City’s land auction questioned
THE City’s plans to auction 40 of its land parcels has come under criticism from activists citing spatial inequality and access to land for marginalised communities.
The City said the land being auctioned off was not required by the municipality.
There are 45 lots with some having more than one property on them, on the auction list in both residential and commercial areas.
Interested bidders must register and bid online when the platform goes live on June 30.
Mayco member for Economic Opportunities and Asset Management, James Vos, said: “By releasing land not required for municipal purposes, albeit commercial, industrial, and or residential sites, we empower the individual to bid for such land in an equitable manner.”
A number of community use zoned sites are included with nonprofit organisations able to bid for such properties to be used for social and community use, said Vos.
Development Action Group programme manager Helen Rourke, however, expressed concern with the City’s disposal of land to the highest bidder.
“I got really nervous about the way in which the City disposes of land, goes to the highest value – all about achieving the highest economic return.”
Rourke said the social value of the land should’ve been assessed for its potential for integrating neighbourhoods, and would entail public engagement on increasing the social function of the land such as for affordable and social housing, neighbourhood transformation and redress.
“There’s an assumption that they don't need the land, but to what extent has the City gone to assess the potential for these parcels of land to drive neighbourhood transformation?”
Ndifuna Ukwazi head of research and advocacy Michael Clark said the sales of the properties were indicative of an unco-ordinated, ad hoc approach to public land management by the City.
“While we accept that not every parcel of land will be suitable for affordable housing, what is critical is that access to land, particularly public land, is at the heart of restructuring society. The City should not dispose of land without a considered and transparent justification for why public land cannot be used to advance broader societal functions. It is not sufficient for the City to simply state that public land has become ‘surplus’.”