Further mobilisation needed to change the colonial and apartheid past
COMING off the recent unfortunate comments on colonialism and slavery by Premier Zille, which shows lack of sensitivity and genuine care for the poor and African majority who were historically exposed and subjected to the horror this represented, the recent Tafelberg decision by the WC Executive Committee does not surprise most of us.
Once again, an opportunity to redress the colonial and apartheid chains linked to distorted spatial planning and human settlement patterns is missed by those in power.
The unfortunate trend of selectively selling well-located and prized government assets to those who have monetary power and advantages has always been a government pattern and historical practice, which tracks back to our colonial and subsequent apartheid past.
It is just that in today’s world local public authorities, especially in the Western Cape and prized metros like Cape Town, it has been disguised as much-needed economic development when in actual fact it is a perpetuation of old apartheid practices for prioritising the rights of the elite at the expense of the poor.
It is not surprising to hear the poor justification after this horrendous decision to sell Tafelberg to the highest commercial bidder instead of using it to attain social equity through mixed, affordable housing and commercial development opportunities that would have resulted in a more appropriate balance for all interested parties.
A reverse or different executive decision would have ironically satisfied both ends of the marginalised, as well as those of commerce interests. The lack of strategic vision to do something tangible and demonstrate genuine intent towards longterm socio-economic development shows the lack of creative and bold strategic thinking on the part of the Premier’s office to turn the tide relative to integration and accessibility by all to inner city locality.
Cape Town remains a heavily divided city, which offers no hope for the poor, who continue to reside in squalid conditions while the more affluent enjoy the opportunities it offers.
Surely this cannot continue uncontested if we are a viable constitutional democracy.
Some of us have argued time and again that the previous nefarious decision to find sympathy with the public officials’ decision of asking for comments while intentionally looking for justification of allocating such public property to the highest bidder for commercial ends, was a veiled intent to disguise their original decision to sell for commercial purposes.
Previous studies and credible arguments by the social housing sector and genuine developers based in the city, as well as the well-meaning NGO community and civil society as argued by the Reclaim the City movement, all show beyond reasonable doubt that this property, as well as others located in the city, which have been ring fenced over years by the provincial Department of Transport and Public Works, all do have significant potential and viability to be used for affordable housing and other secondary uses.
Even their colleagues in the City of Cape Town and provincial Human Settlements departmental colleagues, who have worked with social housing entities and partners, supported this credible argument to pursue inner-city housing opportunities.
It is ironic, therefore, to hear of Zille’s spokesperson Michael Mpofu’s nefarious justification of the recent executive decision to sell the property concerned.
This clearly serves as a lack of comprehensive understanding of what is at play here, from the need for public authorities to commit in programmatic terms to create a supportive and enabling environment for social housing delivery using a combination of State funding, public resources and properties, encouraging private sector funding involvement, accredited social housing entities, etc.
This is despite government legislation like the Social Housing Act, the National Housing Code, Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA), NEMA, and key national programmes like the National Development Plan (NDP), Integrated Development Plan (IDP), the National Rental Strategy, BNG, etc, all alluding to this reality.
Even our beloved constitution alludes to the reality of adequate housing for all for that matter. There is therefore no truth in the justification advanced by Mpofu, which is at best insensitive and far removed from the truth due to the following realities:
The property is in a gazetted restructuring zone area, the Human Settlements departmental colleagues would not have advanced the need for inner-city settlements through social housing if this was not the case.
His claim of suitability on the basis of the limitations of the state subsidy is flawed and demonstrates deliberate distortion of facts, there are various forms of state funding sources, which vary from state subsidies, restructuring grants, as well as the reality of the state land coming as some from internal equity due to the land being given on a possible long-term lease basis or nominal fee structure of overall market value to derive social equity as supported by the MFMA as argued above.
The perceived risk and financial viability argument is also not correct as there are similar projects done locally in SA and international settings faced with similar housing challenges linked to social housing or mixed development variants, which include both affordable housing and commercial elements originally conceptualised and implemented on the basis of constructive public private sector partnerships to limit or mitigate against such risks. Such initiatives overcome such risks by allowing for some degree of cross subsidisation based on derived commercial profits to sustain the development and long-term operational efficacy of such developments.
Perhaps Mr Mpofu and his colleagues must go visit such projects in inner-city settings of JHB, Durban and even in areas like East London where these projects are located to balance his openly-biased perspective and understanding since these were similarly funded as per the points above. The fact that his local colleagues at City of Cape Town and WCDoHS have partnered with some accredited social housing partners to seek viable means of overcoming such risks is a genuine indication of strategic commitment towards realisation of social housing opportunities.
It makes credible sense therefore as argued by Ndifuna Ukwazi, when those in government do not genuinely serve or respond to the needs of the marginalised and poor, to pursue relative legal relief through the courts in addition to consistent mobilisation for better housing options by civil society and NGOs.
As an African who has daily witnessed and directly experienced the plight of the poor and the reality of continued marginalisation to equally access services and key programmes like affordable housing, I fully support the call for further mobilisation and court relief, as this remains the only manner in which we can successfully change “the chains of the colonial and apartheid past” by using Tafelberg as a contemporary example to force public authorities “to do the right thing”.
It is in them to still make the right decision, it is not too late, instead of serving greedy needs of uncaring commercial developers.
Gagu has been a consultant in the affordable housing industry for more than 15 years, and has travelled extensively in different contexts around the world to undertake comparative work and learnerships