Cape Town mayor blasts the city’s wealthiest property owners
Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis criticised the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) for what he argues is prioritising profits over people in its challenge to the city’s budget reforms.
This followed SAPOA’s pending High Court application seeking a review of the city’s decision to link certain fixed municipal charges to property values under the 2025/26 “Invested in Hope” budget.
In a statement on 17 July, Hill-Lewis said SAPOA, which represents many of the country’s largest and wealthiest property owners, has benefited greatly from Cape Town’s well-run infrastructure.
However, he argued that the association’s current objection is to avoid paying fair contributions to that very same infrastructure.
“They now argue that the city should charge the biggest property owners the same as individual low-income families,” he said.
“The city simply cannot agree. That would be regressive, place a disproportionate burden on ordinary families, and be patently unfair.”
Hill-Lewis explained that the new system of linking fixed municipal charges to property value is designed to be more equitable, ensuring that wealthier households and businesses pay a fairer share towards maintaining and improving public infrastructure.
“If SAPOA were to succeed in their argument, the effect would be to have ordinary families effectively subsidising the wealthiest property owners,” said Hill-Lewis.
The mayor emphasised that the city’s budget protects homes valued under R2.5 million and expands rates relief to more middle-class homes, all while sustaining critical infrastructure and service investments.
By contrast, he said, SAPOA’s legal action seeks a return to a financially and socially regressive system.
“This court application by the richest of the rich property portfolio holders seeks to go back to a system of regressive taxation which hits ordinary families, and the poor, the hardest,” he said.
The change comes after the city scrapped its previous “pipe levy” model, which charged homeowners based on the size of their water pipe connection.
Hill-Lewis said this model made little sense, as it required homes worth R50 million and R500,000 to contribute equally to Cape Town’s fixed service and infrastructure costs.
“Fixed charges linked to property value is a lawful, more fair, and equitable way for Capetonians to contribute within their means,” he said.
“Cross-subsidising, where the better off among us help to fund services for the less fortunate, is the only sustainable way to ensure a working city of hope for all.”
Fixed charges are necessary

He also noted that the city had engaged extensively with SAPOA during the budgeting process.
While SAPOA acknowledged the need for Cape Town’s R40 billion infrastructure investment over the next three years, the major noted that they failed to propose a workable alternative to the fixed charge structure.
According to Hill-Lewis, the only alternative would be a flat fixed charge for all ratepayers, which he called neither sustainable nor fair.
“If a flat charge of R500 is billed, and one household earns R20,000 while another earns R100,000 per month, this charge represents 2.5% and 0.5% of their monthly income, respectively.
The impact on the lower-income household is five times more than on the higher-income household, which is regressive and inequitable,” he said.
Hill-Lewis also defended the necessity of fixed charges, arguing that all ratepayers, even those who have invested in private alternatives like solar panels or boreholes, must contribute to maintaining the city’s infrastructure.
“Cape Town would not have a working electricity or water service to speak of if the city only charged people for consumption,” he said.
“Many costs are fixed in nature, pipelines, trucks, cables, staff to service it all. These costs remain no matter how much people consume, and so fixed costs must be met with a portion of fixed revenue.”
“Infrastructure must be available for all and must always work. To achieve this, costs must be borne by all ratepayers.”