Gambling bosses slam bill for Cape Town Casino

Gambling bosses slam bill that would see another casino in Cape Town

13 JULY 2018, 09:24AM / JASON FELIX [IOL]

Casino bosses have slammed the Western Cape government’s proposed legislation that allows for the relocation of casinos, saying if implemented it could lead to a massive decline in gambling revenue, overall profits and a loss of jobs.

The Draft Western Cape Nineteenth Gambling and Racing Amendment Bill, 2018, seeks to amend the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Act, 1996 (Act 4 of 1996). The new legislation would permit the moving of existing casinos to other areas. Casinos were established in five of the province’s district municipal regions, and owners were each granted a licence to operate a casino exclusively for a 10-year period in a designated area. The exclusivity periods have now expired.

There are now proposals to make casino licences available in the City’s eastern region (Somerset West, Strand) and in the Table Bay and Tygerberg area.

Anthony Leeming, chief executive of Sun International, said relocation by competitors would have a negative impact on GrandWest Casino. If the bill was passed into law “any of the four licensed outlying casinos will be allowed to apply to the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board for amendment of their licenses”.

“The amendment, if granted, will permit the respective casino operator to relocate their licensed operations from their existing locations in the outlying areas to the newly established Table Bay and eastern region.” He said GrandWest Casino, the metro licence holder, could see a decline of 24% of gross gambling revenue. “The headcount will likely decline by 15 to 20%.

“The majority of job losses will be from the casino, but a drop in footfall will result in additional and similar job losses in the supporting… operations at GrandWest, as many of these businesses are entirely dependent on footfall generated by the casino.” The closure of one or two of the outlying casinos would lead to retrenchments and hit local economies hard.

“If Worcester is to close, 92 employees are forecast to lose their jobs alongside a reduction of R9 million in supplier spend.” In terms of the bill, “economic opportunity fees” would accrue to the holder of a casino operator licence as a direct result of a casino relocation.

Jacques Booysen, Tsogo Sun chief executive, said: “We have seen the draft legislation and will submit our comments in terms of the process, with comments due by July 31. We are supportive of the possibility of relocating outlying casinos into the metropole as long as this is done in a manner that makes commercial sense for us.”

Western Cape Finance MEC Ivan Meyer said the bill had been proposed for several reasons, but referred the Cape Argus to his office. Denis Joseph, chairperson of the legislature’s finance committee, said the bill was yet to be tabled before the committee.

New casino on the cards for Cape Town?

Could a new casino be on the cards for Cape Town?

[CapeTalk 18 July 2018 9:43 AM]

Leisure group, Tsogo Sun has applied to the City of Cape Town to allow for a second casino in Cape Town by “rezoning” a location in Somerset West.

But not everyone has welcomed the idea.

Anthony Leeming, CEO at competitor Sun International Group, explains why it won’t be a good idea to have a second casino in Cape Town.

The ability for Tsogo to relocate two licenses as opposed to one Sun International and the ability to push for one very close to Grand West is far wider than we have anticipated, therefore the impact and the benefits aren’t what was foreseen.

As Grand West we dont believe relocation is necessary. We do have a situation where Tsogo was pushing to relocate and we were trying to find some sort of compromise.

From our perspective, the first prize would be not to relocate and we believe that would be in the best interest of Cape Town.

Leeming argues that having another casino in the metropole, where Sun International’s GrandWest casino has enjoyed exclusivity will not make a viable business sense and will not be good for the economy. He says there has to be a balance.

You have to make sure that the balance is right, the balance will obviously allow the stimulation of economic activity, but with that the question is – will it stimulate more or is it just a displacement.

To hear the rest of the interview with Sun International’s Anthony Leeming, click here

Road traffic offences amendment bill could cost motorists their licenses

Once the bill is passed, motorists that continue to break the laws will lose their driving licences through suspensions and cancellations of their driver’s licenses.

CNS News 15.2.2018 12:05 pm

A public hearing on the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Amendment Bill was held last Friday at Kanyamazane Community Hall in Mpumalanga, Mpumalanga News reports.

The amendments pave the way for the adoption of a driver point’s demerit system. Have your say here.

Once the bill is passed, motorists that continue to break the laws will lose their driving licences through suspensions and cancellations of their driver’s licenses.

READ MORE: Tshwane, Joburg consider Aarto withdrawal – Msimanga

All drivers will start with zero points and the maximum permissible number of points is twelve.

A person is allowed to drive until they have twelve points. Every point exceeding the limit results in a three-month suspension of the licence.
Points are allocated to drivers and cars based on infringements and demerit points will be deducted at a rate of one point every three months provided no points have been incurred over that period.

A license is cancelled when it is suspended for the third time. The Bill was referred to the Committee on November 30, 2015 (ATC No. 161-2015), the Committee held public hearings and considered proposed amendments to the Bill. This is why they had to extend the public consultations.


Three reasons exist as to why the Western Cape is in the claws of a doomsday Day Zero scenario with Capetonians made to feel like water wasting minions. Two reasons are manmade while the third, mother-nature, is mercilessly exposing them.

Sandra Dickson

Yesterday, Day Zero was moved out by almost one month from 16 April to 11 May. You may now ask; WHY?

Firstly, let’s take a look at the Western Cape agricultural sector. According to Alan Winde of the DA, in 2013 the gross rand value of the sector was R12bn with a projected growth of 126% by 2019. This exceptional growth will be brought about the Khulisa growth plan and the Smart Agri plan announced by the Western Cape Province in May last year – generously funded by the DA-run Province amidst a conspicuous absence of expansion plans for dams or water supply required to support the heavily increasing agricultural activities.

The reality is 3.7m citizens of the City of Cape Town and the agricultural sector are sharing Theewaterskloof dam, which accounts for 53% of the total capacity of the 6 major dams of the Western Cape. Incidentally, water levels in the dam are sitting at 12,5% on 5 February 2018.

Since the beginning of Spring, the agricultural sector was drawing around 1200ML of water from Tweewaterskloof per day. During the same period, residential usage started around the same amount and saw a rapid decline due to the City Of Cape Town mercilessly driving down water usage of citizens, to a usage of 547 ML’s per day (Dashboard, 5 February 2018). The agricultural sector, however, unabatedly continued to use 1200ML per day until more or less ten days ago, despite calls by DWS to reduce water usage by at first 40% and then by 60%.

Agriculture was directed, as far back as November 2017, to reduce their water usage, but a look at the City’s dashboard reveals this reduction only began 10 days ago. Farmers were unabatedly rushing to fill their quotas, placing tremendous strain on the supply of water to themselves as well as the citizens of Cape Town.

According to the City’s dashboard, the agricultural sector has substantially exceeded their water usage target each week since November 2017.

A closer look at the “wasteful” citizens of the Metro City.

It was fact-checked, by the City, that citizens use 65% of the water supplied.

A simple calculation shows the following for the week ending 5 February 2018; Total water usage by the people living in the Metro is 65% of the 547ML allocated in total – this divided by the 3.7 million citizens gives us a conservative maximum usage, per person, of 95l per day.

However, the figure of 3.7 million people is based on the most recent census, conducted in 2011 whereas it is widely believed many more people live in the Metro City. 95l per person a day is, therefore, an overestimate – it can be reasonably assumed that actual usage is lower per person.

It is therefore hard to fathom or justify why the City’s council deemed it necessary to introduce level 6b water restrictions on residents. It is even harder to understand how or where the City concludes that 60% of citizens are water wasters.” The level 6b water restrictions also carry increases in water tariffs in excess of 500%, which is grossly unacceptable.

Reason number two is the strategy chosen by the City of Cape Town to drive down water usage of citizens, at any cost. Whereas agriculture is set on a growth path requiring higher usage in the absence of any augmentation plans, citizens, who rely on the same source, are forced to reduce water usage.

A further strategic flaw is the forceful installation of Water Management Devices, at a cost of over R4000 each and a rate of 2000 per week – while forcing citizens to accept and be liable for costs. These meters are often faulty, leaving households without water for days, which is causing frustration an general mistrust amongst residents.

It is, therefore, no secret that the Citizens of Cape Town are angry and feel done in. The well-hidden origin of all of this saw light yesterday when the City’s dashboard finally shows what is going on. It is therefore welcomed that all users of the six major dams are now being treated equally. The reduction in water usage by the agricultural sector over the last ten days made a month’s difference in the lives of 3,7 million people. Day Zero was moved out by almost one month and we can breathe again, for a while.

The City of Cape Town and the Western Province DA controlled governments must be stopped in their tracks before they effectively ruin the entire Province for every person living in it.


The City of Cape Town point blank refuses to let go of their plan to plug the R1.7bn hole in their budget via a Tax on households. This shortfall came about as the City introduced stringent water restrictions on the citizens of Cape Town as a result of the drought and their predicted Day Zero.

Nielsen from the Mayco of the city: “Council is facing a R 1.7 billion deficit in the current financial year as a result of the strict water restrictions and consequent loss of income.”

During the public participation process around the Drought Charge, the City received 61,002 emails from angry Cape Town citizens who opposed the 10% Drought Charge, calculated on the value of property rates bills. 91% of these emails were sent from a citizen’s initiative website,

By 19 January the city had processed 36 444 (60%) of the emails they received. The city did not even have the courtesy to process all of the emails before they rushed to concoct an alternative means to Tax citizens.

The three major objections identified by the city are;

  • Unfair and punitive 34.76%
  • Bad Planning 21.89%
  • Overtaxed 14.59%

However, these clear objections fell on deaf City official’s ears as the city responded by immediately proposing a tax of 8% be slapped on top of Property Rates accounts as an alternative.

It is, therefore, the same Tax applied to another service as an attempt to plug the R1.7 deficit. This money is not for any water augmentation solution.

The respondents of the public participation process further offered solutions including sourcing funding from Central Government or the City accessing funds from the bonds market. None of the proposals received from respondents proposes a Property Tax as a solution.

It is clear the City is wholly confused as their attempts to plug the hole in their budget is “marketed” to citizens as “money needed to augment our water supply”. In reality, the money is needed to balance their books. To date, the city has awarded R1,5 Billion Rand in tenders for desalination and borehole solutions to augment the water supply. Residents have yet to witness a single completed project and are asking questions over why investigations at Monwabisi and Strandfontein reveal heaps of pipes, but no signs of desalination plant construction.

Water experts including, Anthony Turton seriously question the workability of the borehole solutions, as the laying of pipes from the boreholes to the reticulation system and purifying plants will be over private land as there are servitude issues.

The city appears too stubborn to change its ways and is not listening to the public. Instead, the voice of the people is warped and misconstrued to suit ineffective and decades-old solutions. If the city’s methods were effective, the water security issue would have been addressed in a more holistic manner and DAY ZERO would not be an issue.

Residents call on the City to change their ways and to adjust to the South African economy where salary increases are below inflation and the country’s GDP is under 1%. The city simply cannot continue to slap above-inflation increases onto ratepayers for every service.

The city needs to be reformed immediately by realising they cannot operate in isolation and pass the financial buck via taxing citizens when money is needed.

Statement by GCTCA – Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance


It is with absolute dismay that the GCTCA noted the announcement that the City of Cape Town levy property owners with a drought charge to fund income shortfall as a result of water saving.

The GCTCA has for many years officially objected to the deeply flawed property valuation methodology. To now use this same flawed valuation to calculate yet another tax is farcical. It is our opinion that it is grossly unfair and irrational to ask residents to save water, and then when as a consequence, the income from water usage is reduced that the very people who saved water must now be punished with a drought levy. The same happened with saving electricity. Obviously, revenue for the City will drop and uncaring councillors will then take the easy way out by just simply taxing the already over-taxed ratepayer more. The ratepayers were always made to understand that we paid for the cost of availing water to our households. But since the unintended consequence of saving water or electricity is a drop in income, the City sees the need to impose a penalty on docile ratepayers instead of looking to other savings. From 1st July 2017 non-indigent ratepayers lost the free basic allocation of 6kl for water and 4.2kl for sanitation. This resulted in the city receiving hundreds of millions of rands more from the already overburdened ratepayers.

It is grossly unfair and unjust to look to the ratepayer to cover this shortfall in income. What about recovering the huge amounts wasted by the Executive Mayor and City manager in attempts to dismiss mangers and senior staff who happen to disagree with them. It would be interesting to know exactly how much the City spent so far during the tenure of the current political rulers on legal fees and consultants in an effort to get rid of managers. A case comes to mind where the court had ruled that a senior employee must be reinstated and his salary for the long time that he was unemployed be paid by the City. That cost and well as the cost of the legal battle should be claimed from those who initiated the unfair dismissal. Its time that the arrogance of power be quantified in terms of cost to the ratepayer and such cost be demanded from the political and administrative heads of our City government. No need to burden the ratepayer further. We suggest that the time has come that the ratepayers of Cape Town stand up and demand that wasteful expenditure be claimed from errant politicians and officials to cover the shortfalls. This is crisis time. Should we not reconsider the huge cost of employing so many councillors, with trappings of office and all. Even though we hear of the freezing of lower level posts in the city there has been an alarming increase in the number of executive level positions such as within the Mayor’s office and the appointments of “Mini Mayors”. If we had some insight into overspending on luxurious offices, while there is sufficient space in the huge City buildings throughout the Metro, we might begin to understand the need for this ridiculous hare-brained scheme of a drought levy.

We are concerned that the reported income of billions of rand from water restriction levies and other sources are apparently no where to be found to help out now. Has the time not arrived for the Mayor to come clean and tell the ratepayer what happened to previous levies collected. Should we not know how much money was raised for water assistance programmes and how that is being applied? Besides the required fiscal discipline and severe austerity measures there are other methods of funding such as private sector investment. The City’s R1bn ‘Green Bond’ as example was totally oversubscribed. It was reported that within two hours, 29 investors made offers totalling R4.3bn. However, Civil Society will need to fight tooth and nail to prevent any commoditisation of water. Humanity will find itself on a slippery slope when the most basic need for life is in the hands of those geared around financial profit.

From all accounts well aired in our local media, the City had at least five years to prepare to meet this crisis. Alternative water resources, such as desalination could have been considered long ago. It will not be a surprise if we read in the newspapers tomorrow that somewhere, someone, had been paid millions for reports to frustrate the idea of alternative water supplies.

The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance calls upon ratepayers to rise up and resist this absurd and hugely stupid idea of a drought levy. We encourage household to continue its great efforts to save water but we will not stand idly by while being bullied just because some arrogant power crazy politico thinks (mistakenly) that the Cape Town ratepayer is a docile, subservient and pliant entity. We call upon the council of the City of Cape Town to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan.

‘Lack of empathy’

Letter to the editor from Ursula Schenker, Plumstead

Constantiaberg Bulletin

Many of the elderly are simply devastated by the City of Cape Town’s complete lack of empathy towards its residents by their constant non public participation processes involving service delivery issues.

First it was the municipal rates, then followed the electricity tariff increases according to the value of the property and now because of their failure to plan proactively a water levy is to be implemented.

A request was voted on by full council, which appears to be “the order of the day”, for a proposed water tax, when councillors, who are supposed to be representative of their constituents in council, are thwarting their communities’ efforts of striving towards a “better life for all”, completely negating every promise made when campaigning for their election a little more than a year ago.

The mayor also traumatises residents daily with her radio adverts of how elderly residents, among others, will be
carrying 25-litre buckets of water from strategically placed points when day zero happens. Does she not realise that her utterances are negatively manifesting itself in many?

Being mindful that the old age grant was increased by a mere R90, many who have heeded the call to reduce their water usage are now being rewarded by having to pay a water levy without exhausting all other avenues. It is just ludicrous.

Cape Town Level 6 water restrictions kick in from January

Western Cape Provincial Gazette 7850 1 December 2017



In view of the ongoing dire drought situation, the Director: Water and Sanitation of the City of Cape Town hereby give notice of level 6 water restrictions and measures as detailed herein.

In summary, key new restriction measures include:

  • residential units consuming more than 10 500 litres per month will be prioritised for enforcement
  • non-residential properties to reduce consumption by 45%
  • agricultural users to reduce consumption by 60%
  • the use of borehole water for outdoor purposes is discouraged in order to preserve groundwater resources

Please note that permission from the National Department of Water and Sanitation is required in order to sell or buy borehole/wellpoint water.

Failure to comply with this notice may constitute an offence in terms of the aforementioned By-Law (or as amended) and the accused will be liable to an admission of guilt fine and, in accordance with Section 36(4) of the Water By-Law, 2010 (or as amended), an installation of a water management device(s) at premises where the non-compliance occurs. The cost thereof will be billed to the relevant account holder.

This notice is effective from 1 January 2018.


The City of Cape Town has implemented Level 6 Water Restrictions, effective from 1 January 2018 until further notice.


  • No watering/irrigation with municipal drinking water allowed. This includes watering/irrigation of gardens, vegetables, agricultural crops, sports fields, golf courses, nurseries, parks and other open spaces. Nurseries and customers involved in agricultural activities or with historical gardens may apply for exemption. For more information, visit
  • The use of borehole/wellpoint water for outdoor purposes, including watering/irrigating and filling/topping up of swimming pools, is strongly discouraged in order to preserve groundwater resources in the current dire drought situation. Borehole/wellpoint water should rather be used for toilet flushing.
  • All boreholes and wellpoints must be registered with the City and must display the official City of Cape Town signage clearly visible from a public thoroughfare.
  • All properties where alternative, non-drinking water resources are used (including rainwater harvesting, greywater, treated effluent water and spring water) must display signage to this effect clearly visible from a public thoroughfare. Visit for further information.
  • No topping up (manual/automatic) filling or refilling of swimming pools with municipal drinking water is allowed, even if fitted with a pool cover.
  • The use of portable or any temporary play pools is prohibited.
  • No washing of vehicles (including taxis), trailers, caravans and boats with municipal drinking water allowed. These must be washed with non-drinking water or cleaned with waterless products or dry steam cleaning processes. This applies to all customers, including formal and informal car washes.
  • No washing or hosing down of hard-surfaced or paved areas with municipal drinking water allowed. Users, such as abattoirs, food processing industries, care facilities, animal shelters and other industries or facilities with special needs (health/safety related only) must apply for exemption. For more information, visit
  • The use of municipal drinking water for ornamental water fountains or water features is prohibited.
  • Customers are strongly encouraged to install water-efficient parts, fittings and technologies to minimise water use at all taps, showerheads and other plumbing components.


  • All residents are required to use no more than 87.5 litres of municipal drinking water per person per day in total irrespective of whether you are at home, work or elsewhere. Therefore, a residential property with four occupants, for example, is expected to use at most 10 500 litres per month.
  • Single residential properties consuming more than 10 500 litres of municipal drinking water per month will be prioritised for enforcement (see note 1). Properties where the number of occupants necessitates higher consumption are encouraged to apply for an increase in quota. For more information, visit
  • Cluster developments (flats and housing complexes) consuming more than 10 500 litres of municipal drinking water per unit per month will be prioritised for enforcement (see note 1). Cluster developments with units where the number of occupants necessitates higher consumption are encouraged to apply for an increase in quota. For more information, visit
  • You are encouraged to flush toilets (e.g. manually using a bucket) with greywater, rainwater or other non-drinking water.
  • No increase of the indigent water allocation over and above the free 350 litres a day will be granted, unless through prior application and permission for specific events such as burial ceremonies.


  • All non-residential properties (e.g. commercial and industrial properties, schools, clubs and institutions) must ensure that their monthly consumption of municipal drinking water is reduced by 45% compared to the corresponding period in 2015 (pre-drought). (See note 1 below.)
  • All agricultural users must ensure that their monthly consumption of municipal drinking water is reduced by 60% compared to the corresponding period in 2015 (pre-drought). (See note 1 below.)
  • The operation of spray parks is prohibited.
  • No new landscaping or sports fields may be established, except if irrigated only with non-drinking water.
  • For users supplied with water in terms of special contracts (notarial deeds, water service intermediaries or water service providers), the contract conditions shall apply.

NOTE 1: Failure to comply will constitute an offence in terms of the City’s Water By-Law, 2010 (or as amended). The accused will be liable to an admission of guilt fine and, in accordance with Section 36(4), an installation of a water management device(s) at premises where the non-compliance occurs. The cost thereof will be billed to the relevant account holder. Customers with good reason for higher consumption need to provide the City with motivation to justify their higher consumption.

Other restrictive measures, not detailed above, as stipulated in Schedule 1 of the Water By-Law, 2010 (or as amended) still apply.

Exemptions issued under Level 4B and 5 restrictions still apply, subject to review with the possibility of being revoked. Water pressure has been reduced to limit consumption and water leaks, and such may cause intermittent water supply.