Tag Archives: Ian Nielson

City of Cape Town is not committed to tourism, plays no role in making it a ‘great city’!

Two weeks ago Cape Town Executive Deputy Mayor Ian Nielson, and mayoral committee member for Finance, had a lengthy opinion piece published in the Cape Argus entitled ‘Maintaining a city to be proud of’, and sub-titled ‘Cape Town’s annual report reflects a commitment to making a great city even greater‘.  Not once in the half page broadsheet page does the word ‘Tourism’ appear, demonstrating that the city is paying lip-service to its supposed support of job creation via tourism development in Cape Town, and by its omission communicates that Tourism is not seen to make Cape Town a greater city.

Nielson was writing to ‘brag’ about his City’s 2010/2011 Annual Report, and its unqualified audit from the Auditor-General, the eighth in a row, and the City’s maintained credit rating.  He also writes: “The city’s annual report for the 2010/2011 financial year demonstrates a commitment to making this great city even greater”, and the city is focused on good governance, eliminating corruption, and in creating just more than 13000 jobs in an Expanded Public Works Programme in the financial year.  Its budget was R23 billion in the financial year.

Nielson focuses on achievements in a  number of key areas, reflecting the portfolios of the Mayoral Committee members in the main. In respect of Sustainable urban infrastructure and services more than half a million sewerage, electricity, and water connections were supplied to domestic consumers; electricity consumption was reduced by 10% in the past three years, and hence the number of power outages declined in that period.  The MyCiTi public transport system was the first step in the provision of  a ‘public transport system that works and is inexpensive, safe, efficient and environmentally friendly‘, he wrote.  In respect of Housing, more than 7000 ‘housing opportunities’ were provided, 3000 parks were maintained, (including the fantastic Green Point Urban Park), and funded the operation of 66 city libraries.  In respect of Safety and Security, accidents at ‘high frequency locations’ reduced by 28%, drug-related arrests increased by almost 50%, 2000 taxis were impounded, close to 2 million traffic fines were issued, accidents in ‘hot spots’ were reduced by 28%, and arrests for driving under the influence increased markedly.  In respect of Health, Social and Community Development, the city managed to curtail the number of days on which air pollution exceeded World Health Organisation guidelines to 55, reduced the rate of increase in TB and antenatal HIV, and installed a free-call telephone service to the municipality to report municipal issues. In respect of Energy, the MyCiTi bus service is aimed at reducing the number of cars coming into the city, and an educational campaign to raise awareness of carbon dioxide, and how carbon emissions can be off-set, was launched. In respect of Economic Development Nielson praises the not previously heard of ‘Cape Town Activa’ ‘ecosystem’ of promoting entrepreneurship in the city. He also highlighted the vast expansion which the Cape Town International Convention Centre will undergo, and for which funding was raised in the financial year under review.

Given the dominance of Tourism as a source of employment of and generator of income for the citizens and businesses of Cape Town, it is interesting to note that Nielson does not mention the Tourism, Events, and Marketing portfolio in his report at all, possibly as there are not any successes to show as far as Tourism, Marketing and Events go in Cape Town.  Cape Town Tourism and the Cape Town Stadium, the two most visible projects in this portfolio, are not mentioned at all.  Cape Town Tourism swallows R40 million of the City Council coffers per year, with little evidence of a good return on this expenditure, while the Cape Town Stadium is losing money and is being funded by ratepayers, as the City has not yet been able to find a paying solution for the ‘white elephant’!  Just ten days ago the Weekend Argus reported that the City of Cape Town is being sued by architects, engineers, landscapers and other professionals, who were involved in the design and construction of the Cape Town Stadium, and are still owed money.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com Twitter:@WhaleCottage

‘Cruisin’ Cape Town Tourism Councillor Grant Pascoe sunk by Department of Home Affairs!

Increasingly one wonders what exactly Grant Pascoe, City of Cape Town Mayoral Committee Member for Tourism, Events and Marketing, has achieved for Cape Town in respect of Tourism, Events and Marketing since he took on this portfolio last year, with no success recorded to date, and with criticism rather than praise levelled at the Councillor.  Given his increasing twit-twat on Twitter, one wonders what the Councillor does all day!

Last week the Councillor decided to look for some publicity for himself, perhaps given our criticism of him on this blog, and issued a lightweight media release, slamming the Department of Home Affairs for refusing permission for cruise ships to dock in the V&A Waterfront with immediate effect.  He made all the right noises about the detrimental effect this would have on tourism, but did not offer to get involved to make a difference, which he should have done, given his Tourism portfolio!  In the Cape Times he was quoted as follows: “We are obviously uneasy about the possible impact of this ruling on Cape Town’s status and reputation as a cruise tourism destination as well as on tourism revenues to the city. The City notes concerns about security risks underlying the decision. However, we will discuss the ruling with the relevant authorities to find a way to best serve Cape Town’s tourism interests, without compromising the status of the port as a secured area.” There have been no subsequent reports of Councillor Pascoe and/or Cape Town Tourism (CEO Mariette du Toit-Helmbold is on maternity leave until April) meeting with the harbour or immigration authorities, conveniently leaving this to his provincial counterpart Tourism Minister Alan Winde, who has slammed the decision, and has already met with officials.

The Department of Home Affairs’ Director of Immigration: Maritime & Aviation Ports Western Cape, Tariq Mellet, who was responsible for the cruise line berthing directive last week, took exception to Councillor Pascoe’s media statement (surprisingly he has not reacted to Minister Winde’s media comments, as far as we are aware), and slammed Councillor Pascoe in a 3-page detailed document for ‘having a  poor understanding of the issues involved at the Cape Town Harbour’, writing about the cruise ship issue on Politicsweb. Adding insult to injury, Mellet attacks the Councillor in writing: “Perhaps if the City Council took a greater interest in playing a role in Cape Town Harbour, its development and in Passenger Line Tourism he (sic) would understand the issues at play.  He (sic) has even the basic facts wrong”!

Mellet explains at length the complexities of cruise liner berthing in Cape Town, saying that cruise liner berthing in the V&A Waterfront has been an occasional occurrence, mainly because Duncan Dock or Eastern Mole have not been available, as a ‘commercial convenience’.  “Anyone looking at the real facts and bothering to consult the role-players charged with clearing passengers, would have clearly seen that cruise ship tourists are getting a raw deal”, he added!   The Department of Home Affairs has the final say as to which ports are entry points for international tourists, he emphasised. Being welcoming to cruise tourists, yet offering them security is a ‘careful balance’.  Mellet says that cruise tourism could be four times as large as it is currently, if Cape Town offered a more secure and attractive cruise liner berth, a responsibility which Councillor Pascoe should be addressing with urgency.  He states that the berthing directive had been communicated to the port authority in December, but had been ignored.  He slates the uproar about the berthing, writing that the cruise tourists will visit the V&A Waterfront anyway, and that they may visit other areas in Cape Town too, writing about ‘being controlled by a greedy few and some of the scams that arise in the closed environment of the harbour‘.  He writes that Jetty 2 in the Waterfront is only 195 meters long, and therefore cannot berth larger ships.  One of the last paragraphs summarises what the Department of Home Affairs is trying to protect, and one wonders what Mellet refers to, given that his tirade was directed against Councillor Pascoe: “The present furore over Home Affairs ensuring compliance with legislation at Cape Town Harbour seems to have less to do with the V&A Waterfront venue when the facts are scrutinised and more about parties with vested interests wanting to buck the system and wanting a continuation of lax security in an environment where a host of scams and dodgy activities have been thriving for years”!

Councillor Pascoe had egg on his face last year, when he tried to shave his budget by cutting the funding of Design Indaba (after an outcry he quickly reinstated the funding).  He has also been criticised for the loss of the Saracens versus Biarritz Heineken Cup game scheduled for Cape Town, not getting agreement at which of Newlands Stadium and Cape Town Stadium the game would have been played at, due to a conflict between the City of Cape Town (Councillor Pascoe’s portfolio) and the Western Cape Rugby Union, which cost Cape Town the tourism benefit of thousands of supporters who would have travelled here to see the teams play! To try and save face, the Councillor Tweeted some photographs last week of Saracens practicing at Cape Town Stadium, the team already having bought the flight tickets at the time that the Stadium wrangle took place.

We have written extensively how the Councillor rudely refuses to return telephone calls, or to reply to e-mails and Tweets, when we have had some pressing questions for the Councillor about the R40 million budget (from ratepayers’ monies) allocated to Cape Town Tourism for this financial year, of which little meaningful expenditure is visible.  We have also left (unanswered) messages for Deputy Mayor Ian Nielson, who controls the Council finances, and cannot get a response from the City of Cape Town about how it evaluates the efficiency of Cape Town Tourism’s performance and its expenditures, and how it allowed the appointment of an Australian consultant with a not so blemish-free background!

The Councillor seems to have lots of time in his day, when he is not attending the odd Council meeting, having taken to Twitter, Tweeting incessantly, mainly about cricket and general non-Tourism related matters.  He has shown his lack of morals and ethics, and his naivety as far as the law of defamation is concerned, by re-Tweeting defamatory Tweets earlier this week.

One wonders how Mayor Patricia de Lille evaluates the efficiency of her Mayoral Committee and the budget expenditure.  One wonders how the Mayor selected Councillor Pascoe for the Tourism, Events and Marketing portfolio, given that he has no past tourism or marketing experience, having been a DA Councillor for Mitchell’s Plain for ten years, serving on the Mayoral Committee with the Social Development and Special Projects portfolio in 2010, something his incomplete theology studies may have been more suitable for! Yesterday the Councillor appears to have won some political brownie points for having helped the DA win a city by-election with an overwhelming majority.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com twitter: @WhaleCottage

Province cries foul about City tourism funding

 

New MEC for Finance, Economic Development and Tourism, Garth Strachan, has written to Mayor Helen Zille, asking the City to reconsider its withdrawal of funding from Cape Town Routes Unlimited.

 

He writes: “For inexplicable reasons the City of Cape Town has set up a parallel structure to the destination marketing organisation, Cape Town Routes Unlimited (CTRU) and withdrawn its funding from CTRU and Wesgro, the provincial trade and investment promotion agency. “

 

“This appears to make no constitutional, economic or practical sense. Efforts by the provincial government to resolve these issues to the mutual satisfaction of both province and city have come to nought. I therefore publicly appeal to you, in the interests of the people and the Province, to reconsider these actions.”

 

“When she assumed office in August 2008, Premier Lynne Brown said the provincial government would do all in its power to ensure relations between Province and the City were repaired in the interests of efficient public service provision to the people of the region. “

 

“This, the Premier said, applied to all areas where the provincial government worked with the City: road construction, public transport, preparations for 2010, health provision, economic development and so forth. “

 

“The Premier specifically instructed that whatever reservations the City may have had with regard to structure, functioning and operations of Wesgro and CTRU should be addressed and resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both city and province. This could include restructuring the Boards of both organisations, and any other changes that might be reasonably accommodated. “

 

“We hoped the departure of former ID Councillor Simon Grindrod might signal a change of heart and a commitment to co-operation between the two governments. But no change has been forthcoming now that the DA’s Councillor Nielsen has taken control.”

 

“It is difficult to make sense of the City’s approach to these matters.  How can the duplication of costs, personnel and programmes be justified? How can a withdrawal of funds to Wesgro and the threat this poses to the provincial economy be justified? Was the willingness of the Provincial Government to make changes the City felt were needed to both organisations insufficient grounds to work together? “

 

“In the case of CTRU, an agreement to ensure shared custody by the Province and City to promote Cape Town and the Western Cape as a tourist destination is underpinned by Provincial Legislation, which is now being flouted. “

 

“Cape Town Tourism, hitherto responsible for tourism information centres, has been tasked with marketing Cape Town on its own and distinct from the Province as a whole. By so doing the City will duplicate costs, personnel and marketing operations aside from the fact that there will of necessity be a long time lag as new staff are employed and programmes put in place. In fact, Cape Town Tourism has not been able to spend the approximately R11 million which would have otherwise been spent on international marketing by CTRU since the withdrawal of funding by the City. “

 

“As a recession looms and all sectors of the economy begin to feel the squeeze, a failure to spend these funds on international marketing efforts will undoubtedly have an impact on tourism in the Province in the year to come. “

 

“Under the constitution, local government has no mandate for trade promotion or industry development and the City would not be constitutionally entitled to undertake these activities on its own. The withdrawal of funds from Wesgro, ironically set up by the City and the Chamber of Commerce in 1982, means that programmes to promote trade and investment have been placed under immediate threat and the management and staff of that organisation put under enormous uncertainty and strain. “ 

“CTRU, with the Department of Economic Development, has been successful in securing a collective Western Cape Tourism Development Framework. Business, labour, civil society and government have developed this shared vision of a sustainable, labour absorbing and globally competitive tourism sector. “

 

“We cannot afford the confusion of two marketing organisations. It is impossible to market Cape Town without including the wine routes of the Boland or whale watching in Hermanus. Confusion has been created in the tourism market place and great harm is being done to 2010 marketing because CTRU is now under-resourced and CTT is unable to spend the City’s funds allocated to it. “

 

“Tourism is the jewel in the crown of our provincial economy. It depends on competitive marketing in a world where international tourists are being lured by competitors with huge marketing budgets. There is no doubt that the City’s moves in relation to CTRU will harm tourism numbers and we will lose ground in the special opportunity to market the destination for the long term that 2010 represents. The provincial government has avoided going the route of court battles with respect to the City withdrawal from CTRU and Wesgro. After numerous failed efforts in meetings and in correspondence and in the interests of all the people of the Province, I publicly appeal to the City to reconsider its actions.”

 

“The only logical and sustainable route to follow is to work together to make both Wesgro and CTRU work even better to fight poverty and unemployment and unlock development for the Province. Go-it-alone strategies will build animosity where there should be co-operation and build divisions where national, provincial and local governments should be working together to grow the economy and roll back poverty. “

 

Strachan’s letter to Mayor Zille is a surprise, as it comes nineteen months after the City gave notice of its intention to withdraw its funding from CTRU, and seven months after the actual withdrawal.     The City of Cape Town was justified in withdrawing its funding from CTRU, as a report by consultants appointed by the City had found the organisation to be inefficient in meeting its mandate to market the City and the province. 

 

Premier Lynne Brown held Strachan’s position before she became Premier, and did not appear to make any great effort to bridge the divide between Cape Town Tourism and CTRU at that time.  In fact, the Province was seen to be the dominant partner in the relationship.

 

Originally, CTRU was formed to avoid duplication in marketing Cape Town and the Western Cape.   However, CTRU persists in marketing Cape Town, even though the City of Cape Town has withdrawn its funding and Cape Town Tourism is designated to do this job.  CTRU should focus on marketing the province,  and Cape Town Tourism on the city of Cape Town.    CTRU has a representative on the Board of Cape Town Tourism, even though this new clause in the Cape Town Tourism constitution did not make sense at the time.   This should allow close co-operation and should prevent duplication . 

 

Cape Town Tourism’s handling of the marketing for Cape Town is constitutional, as the association amended its Constitution to take on this role and was supported by its membership in voting for it to do so.    Cape Town Tourism has had a participative and open discussion about its Marketing strategy, and has allowed various tourism representatives to provide input to the formation of the Marketing strategy for the City.     Cape Town Tourism is appointing new Marketing staff, but appears to be doing so in a constructive and economic manner, and not building a fat cat organisation that was CTRU.

 

The Tourism Act of 2004 for the Western Cape is in urgent need of replacement.  The Act was designed to legally decree the design of what was to become CTRU.   It is an established body now.  No guidance is given in the Act about the organisation of and relationship between CTRU and the tourism bureaus in every city and town in the province.    Cape Town Tourism’s marketing activities are not a “parallel structure” to CTRU – Cape Town Tourism is not replicating CTRU.

 

Ian Nielson has only been in his post of new Head of Tourism in the City for about 2 weeks, so he may not yet have had enough time to study the relationship between the two bodies.  However, he was a Mayoral Committee member that voted to withdraw funding from CTRU.

 

Last but not least, the marketing of Cape Town and 2010 cannot be endangered by the divide, as claimed by Mr Strachan.