Water levy burden

Molly Mitchell, Fish Hoek

Xanthea Limberg’s reply, it appears to me, comes directly from the thesaurus resting on her bookshelf.

Mention is made of the levy being used in times of drought – at which time each household was notified.

But to whom has the fact been advertised that, with the dams at 100+%, the levy would continue? For what?

My feeling is that the majority of people would agree that dams being 100+% full is a good time to cut the levy.

I suspect that there’s a theory among municipal bigwigs that their constituents have no idea that, when there’s next a drought, that regular old R100 we’ve all quietly become used to will be augmented as soon as it can be passed.

The fact that the citizens who fund that ATM are kept in the dark about where their money is going should stop you in your tracks.

“Transparency”?

Clear as mud.

You can do better than this. Get rid of the levy that cash-strapped householders are finding to be yet another financial burden this year.

Previous articleSafe hike
Next articleWhich road to take
SHARE