The explanation given by the Department of cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs regarding the Property Rates Amendment Bill and the new definition of a “residential property” is not good enough, they have been caught out and the pressure from the public and the media has got to them.

It is not good enough to just say that it will not include second residential homes we have to see it in writing, if it was not their intention to charge commercial rates on second residential properties why then change the entire definition of a “residential property” . What was going on in that room when they were putting this amendment bill together and who are the people writing these bills.

You have to wonder why this bill was snuck in under the radar during the holidays with a very short time for objections.

There are already provisions in the municipalities Rates Policy for guest houses B & B’s etc. It should be left up to the individual municipalities as to whether they want to charge commercial rates on those establishments, there is absolutely no need for this amendment. Just remove the entire amendment changing the definition of a “residential property” it is unnecessary. You cannot have a one size fits all Property Rates Bill.

The other amendment they need to reconsider is the changing of valuations from 5 years to 7 years, that does not benefit anyone, not the municipalities and certainly not the public.