Your Rates, Your Voice
Every new development increases demand on municipal infrastructure: roads, water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater systems, electricity networks, and public amenities. These systems have finite capacity and defined design limits.
When development approvals are granted without fully funded infrastructure expansion plans, municipalities inherit unfunded obligations. These obligations must be financed over decades, not only at construction stage but throughout the life of the infrastructure. Where developers do not fully fund this capacity, the cost is absorbed into municipal finances and recovered from the broader ratepayer base.
In a sound planning framework, growth pays for growth. Developer contributions, bulk infrastructure charges, and phased approvals are intended to ensure that new developments fund the capacity they consume.
Where these mechanisms are insufficient or diluted, municipalities rely on their most reliable revenue source: existing ratepayers. This shift occurs through:
above-inflation increases in property rates,
rising fixed service charges that apply regardless of consumption, and
long-term borrowing repaid through future tariffs.
This represents a structural transfer of development risk from private projects to the public balance sheet.
In Mossel Bay, the impact of infrastructure strain has not primarily been declining service delivery. Instead, it has been reflected in the rapid escalation of fixed charges and baseline tariffs.
Fixed charges are particularly effective as a cost-recovery tool because they:
apply to all connected properties,
are not linked to actual usage, and
provide predictable, permanent revenue streams.
As a result, households and businesses pay more each month even where consumption remains unchanged. These charges function as a mechanism to recover infrastructure funding gaps created by rapid development and future capacity planning.
Municipal planning increasingly aligns with national and international policy frameworks, including the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These frameworks promote densification, sustainability, climate resilience, and inclusive growth.
While these objectives may be policy-legitimate, they are not financially neutral. Implementing them at municipal level requires accelerated infrastructure investment, regulatory compliance, and long-term service commitments.
Crucially, there is no separate funding stream for global policy alignment. Once translated into local planning decisions, the financial responsibility rests with the municipality — and ultimately with ratepayers.
When development and policy alignment proceed without transparent costing, enforceable developer funding, and clear disclosure of long-term liabilities, municipalities default to their most dependable funding source: ratepayers.
This results in:
permanent increases in rates and fixed charges,
long-term financial exposure for households and businesses, and
limited opportunity for ratepayers to assess, influence, or consent to the costs being imposed.
The issue is not development itself, nor sustainability objectives. It is the absence of financial discipline and transparency that turns growth into a permanent affordability burden for those already funding the system.