URBAN LAND: AN UPHILL RACE AGAINST THE CLOCK
THE ONGOING parliamentary process on land expropriation, with the intention to amend the constitution, indicates important and yet polarised views about expropriation of land without compensation.
The fundamental arguments advanced in the ongoing discussions are largely focused on the need for expropriation to address the long-standing historical inequities of land ownership in the context of rural agricultural land.
Perhaps this might be due to the perception that the housing crisis in urban areas is not caused by the lack of access to land, but rather an issue of inefficient government programmes and prevailing private market forces that are inept in addressing this crisis.
Several academics and civil society activists are sceptical, as any redistribution of urban land, particularly for housing, is at best sluggish.
District Six and many other urban land reform processes are a testimonial to this. At this pace, we would need another century before any substantive change is realised.
In this shrinking economy, the rising cost of living, prevalent corruption and lethargy, we are facing an uphill race against a ticking clock.
Despite close to 2 400 informal settlements nationally, the same land developmental rules apply to a hotel in Sandton as to an informal settlement.
It is no surprise that addressing the issue of urban land and housing has little light at the end of the tunnel. Given these facts, what would a complete overhaul of urban land and housing programme look like?
Firstly, the rights of citizens living with insecure tenure, inadequate shelter and at risk need to be recognised.
The recognition needs to permeate the thinking that the ‘poor are not a problem to solve’, but agents of change that can fundamentally drive a citizen-led land and housing programme.
Well-organised groups, community-based organisations and street committees need to become an integral partner with local government.
We need a programme that is ruthlessly expedient – a comprehensive, city-wide approach
Secondly, there would be new and flexible regulations that are not based on an ‘all or nothing approach’.
Investing large resources for releasing land on the periphery for a few subsidised houses isn’t appropriate.
This means rethinking the finance programmes that underpin the current housing subsidy.
At the moment, the form of housing (single dwelling, single household and single title) follows the function of the housing subsidy.
What we need is greater flexibility that enables people to make choices and allows citizens to build incrementally on land.
This also means that local government should not be developing any programme that just speaks to basic services, toilets, taps etc, as a short-term ‘keep-the-community-happy’ bandage, without giving a clear direction of how the tenure, land and housing issue will ultimately be resolved.
In order to address this, we need a programme that is ruthlessly expedient. A comprehensive, city-wide approach should be adopted so that no informal settlement or backyard is left in uncertainty about its trajectory towards development. Let us move the locus of power to the citizens, and the government will see how quickly the housing crisis will be resolved.
Aditya Kumar is executive director of the Development Action Group. Helen MacGregor Rourke is a programme manager at DAG