In 2018, the Development Action Group (DAG), along with an informal settlement, submitted a motion to the City of Cape Town subcouncil for the redevelopment of a dense informal settlement in Khayelitsha. After failing with rogue methods to upgrade by attempting to influence consulting engineers, we needed to attempt the more complicated yet formal regulatory route.
Like many other motions submitted around informal settlements, this motion did not get far. The response was fourfold, but the most important being that close to 12 hectares of land was needed to “de-densify”.
While this process unfolded, the City of Cape Town made some incredible claims of building 2,000 social housing units within the inner city. The utilisation of state-owned land for social housing was the silver lining. Yet despite years of preparation and resources spent on consultants and partnerships, there is little progress to implement these projects.
The land has sat vacant and underutilised for five years, while informal settlement residents wait in intolerable conditions.
More recently, the minister of public works and infrastructure, during her budget vote 2021/22, claimed that “in the past 12 months, more than 3,000 hectares of land were released for human settlement purposes, and a total of 9,736 vacant land parcels were ready to support the spatial transformation of our cities and towns”.
In 2020, the DAG, along with Ndifuna Ukwazi, Sasdi alliance, the Legal Resources Centre, the Community Organisation Resource Centre and UCT’s Professor Vanessa Watson held a public meeting on the release of three parcels of underutilised military-owned land.
After a formal submission endorsed by social justice organisations, social movements and community-based organisations, we learnt that the ministry of defence was utilising the three parcels of land and would submit recommendations to the Cabinet.
While we understand the needs of the defence ministry, surely this calls for a debate when 680 hectares of prime land could be utilised for housing.
In all of these instances, our government structures have lost their path and their courage. Rather than focus on our imperatives of service delivery and housing, the process has become lethargic and deeply politicised. With the upcoming local elections in October, politicians will be wearing a mask at our doorsteps. Housing and land will be a central part of each and every campaign.
Sadly, there is little truth in any of these promises.
Soon after the elections, the same politicians, this time backed by public sector officials, will present a different reality. This new reality says that “there are regulations and rules that need to be followed and many such developments cannot take place”.
We need a breed of politicians who are honest and knowledgeable, and do not misuse their power to mislead our society.
The solution to the prevailing housing crisis is directly linked to the issue of land and unless all government entities make this a priority, the answer will always be a “no”. It is important to emphasise that the housing crisis is highly centred in the urban areas. Informal settlements have grown from an estimated 300 in 1994 to 2,700 in 2020.
This is compounded by dramatic growth in backyarding and private rentals, estimated to be the fastest-growing housing solution. Our metropolitan areas are home to most of these informal settlements and backyards, with many secondary cities experiencing large in-migration and growing inequality over the last 10 years.
Our metropolitan areas are also where the contestation over land is highest. The property market and housing markets are generally unaffordable.
In these challenging times, there is no choice but to get state entities to align on the issue of land.
In this regard, while respecting the laws and regulations of the country, public servants would rather defend policies than listen to ideas. First, there is a stark reality and often a “made-up reality” of compliance culture. This relationship of convenience has to stop.
We have politicians and leaders who make promises that are neither realistic nor pragmatic. We don’t need lofty ideas, promises or grandstanding, but rather a public service that makes things happen. Just remember the number of fires in Cape Town over the summer and how many of those affected residents were promised formal housing.
The second pervasive issue is that of responsive implementation. As the context and political landscape become more complex, we need a public sector that is nimble and adaptive, rather than stiff and inert.
Often, rather than examining the implementation bottlenecks, which are frequently quite mundane and detail-oriented, we blame the regulations for the lack of implementation.
And this is followed by a kneejerk reaction to create more regulations as a way of controlling and determining the actions of the officials behind the desk. This has created a culture of apathy, fear and corruption.
Ultimately, there is no incentive in the public sector, particularly in the administration, to provide better services.
In many ways, civil society has been forced to heighten accountability for political commitments. This begs the question – will more democracy help? Will more accountability change behaviour? Will more Constitutional Court cases compel and accelerate delivery?
The answer is no.
Deepening our democracy is about shifting this culture of fear and apathy to a culture of creativity, productivity and participation. Like the examples mentioned above, we want the civil service to be self-critical and responsive, and not rely on the patience of civil society to wait indefinitely for commitments that are within our reach.
We need a breed of politicians that enables a public service, rather than disables it. DM
Become an Insider
“The solution to the prevailing housing crisis is directly linked to the issue of land…” is a very simplistic view the most motivated of governments will struggle with. No one will argue that our own government (local and national) needs several kicks up the arse, but even if they were Swiss, they would struggle to provide, firstly, services to informal housing settlements, many of whom are suspicious if not outright hostile to the authorities; and secondly, keep up with providing housing on a scale nowhere to be found in a non-socialist country. Nowhere in your piece do you mention any figures. How many people are migrating to urban centres? Never mind the small towns… Grabouw for example is clearly trying to deal with a situation where its population has most probably quadrupled, while its employment opportunities have halved. There is no way, as sure as God created little green apples, that this tiny economy can deal with this problem. Land will not solve it. If you say it is a solution, then prove it, with figures please, because it’s ideology that has caused this massive problem in the first place. Or rather, the clash of ideologies, because the frontline between the forces of a half-baked NDR and a liberal capitalist constitutional democracy is right there, in every village, in every town, in every city of this messed up country of ours. That is not to say we don’t need honest politicians.
Yes, we need honest, capable politicians. That’s like saying the national rugby team would like to win matches.
To add to the excellent response but Carsten Rasch I would say this – is it government (read: the tax payer) responsibility to provide housing? I would argue that it is not. Just because there is a need – and there clearly is – doesn’t mean that government/taxpayer should provide this.
I do agree with government’s new policy of providing title deeds to land. But getting overpaid tenderpreneurs to build shoddy houses is a one way street to disaster.
So everyone that wants a free house must get one. Then the house owners must get free water and electricity. And then they’ll want schools in the area. And then a free clinic. It’s a never ending list of wants but nothing is done to create the means to afford all that.
Hilarious. Where will you find these people in a country that has people paid huge amounts for stealing and doing f… all and huge amounts of people not able to do F… all and idiot politicians everywhere you look.
The city of Cape Town does an amazing job of replacing shacks burnt in informal settlement fires every year. It also tries to keep people from settling in unsuitable places which pose a threat to life and limb through flooding, trains and traffic. They put huge efforts into installing Infrastructure for services (water, sewerage, power). These efforts are often sabotaged by hostile people to the point where workers are attacked and robbed, vehicles stolen or damaged and contractors feel it’s too unsafe to work on the projects they’ve undertaken. We all get frustrated by bureaucracy but without it we’d be even more frustrated by the chaos. Its sad there’s so much mud slinging and suspicion. But maybe this is because of people being duped into thinking they can do what they want and expect to be given priority and treated as if its OK. A take and build first and regularise later culture has become so common that people think its their right. This is a human problem that needs a lot of people skills and empathy on either side.