The F1 and the marina

How pitiful that the F1 organisers must bare the blame for the "jetties that were not replace correctly or for the missing parts".

Firstly RAMHOA incriminates John Featerstone-Haugh who was appointed at their sole request.

John does lots of maintenance work on the marina and if he was "no good" as RAMHOA now make out the fault should be laid squarely at RAMHOA's feet, not at the F1 organisers.

For smart people your argument is shallow!!!

Why not rather act like adults and recognise the importance of this event for the town?

You are so right Jon. Guess it's a case of money screams - at the rest of the town's expense. Pass the buck and lay the blame at someone else's feet. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Lame.

It appears the only ones apposing the RAMHOA decission are those not living on the Marina. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Imagine having a F1 car race through the streets of Port Alfred? Not only would they disappear in our collection of Potholes, but town streets are simply not designed for that purpose - and so too are the canals in the Marina not designed for F1 power boat racing. Anybody who has watched high speed power boat racing on TV would have seen how easily these projectiles become airborne and out of control. Imagine sitting down to lunch with your family, only to have a power boat come through your patio door and land on the dining room table. Send the F1 race to the Vaal were it belongs - safely on open water. Port Alfred can get revenue in many other different ways!!
If I lived on the Marina, my heels would be firmly planted too. WELL DONE RAMHOA

I stand by your comment Jon. These are just a bunch of selfish capitalists who may happen to be in Jo Burg, England, US or god knows where as we speak. People, our children haven't watched the race and they would love to do so... Get this through your thick skulls - it is not what you have that makes you a person but what you do unto others. Please do not stand in the way of those who still want to make a meaningful contribution to the development of this town, simply because you care less and that you are stinking rich.... Let the boatrace take place in God's creation.

Voooom F1 Vooooom!!!!!

Sizwe - Port Alfred

all i can say regarding no more boat races is FANTASTIC.as a local business owner the weekend of boat racing is a complete disaster for my business as people congregate around the river and stare at metal objects going around in circles making an unbearable noise.the bottle stores and accommodation agencies make money but 99% of the business in town suffer as a result. it is a total disruption and further we are asked to sponser the event and loose turnover as a result,makes absolutely no sense.so at least now our peacefull village will remain so.leslie cusens mr video

What a load of hogwash. The boat races on the Kowie were around in the late 50's, many old timers will tell you what fun they had then.

The racing through the canals only came about as RESULT of the marina being built.

To answer a question, yes there have been boats crashing into the marina, one lady very badly hurt by a boat in the 90's.

Incidentally, the land under the water is owned by the marina, the water is free, it flows though,they don't keep it. In fact, the marina have the right to close off the two entries and disallow any entry into the marina at all, it is private property.

In terms of the jetties being on state land, that only applies on the river, not in the marina. Oh, and before there is an argument re the river jetties, the land there, (marina) looked into their rights before construction, and made the island narrower, so all the land is theirs.

The developer is a pretty shrewd person, and went to a great deal of research and effort before he invested there. Each title deed for land on the outer island shows the demarcation of land into the river.

Instead of arguing publicly, why don't you ask him about the land? He will tell you all about maritime laws, and the riparian rights of the marina.

My parents have lived on the marina for a long time and it is sour grapes to keep haking at the owners, the decisions are made by a majority at the AGM each year, despite personal opinions.

No-one can own a river bed, which is what the marina channels are. They became a river bed when the Kowie River started flowing through them, no matter what shrewd and inventive deals were made "back in the day". The Marine Coastal Management Act is quite clear on State ownership of waterways and river banks. The issue of the "lost towpath" on the east side of the river where the marina starts has never been satisfactorily addressed. But with the MCMA coming into effect, the municipality will be empowered to address all these things, including where homeowners further up the Kowie have illegally blocked off the towpath with palisade fences, walls and razor wire.
No jetties are private, be they floaters or rigid, no matter how many people paint "private" on them or install gates blocking access. That's just how it is with a jetty - you get jetty rights, but once it's built, it's on public land and the public can use it. Selfish people have illegally put locked gates on their jetties to prevent others from also enjoying fishing from them.
As for the marina blocking off the entries, don't make me laugh. Maybe the municipality should dam off the water.
I asked how many boats had crashed into marina homes, not into the walls. Crashing into the walls is always a risk, thus the massive insurance taken out by the F1 people.

Jonno, my brah. In my opinion this little drinking town with a fishing problem called Kowie has gained a little and lost a lot because of the marina.

I agree, no matter how much the "main ou" researched the topic back in the day, the laws - especially marine and coastal/environmetal legislation - have changed dramatically.

Parts of the marina were a wetland - so there goes "the wets" well researched dry land theory - that was used by the whole town.

Old timers tell me the town was offered free public swimming pools in the land they developed. I have seen the drawings and boy did they look good.

What happened - no pools - unless you want to count the heated pay pool that is accessible to people from all walks of life in town/township.

Right...it is an exclusive pool.

Try using your promised rights to go and "goof" in the pool at the Halyards - ja bru, they'll kick you out quicker than you can shout "Carl Haller."

Talk about three Bs - you know the brown stuff that "baffles brains". The town, the river and everything else is full of it.

Now these, aaah, "swipes" on the marina - once "the wet" has got all the publicity he needs - pull the plug on the whole jorl claiming they also own the water and can close canals.

Why does the town not pull the plug on this rich man's playground? It is like apartheid all over again. The rich hold the poor and the town to ransom.

The water and the subsequent "river beds", fish and all other things marine that have come into the man-canals belong to the State.

I say "invade" the jetties on the west bank - zim style - and go and use them too. As for the tow path...homeowners, take all you can - after all councillors are lurking in shadows lining their own pockets - why don't we all...when the town is messed up we can move somewhere else...

Maybe the Marina owners should get of their perches and accept that they are governed not only by their Homeowners Association and its constitution, but also the laws of this country including the Water Act of 1998.

One of the most important principles underpinning the new Water Act is that there is “NO OWNERSHIP OF WATER”. “Ownership” as per the old Water Act of 1956 has thus been repealed.

The 1994 Bill of Rights gives all South Africans the right to the use of natural resources. The definition of natural resources is inclusive of all water sources of which the Kowie is one in South Africa. This is to promote the economic and social development that is necessary to restore some equity in society.

The former Water Act of 1956 linked water use to land ownership and was clearly discriminatory in apartheid South Africa - and focused on the provision of water without reference to the environmental protection of this resource.

The new Water Act clearly states that Water is a national natural resource. Recreational use of water sources is also deemed in the Act as a “lawful use” of the source.

To still claim ownership of the water in the channels or to prevent the use of it are thus against the laws of this country.

The homeowners getting off their perches will not alter the decision taken by a majority at the AGM.

I agree to certain issues re the water rights, although it poses the question of the gated estates along the beaches. Mandela said that the nation would be entitled to all the beaches, yet many areas are totally blocked off and no one can get to those beaches.

Farmers have water rights through their farms, many have dammed up the rivers which prevents the water from flowing. Who is checking on them?

Servitude roads are locked in many places and so the argument goes on.

Interesting debate tho.

Jon I agree with you re the tow paths along the river, yet then next we will be asking NSRI etc to open up their site etc and we all know that this is a security risk.

Sorry, you are incorrect 'anon' the repeals are not automatic. It would be impossible for the government to address the 2 million or so farmers in South Africa and check up on their water rights.

They can, as they are doing now, ensuring that the new laws are observed in all new developments. Even this is a tricky situation.

If you take the Karoo eg. the farmers along the Orange River/Fish River 'water-servitude' have sued the goverment in some instances for trying to take away their water rights which have been in place for over 100 years. They have won their cases.

PLEASE LETS MOVE ON NOW JON YOUR SUBJECTS ARE KILLING ME.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO B.E.B.

I see one B is on the move??

I think there's more than one excalibur around, or at least he has a short memory.

Last time we tried that subject it was squashed.

I think the lesson here is: don't deviate from the topic. Start your own blog, mr excalibur.

Not all Marina residents are against the F1 Powerboat Race. I have championed the cause year after year. My husband and I have smoothed troubled waters with some residents who had reservations about the race and persuaded them to agree to pulling their jetties out. I agree wholeheartedly that the race is good for Port Alfred and a great drawcard that brings many visitors and much-needed revenue to town.
However, these last two years the whole race day has been a bit of a shambles. Last year and the year before we encouraged friends to come to Port Alfred from Johannesburg specifically to see the F1 race. Our visitors are still waiting to witness the event having had to leave to catch their return flights before the race was eventually run - although the race times had been promoted well in advance of the day and flights had been planned so our visitors would be here for the big race.
I have seen all the powerboat festivals here bar one and must say that these recent race weekends have been disappointing beyond belief compared to the original race days. Not many people even bothered to come to town for last year's disappointing event. I firmly believe a proper race committee is required to ensure a well-run spectacle. It's no good having just a couple of individuals trying to be Jack of all trades. Professionals are required to drum up the requisite advertising, promotion, fund-raising and eventual running of the race day.
Port Alfred deserves this wonderful spectacle but it must be co-ordinated professionally and adhere to very high standards.
Maybe Robbie Blake who managed to fight all opposition to the Bridge Lights and did get them lighting up our town should be persuaded to ressurect the F1 Powerboat Festival for Port Alfred. He's a man of strong will, perseverance and vision and would wholeheartedly do his bit for the good of Port Alfred. AND he would probably be able to persuade ALL Marina rsidents to back his efforts.

Why on earth do we have to stare at rat-ridden eyesores that "can't be touched" because they are a few years old? The latest one riling me is the dump of a building right at the entrance to the lovely new hospital. Surely it is a health hazard - especially as I understand that the main structure is largely comprised of asbestos. Historial buildings should be hundreds of years old to merit restoring and saving for future generations. Not crumbling, stinking wrecks such as this one that has been used as a hostel for builders these past months. Ditto the railway sheds on the river bank!
Next thing is that we'll be told the disgusting row of unused hotel rooms adjacent to the Ferryman's Hotel is of histroical value. Don't the members of the "Hysterical Society" have eyes? These filthy, wrecks of buildings do absolutely nothing but detract from the charm of Port Alfred. The former market - now the home of the Moden Art Gallery - is another site for sore eyes. It could be done up to be attractive but right now the paint is peeling, the roof is faded and there are weeds galore gwrowing all over the parking area. Don't the powers-that-be that allow these eyesores to blight this lovely town understand how they are detracting from positive growth, something that is sorely required if the youth of this town and area are to have a future worth looking forward to.
Wake up - and clean up Port Alfred.

Include the entire Wharf street buildings that can do with a facelift.

I agree with Jane, the building in front of the Ferryman's Hotel is a disgrace and must be something of a health hazard. Why doesn't someone revamp it and let the rooms out. Is EISS not interested?

A little common sense here. You cannot dictate to people re their old, or supposed old buildings. Rather blame the idiots who spy on anything that smacks of history, who rush off to stop any sort of progress.

Currently you have an 'unknown being' sitting in the building/plans office who in turn, has for some reason or other, the power to stop anything that is proposed, if it has ANYTHING old on it.

There are people in Port Alfred who have had plans in for alterations and additions for almost two years!!!! They have been turned down down due to this person.

A prime xample was the Richmond House project which too something like 7 years to be passed.

Save history yes, if it is possible, but if the government, or local government want the places saved, then they should take responsibility, buy them and maintain them. Ferrymans Hotel is one example.

If the municipality to not get off their lazy butts, they will not be able to alter the Civic buildings as they are now getting to the 60 timeline.

Old buildings, if maintained can be beautiful, but when they are so run down that they are an eyesore - let them go!
Ferryman's hotel on the whole is an eyesore - not only the anex that has lain waste for vagrants for so many years. This is a prime piece of land and is really lowering the tone of the area - they should be forced to maintain all buildings - especially being a tourism destination business - come on!
Richmond House is now a beautiful sight whereas before it was also an eyesore - the castle was never really a "castle" anyway. Well done!
Let byegones be gygones!