'The Lonehill Residents Association (LRA) is pleased to announce that there has been a dramatic drop in the incidents of crime in and around Lonehill, Beverley and Lonehill East areas over the past few weeks. Most areas have in fact experienced no reported crime at all, with only a few exceptions. '
Now THAT's more like it!
THAT's what we want to hear from our LRA.
Why it took so long to focus on the simple deliverables that we expect for what we pay, no one will ever know... save to say that I believe it was due to the standard malaise that sets into arrogant voluntary-based resident-type associations - they fell asleep! And some were well paid for this non-delivery of what we expect!
So what has done the trick? According to the quoted report, this did it: 'In line with the application of the enhanced security plan announced last year by the LRA, after substantial research and inputs, it would appear that the combination of improved training, deployment, tactics, and technology amongst the LRA Fidelity teams and the activities of the SAPS and SAPS Reservists is having a marked effect on reducing crime in our area.'
Quite simple, but everyone knew this years ago... we pay for this every month... why it takes so long to deliver on expected deliverables floors me. We pay for a proactive security solution, finished and klaar!
Now for an upcoming bone of contention - I see a little note to the next public feedback meeting - 7th May 19:00 - says 'Important - security cost increases will also be tabled' .
For what? The pathetic security we experienced in our community last year?
Actually, we are owed something back for being let down as we were!
And what about those who don't contribute? Who has brought THEM into the fold!
And why are the original contributors required to continue carrying an increased burden?
Where's the marketing that was promised... where's the sign-ons... what are the comparitive stats contributors vs. non-contributors... what stats demonstrate parity of contributions... who takes responsibility for the marketing to these non-contributors... wasn't that part of the Security tender conditions... what alternatives can be applied... who has failed us here?
In the recent post - VISIBILITY - One Off Wonder... Or Permanent Feature? - I made this note:
'I do hope that the LRA refer back to VISIBILITY & Vigilance - No.1 Priority and recognise that they have begun action on only part of the formula:
Priority No. 1 Strategy should be simple:
SECURITY ==> VISIBILITY & VIGILANCE ==> FUNDING
It's too easy just to raise the fees of those who contribute, without taking the tough road of doing one's homework first on non-contributors and/or looking for alternative routes of funding. My guess is that this issue is the WEAKEST function of our Lonehill community initiative run by the LRA.
Show me the homework done... and the effort put into to bringing non-contributors on board and or alternative funding mechanisms proposed BEFORE you ask me for more money!
Trevor Nel
Lonehill Resident - 011 - 705-2790
