LFN Opens a Can of Worms: Is the DA Pricing Cape Town Homeowners Out of Their Own Properties?

Excerpt: LFN has opened a can of worms in the DA-led City of Cape Town over skyrocketing municipal property valuations that threaten to price ordinary homeowners out of their own properties. What began as a simple demand for transparency has already prompted responses from the Executive Mayor’s office, the City’s legal department and the national Minister of Cooperative Governance. With concerns mounting over wealthy foreign investors, questionable valuations and escalating property rates, LFN is demanding answers to a fundamental question: How can government demand more money from property owners without properly explaining how their properties were valued? If the authorities fail to address these constitutional concerns, LFN is prepared to take the fight to court.

If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?

or make a quick donation… MobiPaid

Imagine owning your home for thirty years, having no intention of selling it, and suddenly discovering that the government has decided your property is worth millions more than before. You have not earned another cent, your house has not magically expanded, and your financial circumstances have not improved. Yet you are expected to pay more simply because somebody, somewhere, decided that your property has become more valuable.

Now imagine asking the municipality a perfectly reasonable question:

“Please show me how you arrived at that valuation.”

Surely that should be simple enough?

After all, if the government determines the value of your property and uses that determination to calculate the taxes you must pay, surely it should be able to explain how it arrived at that figure before expecting you to challenge it?

That is precisely the question Liberty Fighters Network (LFN) has now formally placed before the Democratic Alliance (DA)-led City of Cape Town and the national Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

And, somewhat unexpectedly, we appear to have attracted their attention almost immediately.

Within approximately two days, we had received communications from the Executive Mayor’s office, the Minister’s office and the City’s legal department.

We have opened what may prove to be a particularly uncomfortable can of worms.

Whether those worms reveal administrative shortcomings, questionable valuation practices, legislative deficiencies or something more serious remains to be established.

But we are determined to find out.

The question nobody was supposed to ask?

Over the years, LFN has challenged numerous government decisions and practices that most South Africans simply accept as lawful, reasonable and beyond question.

We have learned that some of the most consequential constitutional disputes begin with surprisingly ordinary questions.

Who authorised this?

Under which law?

Where are the supporting documents?

And what reasons justify the decision?

Sometimes these enquiries are met with silence. Sometimes we receive pages of explanations that fail to answer the questions. On other occasions, we encounter a sudden flurry of official correspondence, internal referrals and carefully worded legal reservations.

This time, our enquiry concerns something virtually every property owner encounters: the municipal valuation of immovable property for purposes of calculating rates.

I must admit that I had not anticipated such an immediate response.

Of course, prompt acknowledgement does not establish that anything unlawful has occurred. Nor does it prove that government officials are alarmed. But it establishes that our concerns have formally entered the administrative machinery at both municipal and national levels.

And now we intend to hold the responsible authorities to account for the substantive answers.

Credit where credit is due: Jack Miller brought this to our attention

I want to acknowledge Jack Miller, the leader of the Cape Independence Party (CapExit), whose concerns about Cape Town’s property valuations initially encouraged me to investigate this issue.

Jack had informed me that Cape Town property owners were reporting extraordinary increases in municipal valuations during the latest rates cycle, following substantial financial pressures in previous years.

For some owners, he explained, the problem was becoming much more serious than another unpleasant municipal account.

People feared being priced out of properties they had owned, occupied and maintained for years.

Jack believed there was something fundamentally wrong with a system that could impose increasingly burdensome property rates without adequately explaining how the underlying property valuations had been determined.

He wanted LFN to dig deeper.

Our involvement was further encouraged by concerns raised by our member, Ms Judy Sole, regarding the extraordinary revaluations affecting properties associated with the Monkey Valley Group in Noordhoek.

Another LFN supporter, also a Noordhoek property owner, subsequently explained that the problem appeared to extend beyond one property or development.

According to reports conveyed to us, property owners in Noordhoek and surrounding areas, including Constantia, Capri, Tokai and Kommetjie, were questioning what one supporter described as “thumb-sucked” property values.

Those are serious allegations, but allegations that require proper scrutiny of the underlying valuation records.

It was this supporter who also directed my attention to investigative journalism by Nicole Barlow concerning developments in Noordhoek, foreign investment and the consequences of rapidly escalating property values.

Suddenly, what initially appeared to be a dispute about municipal figures began raising much broader questions.

Who determines what our land is worth? Which transactions influence those determinations? Who benefits from higher valuations? And who carries the financial burden?

Noordhoek: When your neighbour’s luxury investment becomes your financial problem

On 04 October 2026, investigative journalist Nicole Barlow published an article titled How Noordhoek has become the battleground against Cape Town’s property rates trap.

The report followed her earlier investigation of 7 September 2026 concerning alleged irregularities and foreign influence in Cape Town’s planning processes.

Her reporting describes how extremely wealthy investors and developers may influence the values attributed to surrounding residential properties through acquisitions at prices that ordinary local purchasers may never contemplate paying.

One particularly striking example concerns a Noordhoek resident whose property was reportedly valued at R6.8 million under the previous valuation roll.

Under GV2025, that figure increased to R12.635 million.

According to the resident, the property itself had not materially changed.

No extraordinary improvements. No major construction. No transformation into a luxury development.

Yet the municipal valuation increased dramatically.

The same report identifies transactions involving properties acquired by investors allegedly associated with German developer Niels Severin, including a reported purchase of R16.6 million for a property at 8 Ticos Way.

That property reportedly had a municipal valuation of R8.09 million in 2022 and R11.71 million under GV2025.

These reported amounts have not yet been independently established by LFN as the actual comparable transactions used by the City in any particular valuation.

But they expose a question that the City must answer.

If a wealthy developer pays an extraordinary premium for a property because of its redevelopment potential, should that transaction automatically influence what ordinary neighbouring homeowners must pay in municipal rates?

A properly conducted market valuation may legitimately consider comparable sales. That is not inherently unlawful.

But a municipality must be able to demonstrate that the transactions selected are genuinely comparable, that unusual premiums and property characteristics have been properly considered, and that the resulting valuation reflects the applicable statutory standard.

A transaction involving an investor willing to spend almost anything to secure a particular development opportunity cannot simply be assumed to represent the ordinary residential market without examining the circumstances.

This is particularly important where neighbouring properties differ substantially in their development potential, permitted uses, condition, location or other characteristics.

I draw the following comparison with what LFN regularly experiences in its public-interest litigation. As a frequent litigant, LFN is subjected to judicial findings made by different courts in different matters, each determined on its own particular facts, evidence and legal issues. Some findings may favour LFN, while others may be adverse to it. However, once judgments enter the public domain and become reported, we have experienced instances where findings made against LFN in entirely unrelated proceedings are relied upon in subsequent matters, notwithstanding that the underlying facts, evidence and causes of action are materially different. LFN has been compelled to challenge such practices through appellate proceedings, describing this phenomenon as “litigant profiling”, whereby findings concerning a litigant in one matter are effectively carried over into another without proper regard to the distinct circumstances of the latter.

A comparable concern arises from the City’s reliance on selling prices achieved by surrounding properties when determining the municipal valuation of a particular property. While comparable sales may legitimately inform market valuations, LFN questions whether sufficient consideration is given to the individual characteristics, circumstances and underlying transactions of each property used for comparison, particularly where the affected owner has not been furnished with the relevant records, material adjustments or reasons explaining their application. Just as findings in unrelated litigation should not automatically determine the merits of another case, the price achieved by one property should not automatically determine the value of another without a proper, property-specific assessment. LFN therefore questions whether the City’s valuation practices risk creating a form of “valuation profiling”, whereby the characteristics and selling prices of other properties are effectively attributed to an individual property without adequate disclosure, justification or consideration of its unique circumstances.

If the City can explain and justify its approach, let it do so.

If it cannot, the affected property owners deserve to know why.

Your home is not necessarily somebody else’s investment opportunity

Here lies an important distinction that I believe municipal rating policies must confront more seriously.

There is a fundamental difference between a person who acquires immovable property primarily to develop and resell it at a profit, and a family who purchases a home intending to live there for the remainder of their lives.

The investor views land as an opportunity to generate capital.

The ordinary homeowner views it as a place of shelter, stability, family life and security.

Both own property. Both enjoy constitutional protection. Both are subject to municipal law.

But their circumstances and their ability to absorb rapidly escalating municipal charges may be profoundly different.

Under the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act, 2004, municipal valuations are generally based on market value. A homeowner’s intention not to sell does not, by itself, remove the property from that statutory valuation standard.

That does not mean that government is powerless to distinguish between these circumstances when designing fair property-rates policies, reductions, exemptions and rebates.

The real question is whether municipalities and national legislators have done enough to protect long-term residential owners against financial pressures arising from markets increasingly influenced by high-value investment and redevelopment activity.

For example, what would happen if a wealthy developer suddenly decided to purchase an entire block of low-cost housing in Khayelitsha, paying millions of rands for individual properties that would ordinarily command substantially lower prices? Would those extraordinary transactions suddenly transform every neighbouring homeowner into an overnight millionaire, at least on paper? More importantly, if the City were to rely on those inflated purchase prices when determining the municipal valuations of surrounding properties, could ordinary low-income homeowners suddenly find themselves facing substantially higher rates and taxes, potentially amounting to thousands of rands more annually? And what happens when those homeowners, who have experienced no corresponding increase in their actual income, can no longer afford the municipal charges imposed upon them? Could they ultimately face debt enforcement proceedings and even lose their homes, simply because wealthy investors have artificially driven up the prices of properties in their neighbourhood? Surely, the constitutional protection of property ownership should not become meaningless merely because a municipality attributes a theoretical market value to someone’s home that bears little relationship to that person’s financial circumstances.

I still remember what I regard as one of the early catalysts of Pretoria’s extraordinary residential property boom, which I trace back to The Orchards during the early 1990s, around the birth of our constitutional democracy. During that period, developers recognised the commercial opportunities presented by the changing residential property market and began purchasing large tracts of relatively inexpensive agricultural land, subdividing them into numerous individual erven. In some instances, as I recall, individual stands were subsequently marketed at prices comparable to, or even exceeding, what developers had originally paid for substantially larger portions of agricultural land. These developments attracted aspiring black homeowners from neighbouring communities such as Ga-Rankuwa and Soshanguve, many of whom were entering previously inaccessible residential property markets and embracing the opportunities associated with a newly emerging, racially integrated society. However, what followed, in my observation, was a remarkable escalation in residential property prices. Homeowners elsewhere in Pretoria began comparing their established, often substantially larger properties with the smaller homes and stands being sold in The Orchards at increasingly higher prices. It was only a matter of time before those comparisons contributed to growing expectations of higher property values across other residential areas. What had begun as an opportunity for developers to profit from inexpensive land appeared to contribute to a broader shift in how residential property was priced, with values escalating at a pace that many ordinary homeowners could scarcely have imagined only a few years earlier.

To appreciate the magnitude of the changes I have witnessed during my lifetime, consider my own family’s experience. During the 1980s, residential property in many historically white urban neighbourhoods was considerably more affordable in nominal terms than it is today, although that market operated within the deeply unequal and racially discriminatory economic conditions of a segregated South Africa. I distinctly recall that, around 1981, when I was only five years old, my late father considered purchasing an agricultural holding immediately adjacent to Jan Smuts Airport, now known as OR Tambo International Airport, in Kempton Park, where he was employed as an aircraft electrician. The asking price for that holding was approximately R6 000, while my father’s monthly salary, as I recall it, was approximately R4 000. My mother, however, was not particularly enthusiastic about moving to what was then a largely undeveloped area. My father consequently decided to build our family a brand-new, five-bedroom home in town instead, at a cost of approximately R20 000. These figures remain firmly embedded in my childhood memories, not merely because of how inexpensive they appear by today’s standards, but because they illustrate just how dramatically the relationship between property prices, household earnings and the affordability of homeownership has changed over the decades. Of course, inflation, changing incomes, financing costs and economic circumstances must be considered when making historical comparisons. Nevertheless, the underlying question remains whether the modern property market, increasingly influenced by speculative investment and development premiums, is still serving ordinary families seeking secure homes, or whether those families are progressively being priced out of the very communities they helped establish.

For interest sake, that very R6000 agricultural holding my father wanted to purchase during the 80s, would have been valued at tens of millions Rand today.

A family should not have to contemplate abandoning its home merely because wealthy investors have developed an appetite for its neighbourhood.

An elderly property owner living on a fixed income does not suddenly become financially wealthy because the municipality increases the paper value of the family home.

The valuation may suggest that the property is worth millions.

But millions in theoretical property wealth do not necessarily put additional money into the owner’s bank account.

And municipal rates are not paid with theoretical wealth.

They are paid with actual money.

We also cannot ignore the potentially devastating consequences where mounting municipal liabilities contribute to debt enforcement and, ultimately, the loss of immovable property.

LFN intends to examine properly documented cases of such outcomes rather than merely assume how frequently they occur.

The uncomfortable question remains: what does it benefit a homeowner to become a millionaire on a municipal valuation roll while becoming financially incapable of remaining in that very home?

Is the DA building Cape Town for its residents or for the highest bidder?

This brings us to the political dimension of the problem.

The DA has spent years presenting its governance record as evidence that it offers a cleaner, more competent and more accountable alternative to the ANC.

That reputation should not exempt a DA-led municipality from scrutiny. On the contrary, a party that places such emphasis on administrative competence and accountability should welcome demands for transparent decision-making.

Nicole Barlow’s investigations raise serious concerns about the changing character of communities such as Noordhoek, including allegations concerning planning approvals, development practices and the treatment of affected residents.

Those allegations remain matters requiring proper investigation and responses from the persons concerned.

Nevertheless, they raise a legitimate public-interest question:

Is the DA-led City sufficiently protecting the environmental character, residential communities and existing property owners of Cape Town, or has the pursuit of premium development and a more valuable property base begun taking precedence?

Cape Town’s mountains, coastline, open spaces and established residential neighbourhoods are not simply assets to be exploited for the benefit of whichever investor arrives with the deepest pockets.

They form part of the environment and communities that residents have built their lives around.

Foreign investment is not inherently objectionable. Neither is lawful development or the construction of expensive homes.

The problem arises when development decisions, municipal valuation methods and rates policies potentially combine to impose disproportionate burdens on existing residents.

There are obvious financial incentives associated with a growing municipal property valuation base, even though the actual revenue collected also depends on the rate-in-the-rand, applicable exemptions, reductions and rebates.

The City has pointed to measures intended to soften the impact of GV2025, including changes to the rating formula and residential relief.

Those measures deserve to be assessed fairly.

But they do not answer our underlying enquiry about the accuracy, transparency and justification of individual valuations.

Nor do they resolve the separate concern about whether planning and development policies are adequately protecting existing communities.

Good governance cannot be measured exclusively by attractive budgets, impressive developments or municipal publicity. It must also be measured by how government treats ordinary people who question its decisions.

LFN has consistently challenged conduct by ANC-led governments where we believed constitutional standards had been disregarded.

We will apply precisely the same standards to the DA.

Political branding is not a defence to administrative unlawfulness.

And claiming to govern better than the ANC does not relieve anyone of the obligation to govern constitutionally.

The constitutional question hiding behind your municipal rates account

This is where our challenge becomes much more significant than an argument about whether a particular property should be worth R5 million, R10 million or R20 million.

On 6 October 2026, LFN addressed a seven-page formal notice to the Executive Mayor of Cape Town, Mr Geordin Hill-Lewis, and the City Manager, Mr Lungelo Mbandazayo.

The notice raised serious constitutional and administrative-law questions regarding the City’s valuation notices, the disclosure of information, the availability of property-specific reasons and the practical ability of owners to challenge the amounts imposed upon them.

We followed this on 7 October 2026 with a six-page letter to the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mr Velenkosini Hlabisa.

Why involve the Minister?

Because the problem may extend beyond Cape Town.

If the national legislative framework does not adequately ensure that property owners receive meaningful information in time to exercise their objection rights, this could affect municipalities and property owners throughout South Africa.

Section 33 of the Constitution protects the right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action, together with the right to written reasons where rights have been adversely affected.

Section 195 further establishes standards of public administration, including accountability and the provision of timely, accessible and accurate information.

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA) provides mechanisms for requesting reasons.

However, its ordinary procedure allows a request for reasons within 90 days and generally affords an administrator another 90 days to respond.

The Municipal Property Rates Act allows an inspection and objection period of as little as 30 days.

Do you see the potential problem?

A property owner could be required to formulate and submit an objection before receiving the reasons and supporting information necessary to understand the valuation being challenged.

The Act provides for reasons following the determination of an objection, but that does not necessarily solve the difficulty encountered before the objection is submitted.

The City’s GV2025 objection period ran from 20 February 2026 until 30 April 2026, exceeding the statutory minimum. Nevertheless, the central question remains whether an owner could obtain the relevant valuation information during that period.

That is what LFN intends to establish.

It is not presently our contention that every initial valuation notice without accompanying reasons is automatically unlawful. Existing case law recognises the ordinary request-based system for reasons.

Our concern is whether this particular statutory and administrative process provides a genuinely effective opportunity to exercise the right of objection.

In Locom Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Msunduzi Municipality and Another [2023] ZAKZPHC 37, the High Court examined serious deficiencies in municipal valuation appeal proceedings.

The Court recognised the difficulties facing property owners who have not participated in the original valuation and are subsequently required to challenge it.

Importantly, the Court rejected the approach of an appeal board treating the municipality’s initial valuation as an established fact that the owner was required to disprove.

That judgment did not invalidate the national property valuation legislation. Its findings arose in the context of valuation appeals.

But it provides important judicial support for our concerns about fairness, the evidential basis for municipal valuations and the proper determination of property values.

LFN believes this deserves serious constitutional consideration.

What exactly are we demanding?

Our request is neither unreasonable nor technically impossible.

We want the City to explain how affected property owners can obtain the reasons and material information supporting their individual valuations before the applicable objection period expires.

Ideally, every initial or amended valuation notice should be accompanied by an intelligible explanation of the valuation.

That explanation should identify the valuation date, the method actually used, the material property characteristics taken into account, the relevant comparable transactions or statistical information, and any significant adjustments affecting the final amount.

Where a valuation increases substantially, the owner should be able to understand what materially explains that increase.

Where mass appraisal is employed, the relevant model, grouping and material inputs should be explained in a form ordinary people can understand.

We are not demanding that municipalities commission expensive individual valuation reports for every property.

We are demanding that government show its working.

The City has confirmed that it uses a computer-assisted mass appraisal system. Such methods are recognised within the statutory framework. It should also be able to store the reasons for each valuation and automatically circulated with the notice to the landowner informing them of the proposed valuation amendment.

But technology does not remove the constitutional obligation to administer public power lawfully and fairly.

An algorithm cannot become an excuse for withholding explanations.

We have also requested the City’s existing policies, standard notices, operational instructions, valuation guidance and protocols governing objections and disclosure.

The Minister has been asked to consider whether legislative, regulatory or administrative reforms are necessary, including a mechanism for automatically furnishing reasons with specified classes of valuation decisions.

The principle could hardly be simpler:

If government can calculate what you supposedly owe, it should be able to explain the factual and legal basis of that calculation.

The responses came surprisingly quickly

Our correspondence to the City was sent on the evening of 6 October 2026.

By 7 October 2026, the Office of the Executive Mayor had acknowledged receipt.

Ms Sarietha Engelbrecht explained that the valuation process was conducted under the administration of the City Manager rather than the Mayor’s office and confirmed that our correspondence had been forwarded accordingly.

On 8 October 2026, we received a further response from Mr Wanga Shabane, a legal advisor within the Office of the City Manager.

He confirmed that the matter had been allocated to him and referred to the relevant department for investigation.

Significantly, his response indicated that the City did not presently intend to address each allegation individually and reserved its rights to respond at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum.

That is a familiar legal reservation.

It does not amount to an admission, and we do not suggest otherwise.

Nevertheless, the City’s legal department has now formally taken responsibility for dealing with our correspondence.

Meanwhile, within approximately two hours of sending our national letter on 7 October 2026, we received acknowledgement from Ms Lyndith Waller, the Minister’s Private and Appointments Secretary.

She confirmed that the correspondence was receiving attention.

We welcome these prompt responses. But acknowledgements are not answers, referrals are not reasons, and investigations are not substitutes for the requested records.

Both authorities have been asked to provide the available institutional records within five working days and a substantive, reasoned response within ten working days.

These are the periods requested by LFN, not deadlines that we claim the legislation automatically imposes.

As at 8 October 2026, those periods have not yet expired.

We are therefore giving the authorities the opportunity to address the concerns constructively.

What happens next depends substantially on the quality and completeness of their responses.

And if they fail to answer, LFN is prepared to go to court

Let me make our position clear.

LFN did not send these letters merely to generate correspondence or publicity.

We are examining the constitutional adequacy of a system that has direct financial consequences for hundreds of thousands of property owners.

If the City’s procedures are fair, transparent and lawful, its officials should be able to demonstrate that through the requested explanations and records.

If those procedures are deficient, they should be corrected.

And if the legislation itself prevents owners from obtaining the information necessary to exercise their rights effectively, the responsible authorities must consider appropriate reforms.

Should the City and Minister fail to address our substantive concerns satisfactorily, LFN intends to institute appropriate legal proceedings.

Depending on the issues that remain unresolved, those proceedings may include administrative-law, declaratory and constitutional relief.

We will determine the appropriate scope of any litigation from the evidence, the applicable law and the authorities’ responses.

Our objective is not simply to secure a lower valuation for one member.

It is to establish a transparent, constitutionally defensible system that benefits everyone.

We have successfully brought difficult questions before government before.

And we are entirely prepared to pursue this matter through the courts if necessary.

The approaching municipal elections make accountability even more important

On 4 November 2026, South Africans are scheduled to vote in the local government elections.

For Cape Town residents, these valuation questions are especially relevant to the assessment of the City’s governance record.

The DA presents itself as a party committed to clean administration, constitutionalism and accountability.

Those commitments should be measured against what happens when citizens request information that challenges established municipal practices.

Can the municipality substantiate its valuations?

Does it assist property owners to understand and exercise their rights?

Are rates policies appropriately responsive to the circumstances of long-term homeowners?

Are development and planning decisions protecting the people and environment affected by them?

And are public officials genuinely accountable when their decisions are questioned?

These are not questions exclusive to one political party. Every governing party should be subjected to them.

LFN remains committed to constitutional accountability regardless of which party controls a municipality.

We do not believe citizens should place unconditional faith in political promises, party reputations or municipal public-relations campaigns.

The proper test of government is not what it says about itself, but what it can demonstrate through its conduct, decisions and records.

A message to the property owners of Cape Town — and the rest of South Africa

If your property valuation has increased substantially without an explanation you can understand, we want to hear about your experience.

If your objection was rejected without properly addressing the evidence you submitted, that experience may be relevant.

If you believe unusual developer transactions have influenced the value assigned to your home, we want to understand the circumstances.

And if your family has suffered severe financial hardship because of escalating property rates, your story deserves to be heard.

We particularly encourage affected owners in Noordhoek, Constantia, Capri, Tokai, Kommetjie and surrounding communities to bring documented concerns to our attention.

This is not restricted to the Western Cape. Please make contact via email to admin@libertyfighters.org

Our correspondence to the Minister deliberately addresses the national valuation framework.

Please retain copies of valuation notices, objection decisions, relevant municipal correspondence, rates accounts and supporting documents. Personal financial information should be redacted where appropriate.

Affected owners should also note that our systemic challenge does not automatically suspend individual statutory deadlines or payment obligations.

The stronger the factual evidence, the more effectively we can identify which practices require reform.

The right to own property should not be undermined by a system that people cannot meaningfully understand or challenge.

LFN cannot fight everyone’s battles without public support

I want to conclude by addressing something that many of our supporters understandably do not always consider.

People regularly approach LFN because they believe we will challenge injustices that others are unwilling or unable to confront.

And we do.

But these challenges do not happen by themselves.

Behind every letter, investigation, constitutional argument and court process lies extensive research, administrative work, document preparation and financial expense.

This is not a hobby that we pursue when we have a few spare hours. It is the work to which we devote our lives.

LFN is a voluntary association without gain. We do not charge our members for our legal assistance or expect remuneration in return.

Our work depends on voluntary contributions from people who believe that constitutional rights must exist for ordinary citizens, not merely for those wealthy enough to engage legal practitioners.

For some time now, our financial resources have been severely strained.

We have continued working despite those constraints, but determination alone does not pay for the practical resources needed to investigate and pursue public-interest matters.

We are not asking people to pay for the assistance they receive.

We are asking those who value what LFN does, and who are in a position to contribute, to consider supporting the continued existence and effectiveness of that work.

Whether through a once-off donation or a modest recurring contribution, voluntary support helps make continued investigations and challenges possible.

Those who cannot contribute financially can still assist by sharing our work, bringing important information to our attention and helping other South Africans understand their rights.

Public-interest accountability is strongest when the public takes an active interest in it.

This is only the beginning

What began with a conversation involving Jack Miller, concerns raised by our members and supporters, and investigative reports about Noordhoek has now become a formal enquiry directed at both the City of Cape Town and the national government.

We have not yet established that the municipal valuation system is unconstitutional.

Nor have we concluded that every extraordinary increase reflects an unlawful or inaccurate valuation.

But we have identified a serious question that deserves proper answers.

Why should an ordinary property owner be expected to accept and financially bear the consequences of a government-determined valuation without being given a clear, timely and meaningful explanation of how that valuation was reached?

The City has acknowledged our correspondence.

The Minister’s office has acknowledged our correspondence.

The City’s legal department is attending to the matter.

Now we await the substance.

One thing is certain: LFN is not going to abandon this enquiry merely because government provides assurances that everything is being attended to.

We want the reasons.

We want the records.

We want an accountable system.

And if it becomes necessary, we will ask the courts to determine whether the existing framework meets the requirements of our Constitution.

Because your home should never become a financial trap simply because government assigns it a value that you cannot afford to live with.

The government may determine your municipal valuation. But the Constitution determines the limits of government’s power.

If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?

or make a quick donation… MobiPaid