Cape Town’s topography dictates informal housing plans

It said a great deal about the state of our big cities when the latest announcement on Cape Town’s housing policy was issued jointly by the chair persons of the portfolio committees for Safety and Security and the one for Human Settlements.

If precedence means anything, it was significant that the Safety and Security portfolio chairman came first.

It is a small point, but it signalled the true state of affairs. Land invasions – illegal, blatant, arrogant, ignorant, desperate, and increasingly organised by criminals and political opportunists, have our major metros under siege. Cape Town is no exception.

The housing crisis in our cities is front and centre of the protection of the safety and security of their citizens, specifically the ratepayers and those in formal low-cost housing provided over the years at a pace attempting, though often failing, to keep pace with the demand of population growth, let alone newcomers.

Cape Town’s topography is the root of the problem. It is not feasible to put low-cost public housing on the slopes of a mountain that turns into a peninsula in one direction and a cliff face in the other, flanked by oceans, and with a hinterland that while flat, is sandy, and further complicated by a water table that in winter is barely below the surface.

To add to that over-worked word “challenge” those demanding housing as a human right to be delivered on demand, tend to prefer living on the ground floor, making high-rise options very difficult.

In short, adding in the need for schools, clinics, churches, mosques and fire departments, water, electricity provision and sewerage, land suitable for low-cost housing around Cape Town is scarce.

This is clear enough to quantity surveyors, architects, social workers, sewer builders and water and electricity experts. But to a destitute family from a drought-stricken Northern Cape or a jobless Eastern Cape, these are merely excuses.

Cape Town like other metros is a magnet to the rural poor just as all cities around the world exert their attraction with a perceived chance of a better life. Some cities, notably in South America and other parts of Africa, adopt a laissez-faire attitude. The result is a proliferation of overcrowded slums with the accompanying fire and health hazards.

So, of course, it is best to avoid a laissez-faire approach and aim for the seemingly impossible target of providing public housing with all the modern amenities of water-borne sewerage, safe electricity and piped water to every home – plus reserving land for schools, churches, mosques, and so on.

Yet it is precisely these reserved spaces that are targeted for illegal settlement -- including those that appear vacant but are fully serviced, waiting for above ground building to commence, to house those thousands of law-abiding citizens waiting patiently (often for years) on the official lists.

It presents a perfect situation for criminal and political opportunists and both are in evidence in Cape Town. Hence the proposed changes in the by-laws to exert some control on a dangerous and potentially anarchic situation.

To quote the City:

“… the unlawful occupation (of land) (has) been primarily orchestrated, large-scale occupations driven by criminal syndicates or so-called ‘shack farmers’, especially exploiting those who were adversely impacted by Covid-19 in particular. Occupations have mostly happened on completely unsuitable land - in dams, ponds, wetlands, roads and nature reserves.

“A clear and holistic way forward is required to navigate the complexities of the human settlements reality and to ensure that new plans and programmes for the inclusive development of Cape Town are protected from the negative consequences brought on by unlawful occupation.

“Hence the introduction of the draft Unlawful Occupation By-law, which is undergoing public participation. The draft by-law is expected to streamline procedures underpinning the effective resolution of complaints, and to mitigate risks to the City, individuals and landowners by ensuring necessary and ongoing enforcement actions are supported by legislation.

“….R3.3 billion earmarked capital spend on human settlement projects over the next three years are at risk. Unlawful occupation leads to the redirecting of budgets for services and programmes at the cost of planned projects.

•Criminal syndicates dictate the development of Cape Town.

•People are settling in areas where no provision for bulk services have been made.

•People are settling on railways, which means tens of thousands of people do not have access to public transport.

•People are settling on nature reserves, not suitable for human habitation.

•With the criminal land syndicates, illegal connection syndicates are thriving.

“The spike in unlawful occupation has seen a spike in illegal connections. This places the electricity supply infrastructure at risk, and often leads to existing communities being in the dark due to the overloading of the system”.

This is but a sample of the well-motivated case for change. It is freely available in more detail on the City website. It is worth reading.

The new approach is correctly described as a profound shift to enable the greater provision of affordable housing, based on partnerships and new ways of delivery and to address growing informality. But all these plans are placed at risk with unlawful occupation. 

The basic change is highly significant for it acknowledges that local government cannot solve the great need for affordable accommodation on well-located land on its own. It takes all three spheres of government, the private sector, and residents.

To quote the City once more:

“National Government budget cuts, a weak national economy, a fragmented, haphazard and unclear lack of national policy implementation, including an absence of an adequate national redistribution policy….” means allowing residents (sic) to lawfully and safely erect informal structures on land that has been prepared for service access and infrastructure installation”.

In other words, draft by-laws will, if approved, formalise such informal housing.

Given the greater powers of control that will accompany this radical new policy, it may be possible that it will manage to stem the tide with more success than King Canute.

It is in the interest of everyone that it succeeds.