Overstrand (Hermanus etc.) is in die Moeilikheid

The Overstrand municipality, which includes Hermanus, Stanford and Kleinmond, is in trouble or, as the Afrikaans puts it, “in die moeilikheid.” A seed of lawlessness has taken root and, if left unchecked, will grow and choke towns such as Hermanus, Stanford and Gansbaai.

Money

In 2021 the Council approved the write-off of “the irregular expenditure in the amount of R2 064 382,56…” In 2023 the Council approved the write-off of “the irregular expenditure to the amount of R2 015 255,07…” In 2024 the Council approved the write-off of “irregular expenditure in the amount of R1 037 500,00.”

Then at its ordinary meeting on 29 October 2025, the DA-led Overstrand Council resolved to write off irrecoverable debt totalling R53 658 380,02.

Where is the money going? This matters because ultimately the property owners and ratepayers (the responsible citizens) will bear the cost. Ignoring the issue only kicks the can down the road for future generations, including your children and grandchildren. What is unfolding in Overstrand is not a minor technical problem; it is an ethical one, with real-world consequences.

In the municipal context, “irrecoverable debt” refers to unpaid services such as water, electricity, sanitation, and refuse removal. Before examining who is not paying, I will place the scale of the financial problem in context.

According to the Overstrand Municipal Budget for 2024/25, R934,592,000 was allocated to water, electricity, and refuse removal. On this basis, the R53 million written off as irrecoverable debt represents roughly 5.7% of net spending on these core services (readers are welcome to check my calculations in case a mistake was made). Note that the allocation for sanitation could not be found, so it has been excluded.

At first glance, 5% may seem small, but it is significant for several reasons. First, this amount has been rising over the past few years, and unless action is taken, another R50 million could be written off in 2026. Second, the question is why this debt is growing. What is happening beneath the surface? Five percent signals a deeper problem.

Who should be paying?

South Africa’s local governments, including Overstrand, rely on the “equitable share” to fund basic services and support indigent households. The equitable share is an unconditional transfer from national revenue to provinces and municipalities. Municipalities also administer indigent support programmes, offering free or subsidised services to qualifying low-income households. Well, it’s not really free because taxpayers and ratepayers have to fit the bill.

Here is the crux. When the national equitable share does not fully cover costs, municipalities must raise the difference through other revenue sources, such as property rates and service charges from the responsible residents. For example, if basic services for 5,000 registered indigent households cost R30 million annually, but the equitable share provides only R25 million, the municipality must raise the remaining R5 million locally. Typically, this involves writing off the debt as “irrecoverable,” balancing the books, and claiming a clean audit. Clever bookkeeping.

As elsewhere in South Africa, we can assume that corruption exists within the indigent system. Some households may be registered as indigent despite being able to pay, while others are no doubt genuinely in need. The challenge is that, in South Africa, corruption is rightly assumed.

The Land Party

About a decade ago, a political party known as the Land Party emerged in Hermanus. It remains particularly active in the town and, by my estimates, is likely to grow.

The Land Party currently holds two seats in the Overstrand municipal council. Its stated objectives focus on land expropriation, or invasion, and it has called for local group AfriForum to be declared a terrorist organisation. Sounds lovely.

It also advocates transferring state land to the “poor.” In practice, such policies concentrate power in the hands of a small leadership group led by a “Great Leader,” with negative consequences for both the genuinely poor and the middle class. The party has reportedly suggested it wants to “eat the rich.” All this reminds me of Stalin and Mao.

In December 2025, the Land Party published a Facebook post claiming it had helped “scrap municipal debts for over 20 000 households.” I assume that this debt scrapping would form part of the irrecoverable debt totalling R53 million that was written off by the DA-led Overstrand Council. How was this debt removed, and with whose approval?

Is a culture of municipal debt scrapping taking root, driven by political pressure or even intimidation? Lawlessness seems to be growing. Rewarding it with weak leadership, apathy, or legitimisation will only make it worse. The Land Party’s public admission reframes the R53 million in irrecoverable debt, suggesting organised political actors may be actively working to have service charges written off.

This does not eliminate the cost. Municipal services still must be paid for, with the burden shifted onto the responsible middle-class residents, taxpayers, and property owners. If debt scrapping is used as a political tool, the practice will likely escalate with each election cycle. Will we also see more land invasions or fires in 2026 or 2028, as in 2018?

There is also the question of entitlement. Free handouts foster expectation, and unchecked entitlement causes untold chaos. Is a culture of entitlement and lawlessness being cultivated, one that political actors may exploit? This looks to be the start of an anarchic municipality, where responsible citizens are penalised with rates and fines while lawlessness goes unpunished. It may sound extreme, but this is how anarchy takes root.

The result is a two-tier system. Some households receive electricity, water, and refuse removal for free, while others must pay in full. This arrangement is unethical, unsustainable, and undermines both the municipality’s finances and trust between residents and local government. “One rule for me and another for thee” is immoral.

Understanding the Land Party’s actions in Hermanus and Overstrand casts the R53 million in a different light. It’s not just lost revenue; it signals a deeper problem and exposes the role of the leadership enabling it. For those who want to follow the Land Party, their official WhatsApp channel is available HERE.

The golden cow

This point is uncomfortable, but it must be addressed. It appears the king has no clothes, yet Overstrand voters continue to prop him up. To understand the full pictures we need to look back to 1994 and 2018.

Since 1994, the South African government has failed to expand infrastructure, particularly housing, at a pace consistent with population growth. This has been driven largely by misuse of state funds by the African National Congress (ANC) and its “lites.” The result is a housing shortage, with more people than formal homes.

Decades of political promises of free goods and services, including housing, education, water, and land, have compounded the problem. Over time, these promises have fostered widespread entitlement. When expectations go unmet, tension rises, producing destructive behaviour such as arson, looting, theft, land invasion, and expropriation of private property.

There is a third strand to South Africa’s post-1994 trajectory. Since 1994, the ANC and its offshoots have placed land expropriation (land invasion) at the centre of their agenda, evolving from limited restitution for apartheid-era dispossession to broad redistribution, and under Zuma, to expropriation without compensation.

These three strands converged during the 2018 Hermanus land invasion, where the promises of free land, entitlement, lack of infrastructure and the National Democratic Revolution collided.

The large-scale invasion occurred almost overnight on the Schulphoek Peninsula, home to a protected 50-hectare milkwood forest. Thousands were bused in, informal shacks sprang up, and the settlement expanded to an estimated 3,500 shacks housing roughly 10,000 people. The invasion resulted in near-total destruction of the endangered forest, repeated unrest, and the burning of key public infrastructure, including the swimming pool complex, library, and police station.

Efforts to stop the occupation were limited and inconsistent. After an initial, unsuccessful eviction attempt, the DA-led municipality shifted toward accommodation, providing free roads, electricity, and eventually title deeds, even on unsafe land such as the municipal dump. The consequences included declining middle-class property values nearby, long-term environmental damage, and growing municipal debt.

Who led the Overstrand council in 2018? The Democratic Alliance (DA). The growth of debt scrapping, entitlement, and general lawlessness ultimately rests with the DA. Why? Because they have run the show for the past decade. The Overstrand council is a political body because it is made up of politicians. DA internal structures are separate, but the de facto reality is that a DA-led council is guided by the DA.

By legitimising the 2018 land invasions through freebies, the municipality created incentives for further invasions and other forms of lawlessness. Why didn’t they stop the land invasion? It is reminiscent of what happened at Tygerberg Raceway.

The seed of lawlessness has been incentivised. People need housing, water, electricity, sanitation, and refuse removal, but the way these needs have been addressed, and continue to be addressed, is irresponsible. You cannot encourage lawlessness by giving out free services; it only worsens the problem. Why is the DA-led council doing this? Having voted for the DA for 15 years, from 2008 to 2024, I am ashamed.

I will likely be accused of “misinformation”, “political bias” or “fear-mongering”. These are childish labels rather than serious arguments. The fact is that Overstrand residents must wake up now, before the fire of anarchy, lawlessness and entitlement grows too large to contain. What are you going to do?