s former Mayor, Dan Plato, who opposes our interdict, acknowledged the site as sacred in his affidavit.

The Heritage Appeal Tribunal considering the LLPT’s appeal against provisional heritage protection noted in April 2020 that “The fact that the area and resource has high heritage value and cultural significance is not disputed by any of the parties.” Since the LLPT was a party at the proceeding of the Tribunal and did not dispute the high heritage value and cultural significance of the land then, it is Mr Tannenberger who must explain why it is not sacred in 2021.

3.      “While objectors like to create the impression that the River Club property is an ecologically sensitive wetland, this is completely false.” Again, Tannenberger is incorrect. The site lies at the confluence of two rivers and is regarded as ecologically sensitive by the City of Cape Town Environmental Management Department (EMD). In its appeal against the Environmental Authorisation, EMD emphasised “… the ecological importance and sensitivity of the watercourses and wetlands of the River Club.” The 2015 ACO report noted that the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers has special significance as it is “… possibly the last untransformed wetland in the area.” The River Club is therefore definitely located in the TRUP’s sensitive wetland area.

4.      Tannenberger says we are misinforming the public that the River Club is at the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers. He says that “The River Club is simply, and verifiably, not at the confluence of the two rivers.” This is a most bizarre claim, which we can only assume is intended to help underplay the heritage significance of the site. While property owned by the LLPT may not currently abut the entry of the original remnant portion of the Liesbeek into the Black River, it certainly does abut the point at which the canalized Liesbeek River enters the Black River.
Moreover, the project they are proposing lies firmly at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers. It is stated clearly as such in the developers’ own Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) which describes the site as follows: “The River Club site, although at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers, borders the Liesbeek River…”. It goes on to propose “… restoration of the Liesbeek riverine corridor … with pedestrian access to the wetlands and confluence.” How else can their proposal include a commemorative area with pedestrian access “… at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers” if the project does not involve the confluence?  In fact, the HIA mentions the word “confluence” on 74 occasions. The claim that the River Club is not at the confluence of the two rivers is simply absurd.

5.      Tannenberger claims we are misleading the public over the destruction of open space because “Over 60% of the  re-development will also be retained as open space that will be accessible to the public.” However, the City’s EMD showed that more realistically one-third of the River Club’s property will be open space; and that it will not be good quality open space. The EMD further noted that the claim that “… approximately 15.6Ha of open space will be provided in a number of open space areas throughout the site” is “… inaccurate because nothing new will be provided in these areas outside the River Club site on City land. These areas already constitute publicly owned open space. Accordingly, there will be a net loss of open space across the site.”

6.      Tannenberger asserts that “News stories about the redevelopment have primarily relied on fabrications and falsehoods that are being spread by a small group who are opposed to the redevelopment.” The developers are desperate to create a myth that this is not a widely supported campaign. Opponents to the development include 57 857 people who have signed this petition opposing the development.

There are letters of support from more than 20 academics and organisations on our Liesbeek Action Campaign website, including environmental NGOs, faith-based networks and human rights bodies. There are multiple Khoi groups opposing the development including 11 traditional councils and further Khoi revivalist entities, all listed in the affidavit of the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Traditional Indigenous Council High Commissioner, Tauriq Jenkins. Moreover, more than 60 First Nation entities, civic associations and NGOs supported the application to grade the Two Rivers Urban Park, including the River Club, for provincial heritage status.

No matter how often the LLPT and its supporters make the false claim that we are “a small group” opposing redevelopment, it is an indisputable fact that we constitute a very large group of diverse individuals and organisations who oppose redevelopment of the River Club.

The plain facts are: (1) The development failed to meet the requirement for approval in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act; (2) Heritage Western Cape rejected the development proposal; (3) the City of Cape Town’s environmental management authorities noted 13 grounds for appealing the environmental authorisation, including flooding concerns, biodiversity risk and conflict with climate change policies; and (4) independent planners note that there is no logical planning rationale to locate this development on a coast-to-coast green strip.

We are going to court on 19, 20, 21 January 2022 to challenge the rezoning and environmental authorisation decisions for the redevelopment. We believe the High Court judge will consider our arguments rational based on the evidence. The efforts of the LLPT to intimidate us with threats of court action in a matter of public interest will not stop us. We are not surprised they are using these tactics to bully us in the weeks leading up to the interdict. We have previously been subjected to threats of legal action, defamatory anonymous emails, intimidation and harassment. This is just more of the same.

We need your financial support to pursue this court challenge. Please consider assisting us with the legal fees. You can contribute at our fundraising site.

You can also visit our website and follow the Liesbeek Action Campaign on twitter: @LiesbeekAction.

Now is the time to Make the Liesbeek Matter!