This first accusation is about the limited resources of the State diverted to policing land, servicing occupations and paying for legal costs rather than providing essential services and/or housing to people.

The second accusation focuses on the notion that our seemingly overprotective approach to people living on the street is violating the rights of other property owners and putting them at risk, and that any efforts to maintain the status quo through legal means will only encourage more people to settle on pavements or occupy more land and/or buildings. 

Fundamentally, these assumptions are false and we hope to address these myths to clarify our position. 

As a social justice organisation, we will not deny our interest lies fundamentally with the rights of the people who are most vulnerable or who have been rendered powerless by the political system. We will use every means possible to resist and fight forms of injustice that families living in poverty face on a daily basis. 

This is not just a physical absence of shelter, but is compounded by hunger and lack of employment, leading to deep psychological impacts that cause intergenerational trauma, violence and a lack of dignity. 

With regard to the housing waiting list, despite what the City, province or national government might say, it feels like a deep, dark hole. Without exaggeration, every person living in an inadequate shelter is beyond frustrated with this idea of a waiting list. The list seems endless and the turn of those in need never comes. 

How long must citizens wait for housing? Is 25 years long enough? What should they do when their turn doesn’t come? The City’s own projections state that it will take close to 70 years to address the housing backlog. Most of the people on the waiting list will have passed away. 

We want to make sure that the public understands the implications of this – the waiting list is a red herring and not a viable model for the current demand that we are experiencing (See the SERI-SA and CLC report from 2013 here). 

The City of Cape Town’s draft Human Settlement Sector Plan indicated that the public sector (City and province) provided 17,619 homes and serviced sites every year between 2013 and 2020. On top of this, the City of Cape Town’s targets for delivery have dramatically shrunk. Their own figures, in the face of rising demand, is to reduce the number of housing opportunities it offers – down to 8,000 serviced stands over five years. 

So, telling people to wait patiently for their turn is blatant lying, as the demand is constantly growing and delivery dramatically shrinking. 

The occupations that we see are clearly a result of seeing this truth. The occupiers are taking huge risks for themselves and their families when they occupy land – but they only do it in order to escape the cycle of poverty. 

The occupations in Khayelitsha, Woodstock and Sea Point were not by people who suddenly appeared on the horizon and occupied land and buildings. These are people who have been on the waiting list for as long as 20 years, and were forced onto the street either through gentrification or as a result of gender-based violence (see the Cissie Gool House zine here). 

Everyone on the waiting list is in some form of informal settlement occupation or in backyards. So why are some legal and others not? Who makes this decision?

Land occupation is not right – it puts people at risk. Families occupy land in conditions that are not suitable for living. Most of these occupations do not have basic services or electricity. 

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Our suggestion is that the City, along with other spheres of government, starts speaking truth to its people. Give them the taste of reality that the waiting list will not be eradicated, and that we have to rethink the way we think about housing – not as a commodity, but as a right that will ultimately make the economy viable. 

This is like saying: 

• People should not go to sleep hungry (we all agree).
• We have food for 20, but there are 2,000 people in the line.
• 1,980 people must wait patiently, and also fend for themselves.
• Go look for work hungry, while your turn will come.
• Do not steal as that is against the law – look at the other 20 that waited and got their food.
• If you steal, especially from the pot, you are leaving those in front of the line hungry.

It’s a dead-end. The limited resources are not being deployed for anyone. It is very clear from both national and City policies that the government wants to shrink from its responsibilities. And we fundamentally believe it’s not because of funding or the lack thereof, but directly in relation to how the government views its people as dependants drip-fed by the state. 

The second accusation is that we are overly protective of land occupiers and people living on the street. The protection of these rights has a knock-on effect for Cape Town’s ratepayers and tax-paying citizens who have invested hard-earned or inherited money – property prices are impacted; often tax-paying citizens feel threatened and are deeply uncomfortable with this. This also has a deep knock-on effect on tourism and investment. Tourists find the sight of poverty extremely threatening. And other people’s employability is impacted as a result of the “growth of shanty towns” on our streets and pavements. 

This reality is but one side of the coin. Let us not be under any illusions – poverty has always existed. It was just a convenient reality that this poverty was well-managed and hidden on the peripheries, keeping the inner city well-manicured. That is clearly not the case anymore. The level of inequality is so high that it is now impacting all of us directly, whether we choose it or not. 

Our litigation on this matter, to provide some basic rights and dignity to people on the street or in precarious occupations, has no material value. These quiet encroachments move and push the boundaries outside the law. 

We are merely reminding the City of Cape Town that they cannot choose which laws are important. The rights of property owners as well as the rights of people who have repeatedly been displaced – first by apartheid, then by property markets and finally by a socioeconomic system that pulls them deeper into the quicksands of poverty – have to be protected. Even the mayor has said that using law enforcement isn’t going to solve this problem. It has to be an approach of care. 

Rate-paying citizens are not the only citizens in the city. Everyone matters and needs to be treated with respect and dignity. The right to protect one’s property does not equate to taking rights from others. Had the same degree of resources – public investment that is used for the upkeep of the inner city – been invested in the historically disadvantaged Cape Flats, the reality would indeed be different. This is the role of all citizens and government – at the heart of it, is to remedy the injustices of the past and create a more integrated and just city. 

In conclusion, there is no denying that the housing crisis is now staring all of us in the face. Blaming and passing the buck doesn’t help. If we have to move forward, we have to accept that more can be done to ensure the next generation does not experience the trauma of poverty, exclusion and inequality. DM/MC