WESTERN Cape Housing MEC Bonginkosi Madikizela has done away with former housing minister Lindiwe Sisulu’s N2 Gateway housing plans for Langa, Cape Town.

Sisulu, now defence minister, had wanted to remove thousands of people from the Joe Slovo informal settlement in Langa to make way for 1500 houses, many being houses out of the financial reach of the area’s mostly unemployed residents.

Madikizela made the announcement last night to about 1000 people packed into the Joe Slovo’s informal settlement’s wood and tin “community hall”.

He is set to announce his new plan for the area at a press conference to be held at provincial government offices this morning.

Madikizela told Sowetan that he would build 2800 houses, enough to accommodate all 8000 people living in the settlement.

He said “no one will go to Delft” (a temporary relocation area about 30km away).

The MEC also promised to do away with the “70-30 formula” where 30percent of the houses would have been allocated to backyard dwellers from other communities.

But Madikizela also warned the crowd “not to bring their relatives”.

The only people who would have to move were people who earned too much to qualify for a government-subsidised house, or those who had previously received a government subsidy, he said.

Joe Slovo task team leader Mzwanele Zulu, who led the residents’ campaign not to be forcibly removed to Delft, praised the announcement.

“Thus far we are on the same page if government is playing with open cards, unless they are going to disappoint us.”

But others in the crowd were sceptical, saying it was not clear who qualified for houses and who didn’t.

November 23, 2009 Edition 1
Quinton Mtyala – Cape Times

MONTHS after being completed, gap houses which form part of the N2 Gateway in Langa remain unsold as the bank financing the project admits affordability is a factor.
First National Bank spokesperson Busi Mngomezulu said some of the units priced at just under R600 000 had been hard to sell.

All 43 units at the show village are empty although Mngomezulu said 33 had been sold to approved buyers.

The bank had initially planned to build 300 units at the N2 Gateway even as critics claimed houses there would never be affordable to families who had previously lived at the Joe Slovo informal settlement, despite claims to the contrary from Thubelisha Homes and previous housing officials.

Further development at the site has been delayed by Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale’s halting of all planned evictions of remaining shack dwellers in the area.

The first residents are expected to move into the area in January.

Mngomezulu said the delay was due to the bank’s awaiting the opening of the sectional title register.

Most of the units sold had been priced below R350 000, the cheapest at R’ 000.

To buy the remaining units, prospective owners have to earn between R11 700 and R20 000 a month as either part of a single or joint income, be creditworthy and have enough money left at the end of the month for living expenses.

One prominent critic of the housing project and the government’s handling of the Joe Slovo evictions and subsequent plans for the site, Emeritus Professor Martin Legassick, said people living there had been opposed to the development of gap houses.

“They should be knocked down and in their stead BNG (breaking new ground) houses would have to be built. They were built illegally while court action was under way to determine the legality of the N2 Gateway development.”

Admitting demolition would be extreme, Legassick said empty gap houses could be converted into medium-density units.

Meanwhile the chairman of the Joe Slovo Task Team, Sifiso Mapasa, said not a single family from the informal settlement, moved to make way for the N2 Gateway, had been accommodated at newly completed BNG houses.

“It was supposed to be a 70/30 split (the lesser coming from Joe Slovo) but the Housing Development Agency is repeating bad practices from the first phase of the N2 Gateway,” said Mapasa.

quinton.mtyala@inl.co.za

By Nomava Nobumba – Bush Radio
04 November 2009

N2 gateway residents are seeking for the intervention of the city on crime and fraud they claim is happening in the block of flats.

Residents say the flats are not safe, thought there are security guards.
When residents approached the security company they said the Housing Development Agency is only paying them for access control and not to keep the Flats safe.

Recently a resident was hijacked at gunpoint in his own parking area.

Over the weekend 19 year old boy was stabbed to death outside his own home while the security guards slept on.

Western Cape Housing Minister Bonginkosi Madikizela was informed about the situation and said there is not much the city can do.

The Minister says his department is tied up as far as the N2 Gateway Pilot Project is concerned.

We are in a crisis here. The HDA replaced Thubelisha, but still, nothing has changed.

As far as crime is concerned there remains many problems. This includes fraudulent activities of staff members who used to work for Thubelisha Homes but are now reporting to the Housing Development Agency (HDA).

One of the problems is that the lights in the corridors outside of our units are being stolen. No response to this has came from the HDA.

Also, on the 9^th of October, a resident named Thabo was hijacked at gunpoint at 23h55 in the evening in his own parking area. The hijackers even stole his closes leaving him naked. What surprised us as residents is that Thabo stays very close to the entrance gate in full view of the Flats’ security guards. But guards claim not to have seen the incident. Thabo was not helped by the security guards with the company saying that the HDA is only paying them for access control and not to keep the Flats safe.

As the committee of the N2 Gateway Flats, we approached the senior security guard, Mr. Nobhatyi (073 878 6461) but only to find out that he had already tried to contact the N2 Gateway residents committee. Mr Nobhatyi told us that Bongani Bhele, the HDA caretaker of the N2 Gateway flats, prevented him from meeting with the residents. We also have evidence that Bongani is involved in a number of fraudulent activities here and therefore is trying to prevent residents and the security guards from working together.

We know that the underpaid security guards are not at fault. It is the corrupt people from the HDA who are preventing the security from being accountable to the community.

We have also approached the Langa Police seeking for their intervention. But as you know, they are always short of staff. We could not get much help…or should I say we could not get any help at all.

We approached the HDA directly because of various crime, fraud and mismanagement related issues.

We complained to the HDA about Bongani selling N2 Flats. We complained about people from outside the community being allowed in to kick the doors in and occupy many of the vacant flats. When confronted, these people told us that Bongani Bhele and someone named Eric asked them to pay a security deposit upfront. They claimed that Bongani and Eric would then disappear with the money leaving them without a flat.

The committee has helped one particular lady to write up an affidavit regarding this issue at the local police station. We have copies of her statement to show to anyone who is interested.

The HDA responded to our complaints by saying that there was nothing they could do because they ‘did not have a mandate’ to intervene. But it is their own people who are causing these problems!

We then approached the Housing MEC who came to meet with us on the 25^th of October. Mr. Figlan, a member of Parliament, accompanied him. But the meeting was not fruitful. He told us that “there is not much we can do. We are tied up as far as the N2 Gateway Pilot Project is concerned”.

Then on the 31^st of October in the early morning, a boy aged 19 was stabbed to death outside his own home while the security guards slept on.

Why must residents die? Who is next?

Why doesn’t the government come talk to us so that we can come up with a solution to the problems that they have caused?

Why does the government always say their hands are tied when they are the ones who created the problems in the first place?

The residents of the N2 Gateway Flats are very angry because the government and the HDA have tried to avoid each and every problem with their housing project.

First it was the contractors cutting corners and issuing us with keys that opened everyone else’s flats.

Then it was other problems of substandard housing and fraud. The auditor general found these problems. SCOPA found these problems. Even the Geneva based COHRE found these problems.

Now people are being attacked and even killed because the government refuses to work with us and solve the problems that they caused.  The HDA is causing more problems and corruption. Its the same as Thubelisha Homes which preceded it. We didn’t need Thubelisha and we don’t need it the HDA.

Here is our call for government to finally intervene – meaningfully:

We, as the residents of the N2 Gateway Flats can manage our own community. We can create our own form of cooperative governance for our own community. And we can do it without corruption and mismanagement.

Contact the N2 Gateway Flats Committee for more information:

A HUMAN rights NGO affiliated to the UN has released a scathing report on the N2 Gateway project, calling it badly planned and managed.

The Swiss-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (Cohre) said research and available information on the N2 Gateway project pointed to several flaws and acts of non-compliance in its planning and implementation.

The failure of housing authorities to adequately consult people or explore all feasible alternatives was likely to result in human rights violations for Joe Slovo residents, Cohre’s report said.
Ashraf Cassiem, the chairman of the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, said the report echoed their calls for greater public participation in the N2 Gateway project.

They welcomed the report, he said, because it provided structured findings from an international body that documented the plight of ordinary people who had been fighting eviction orders.

The report also found that the N2 Gateway project had progressed without due consideration of the rights of affected people to participate in developments that affect their lives and livelihoods.

It found evidence that the project had been mismanaged and that steps to reach the next phase of the project had been pushed through without adequate preparation.

Cohre said that even though the national and provincial housing departments had been pushing for the relocation of Joe Slovo residents, they were not prepared and did not have the land nor the Temporary Relocation Areas (TRAs) required to house 20 000 people.

Cohre recommended that the minister of housing, the MEC for local government and housing, the Housing Development Agency replacing Thubelisha Homes and the City of Cape Town Council should immediately halt all plans to evict Joe Slovo residents and relocate them to Delft.

It also urged immediate discussions with affected residents in the Delft area, including residents of Tsu-nami TRA and Symphony Way, with a view to find a permanent solution to their housing concerns.

According to the report, mechanisms should be provided for complaints and grievance redress regarding all those relocated from Joe Slovo informal settlement.

It also suggested that a clear timeline and a plan for the provision of permanent housing to all affected people should be provided, ensuring that the plan took into account the needs of local people who were waiting in line for permanent housing as well as those who had been relocated.

Attempts to contact Itumeleng Kotsoane of the Department of Human Settlements last night and this morning were unsuccessful.

The report follows hot on the heels of a new order issued by the Constitutional Court last month, suspending its earlier order and upholding the eviction of 10 000 residents of the Joe Slovo settlement in Langa.

In March last year, Cape Judge President John Hlophe ruled that the Joe Slovo shack dwellers must be evicted to make way for the N2 Gateway Project.

Joe Slovo community leaders took the matter on appeal to the Constitutional Court.

In June, the court upheld Judge Hlophe’s ruling, but ordered that the Joe Slovo residents be removed in phases and placed 20km away in Delft.

But on August 24 the Con-stitutional Court quietly issued a new order suspending the evictions until further notice.

September 16, 2009 Edition 1 – Cape Times

Referring to the remedial repair work which is needed in N2 Gateway Phase 1 flats, Thubelisha acting CEO John Duarte is reported to have said “the standing committee on public accounts failed to inform Thubelisha of the contents of the Auditor-General’s damning report”. (“Thubelisha must account to Parliament on Gateway”, September 14)
It is an indictment of Thubelisha’s management of the flats that Duarte expects to get knowledge of their condition from Scopa or the Auditor-General. This supports what the residents have claimed, that Thubelisha has operated by remote control, that they are told to refer complaints to Johannesburg, and that there is no on-site presence for repairs.

It is in fact scandalous that Duarte clearly had no idea of the condition of many of the flats. Surely it did not escape his notice that Phase 1 residents marched in Cape Town as recently as June 30, complaining not only of exorbitant rentals but of unrepaired defects in the flats?

Duarte adds “We did an assessment (last year). Thubelisha is not aware of anything that has happened subsequently.” He implies the defects observed when Scopa visited the site last week were new. But much (though not all) of them were due to trapped moisture, due to the failure to install ventilation ducts, which flat residents have been complaining about since their arrival in 2006-7.

In addition Duarte plays the old pass-the-buck game, stating that “Thubelisha took over the N2 Gateway when it was 90 percent built, so any structural defects were the city council’s responsibility”. He forgets to point out that the 90 percent was built when the ANC controlled the City of Cape Town, and that when the new DA city council began to investigate the problems of cost overruns etc in Phase 1 after March 2006, they were promptly booted off the N2 Gateway project by then-housing minister Lindiwe Sisulu. In any case, it was surely the responsibility of Thubelisha to examine the condition of the property they were taking over at the time. Instead they at first refused to accept that there were any defects at all.

The residents of Phase 1 deserve redress, in the form of adequate repairs, affordable rents, and what they call a “rent to buy” rather than rent for life option. It is also vital that management of the flats is taken out of the hands of the National Housing Agency (successor to Thubelisha) and put in the hands of local management, preferably self-management by the tenants themselves.

Thubelisha, in any case, was supposed to have been dissolved on July 31 and it is unclear why John Duarte is still acting CEO of it.

COHRE, the UN affiliated human rights NGO based in Switzerland, has just released a scathing report on the N2 Gateway project. Click here to download the report. See the Press Release by COHRE below.

For comment on how the N2 Gateway has effected the lives of poor people in Cape Town, contact:

–

COHRE RELEASES N2 GATEWAY PROJECT REPORT
FRIDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2009

The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) today released a report on housing rights violations in the context of the N2 Gateway development project in South Africa. The report is based on research conducted by COHRE during a fact finding mission to South Africa in 2008 and its amicus curiae (‘friend of the court’) submission to the South African Constitutional Court in the recently decided “Joe Slovo” case (Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes & Others, CCT 22/08[2009] ZACC 16). The report –N2 Gateway Project: Housing Rights Violations as ‘Development’ in South Africa — is available at http://www.cohre.org

*** CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE CORHE REPORT ***

By: Lisa Crooms | Posted: September 10, 2009 at 6:42 AM – The Root

Sci-fi blockbuster District 9 is all about aliens and spaceships. But its fiction is rooted in the facts about South Africa’s troubled history of housing and immigration.

This summer, I spent six weeks in Cape Town teaching human rights to a multiracial group of South Africans and Americans—many of whom wanted to party on Long Street more than they wanted to study human rights. Still, I managed to get their attention long enough for us to focus on two recurring issues—housing and immigration. Shortly after I got back, I found myself sitting in a movie theater in Silver Spring, Md., confronting these same issues masquerading as entertainment in the major summer sci-fi blockbuster, District 9.
District 9 begins in 1990 when an alien spaceship stalls in the skies above Johannesburg. After three months with no contact, the South Africans decide to board the ship, only to find 1 million aliens who appear to be in need of rescuing. The South Africans move the aliens from the ship to District 9, which is a cross between a township and a refugee camp. Jump forward 20 years: It’s 2010. The alien population has grown; their living conditions are horrific, and the South Africans’ extraterrestrial goodwill has waned. (The aliens are now called “prawns,” a derisive term that brings to mind apartheid’s “kaffir” and “bantu.”) The solution: an intergovernmental effort to forcibly remove the aliens from District 9 to District 10, some 240 kilometers away.

The conditions under which District 9’s aliens lived, as well as their forced removal, brought to mind a case decided by the South African Constitutional Court on June 10. Residents of Joe Slovo Community Western Cape v. Thubelisha Homes and Others concerns a group of poor people who are not lucky enough to lawfully occupy the permanent, but austere houses found in South Africa’s townships. Instead, the residents of Joe Slovo occupy dwellings that are little more than amalgams of plastic tarps and corrugated tin pitched between the edges of Langa township and the N2 highway. As described by Constitutional Court Judge Zac Yacoob, the conditions in Joe Slovo are “unhygienic,” “unsafe” and “unfit for reasonable human habitation.” In South Africa, the press to reach equilibrium in the affordable housing market is intensified by constitutional mandates regarding housing-related rights. Building new houses on sites occupied by informal settlements, such as Joe Slovo, makes the “immeasurable … human price to be paid for this relocation and reconstruction” unavoidable. According to the court, removal is a reasonable means to ensure the progressive realization of the right of access to housing as recognized in Section 26(2) of the South African Constitution.

The fate of the Joe Slovo residents is only the most recent massive removal in a city infamously known for having used the law to force tens of thousands of people from their homes. Case in point: Its destruction of District 6, a thriving multiracial community, the mere existence of which challenged the fundamental assumptions on which apartheid was based. Despite the obvious parallels between real and fictional forced removals, District 9’s aliens are not stand-ins for the displaced residents of either District 6 or Joe Slovo. Rather, District 9’s aliens bring to mind the Somali, Zimbabwean and other African immigrants who have sought refuge in South Africa. Some come to South Africa for the chance at a better life in a democratic country based on principles of non-racialism. Others come because of expectations: The expectation that a country led by the ANC, a political party nee liberation movement that relied heavily on the willingness of others to open their borders to South African exiles fighting against apartheid. Surely such a country, the reasoning goes, would not deny them a safe place to rebuild lives free from whatever particular atrocities forced them to leave home.
Quantcast

If only it were so. Whatever their motivations, immigrants are routinely targeted by those South Africans who see these other Africans as direct competitors vying for post-apartheid South Africa’s limited spoils. At its worst, this nativism erupts into the kind of xenophobic violence that, in 2008, forced many African immigrants to flee their township homes and seek refuge in temporary encampments. Townships with extraordinarily high rates of unemployment were the fecund ground in which the frustrations of those disgusted with the slowness of post-apartheid progress took root. Most recently, less than two weeks after the constitutional court handed down its opinion in the Joe Slovo case, tensions in townships including Langa, Gugulethu and Samora Machel forced Somali shopkeepers to shutter their businesses until they could broker agreements under which competing businesses might peacefully and profitably co-exist.

It is unlikely that this agreement will end anti-immigrant violence and antipathy (especially that reserved for Nigerians who are routinely blamed for all things violent and criminal both in real life and in the movie). It demonstrates, however, the benefits of meaningful consultation with all stakeholders in matters that implicate the dignity at the core of human rights. While South Africa has come a long way in the relatively short period since apartheid’s official end, it has a long way to go before the consciousness and actions of the government and its citizens comport with the country’s constitutional aspirations.

Lisa A. Crooms is a professor at Howard University’s School of Law.

Committee wants answers on N2 Gateway Housing Project

PRESS STATEMENT (by Parliament committee investigating the N2 Gateway Housing Project)

Parliament, 09 September 2009 – Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts was early today shocked to learn that defects in the houses built under the Western Cape N2 Gateway Housing Project had not been fixed as it was earlier reported by the Department of Human Settlements.
The Committee discovered this during its visit to Langa Township, Cape Town, which was aimed at finding out whether the defects reported by the Auditor-General in his report about the project have really been attended to.

The defects identified by the Auditor General were:
*       Cracks in the walls and floors
*       Peeling paint
*       Doors that were not fitted properly
*       Loose fittings and uncovered drain pipes and blocked drains.

During the meeting, in which the report was tabled, the Department of Human Settlements indicated that the defects identified by the Auditor General had been fixed.

Committee members inspected some of the houses and discovered that the report given by the Department was inaccurate. Members found that the defects had not been attended to.

Committee Chairperson Mr Themba Godi said: “What we have been told by the officials during the meeting has not happened, the Committee has been misinformed. Officials reported in the meeting that all the defects had been sorted.”

Members of the Committee were outraged at officials who appeared before the Committee and gave an inaccurate report.

The Committee will finalise its report with recommendations and this will be submitted to the Speaker on the National Assembly.

Issued by the Parliamentary Communication Services on behalf of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

For inquiries or interviews with the chairperson, please contact:
Yoliswa Landu (Ms)
Tel: 021 403 8203
Cell: 073 738 0182
Email: ylandu@parliament.gov.za

Note: What De Vos forgets though is that the community of Joe Slovo had to fight.  They won this ’sanity’ and ‘humanity’ through resistance and protest.  So the kudos should go to the poor Joe Slovo residents who travelled all the way to the Constitutional Court to say Asiyi eDelft!

When the Constitutional Court granted an order in June, allowing the government to remove the residents of Joe Slovo outside the city of Cape Town to Delft 20 km away, some of us wondered quietly whether the government had not perhaps been as untruthful to the court as it had previously been untruthful to the residents of Joe Slovo.

The government had told Joe Slovo residents that they would be moved “for their own good” so that houses could be built for them as part of the N2 Gateway Project, but after the completion of phase 1 of the Project it transpired that few of those removed from Joe Slovo would be able to afford the rent of the new units. Those residents who were gullible enough to believe the government and agreed to move to Delft during phase 1 are mostly still languishing in Delft while others (with political connections?) have moved in to “their” homes at Joe Slovo.

The court was told that the 15000 individuals who had remained in Joe Slovo after phase 1 could be moved to Delft during phase 2 of the project to allow for an “upgrade” of the rest of Joe Slovo and that 70% of the new houses to be built at the site of Joe Slovo (which would not number fewer than 1 500) would be allocated to the residents who had been removed from Joe Slovo.

The eviction order was granted on condition that temporary accommodation - meeting certain basic standards – were provided in Delft  and that 70% of the new houses were allocated to Joe Slovo residents. These conditions considerably softened the heartless order made by the Cape High Court, while still endorsing a mad, farcically bureaucratic, scheme reminiscent of the apartheid era forced removals.

As part of the Constitutional Court judgment the government was ordered to build a new temporary relocation area in Delft, where people would have access to water and electricity. The government was also instructed to set up meetings with residents, who had complained of being ignored, and report back regularly to the Constitutional Court. But as the Sowetan reported recently, on August 24 the Constitutional Court quietly issued a new order suspending the evictions “until further notice”. Maybe sanity will prevail in this matter after all.

The order was suspended after Western Cape MEC for housing Bonginkosi Madikizela – from the DA nogal -submitted a report to the court saying he had “grave concerns” that the “massive relocation” might end up costing more than it would to upgrade Joe Slovo (trust the DA to worry about money first). Madikizela also said the Constitutional Court had not made any plans for people who would be left behind in the temporary relocation area after Joe Slovo had been upgraded because under the N2 Gateway Housing Project there would not be enough new houses to accommodate all the original Joe Slovo residents.

He was also concerned that erecting a new temporary relocation area for Joe Slovo residents could be legally challenged by people who were further up on the waiting list. As The Sowetan reports, Joe Slovo task team leader Mzwanele Zulu described the court order suspending the eviction as “a blessing”. “We were not happy at all about going to Delft. We have plans for Joe Slovo and we just needed this opportunity to talk to the government about development in our community,” Zulu said.

A report commissioned by the MEC will now be delivered to the Constitutional Court by the end of this month after which the Constitutional Court will decide the way forward.

Surely the government will now rethink this mad idea to forcibly remove 15 000 people – some who have lived at Joe Slovo for 15 years – to a dump 20 km away? We all know the N2 Gateway Project was conceived in haste, part of a vanity project dreamed up by heartless officials and politicians. The Project failed to adhere to the very principles set out in the government’s Breaking New Ground policy which requires in situ upgrades of informal settlements where this is at all feasible.

Maybe FIFA officials (who already vetoed the building of the Cape Town stadium in Athlone because the TV pictures of such an opulent stadium in the midst of poverty was not acceptable to them) and the Mbeki cabinet did not like the sight of all those shacks on the road from the airport into the city of Cape Town? It can’t be good for one’s conscience (if any) to drive past such poverty in a R1.3 million car.

Surely this whole idea was madness from the start? Why can’t the people actually LIVING in Joe Slovo be asked what THEY want for their area? Why should government Ministers, rushing past Joe Slovo to the airport in R1.3 million cars, decide FOR people how they wish to deal with the problems of Joe Slovo? Why can’t the residents be asked to help work out a plan to upgrade the Joe Slovo settlement while most of them remain where they are?

Clearly conditions at Joe Slovo are not ideal. Something must be done to improve these conditions in line with section 26 of the Constitution. But moving people 20 km away to little apartheid-style houses that look like cardboard boxes, requiring them to suddenly pay far more for transport to go to or seek jobs, without even asking them what THEY might want, smacks of the kind of bureaucratic arrogance for which the apartheid government was rightly condemned.

Ironically it took a new administration under Jacob Zuma and a provincial government under the white-led DA, to ask questions about the sanity and humanity of this harebrained and heartless scheme. Let us hope they do not lose their nerve and once and for all put a stop to the idea of forcibly moving 15 000 people – District 9-like – to far-off Delft.

04 September 2009
Anna Majavu – Sowetan

THE Constitutional Court has suspended its order upholding the eviction of

FLASHBACK: A cart carrying corrugated sheets out of Joe Slovo informal settlement. The Constitutional Court has suspended its own ruling that called for the eviction of Joe Slovo residents. PHOTO: MARK WESSELS

10000 residents of the Joe Slovo informal settlement in Langa, Cape Town.

In March 2008 controversial Cape Judge President John Hlophe ruled that the Joe Slovo shack dwellers must be evicted to make way for the N2 Gateway Housing project.

But community leaders from the Joe Slovo task team took the matter on appeal to the Constitutional Court. In June the court upheld Hlophe’s ruling but ordered that the Joe Slovo residents be removed in phases and placed 20km away in Delft.

The government was ordered to build a new temporary relocation area in Delft, where people would have access to water and electricity.

The government was also instructed to set up meetings with residents, who had complained of being ignored, and report back regularly to the Constitutional Court.

But on August 24 the Constitutional Court quietly issued a new order suspending the evictions “until further notice”.

This after Western Cape MEC for housing Bonginkosi Madikizela submitted a report to the court saying he had “grave concerns” that the “massive relocation” might end up costing more than it would to upgrade Joe Slovo.

Madikizela also said the Constitutional Court had not made any plans for people who would be left behind in the temporary relocation area after Joe Slovo had been upgraded because under the N2 Gateway Housing Project there would not be enough new houses to accommodate all the original Joe Slovo residents.

He was also concerned that erecting a new temporary relocation area for Joe Slovo residents could be legally challenged by people who were further up on the waiting list.

Joe Slovo task team leader Mzwanele Zulu described the court order suspending the eviction as “a blessing”.

“We were not happy at all about going to Delft. We have plans for Joe Slovo and we just needed this opportunity to talk to the government about development in our community,” Zulu said.

Zalisile Mbali, spokesperson for Madikizela, would not reveal the contents of the expert study commissioned by the MEC but said he would be meeting the residents very soon to “find alternatives for the residents of Joe Slovo”.

Chris Vick, special adviser to Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale, said Sexwale thought it best that the evictions be postponed to allow the government time to consult with residents.

In an unusual move by the Constitutional Court, a full bench of 10 judges has indefinitely suspended its own order for Joe Slovo residents and backyard dwellers to make way for the N2 Gateway development in a phased in, deadline-driven mass relocation.
This came as the court granted Housing MEC Bonginkosi Madikizela the opportunity to commission an expert to investigate the “practical, social, financial and legal consequences” of the ordered relocation to Delft.

“For the community, and indeed all parties involved, this is a welcome opportunity to seek a workable solution,” said Steve Kahanovitz, the Legal Resources Centre attorney representing the 20 000 strong community resisting the eviction application by the Minister of Housing.

The matter had a long court history and the development plan was redesigned a few times, but in June the Constitutional Court finally made a ruling on it.

It directed the state to provide 70% of the low-cost housing to be built at Joe Slovo to former or current residents who applied and qualified for housing.

The residents were ordered to vacate in phases according to a schedule, but only on condition that they would be relocated to sturdy temporary residential units services with tarred roads and communal ablution facilities, at Delft or another suitable location.

The residents, the national minister, MEC and Thubelisha Homes (which no longer exists but whose responsibilities have been partly taken over by the National Housing Agency), were ordered to “engage meaningfully with each other” by June 30 to reach an agreement on all relevant issues regarding the relocation.

The Court however issued a new order last month after it considered a memorandum lodged by counsel for the Minister of Housing on August 4, 2009.

In the memorandum Michael Donan SC explained that the parties did meet on several occasions, but no agreement could be reached.

The Minister requested an extension so the parties could engage further and the MEC requested a postponement of the implementation, having expressed “grave concerns” about a variety of consequences of the relocation.

The MEC said he was concerned about the fact that the Concourt made no provisions for what would happen to the other 30% who had to be moved to the Temporary Relocation Area (TRA) housing but who could not be moved back to the permanent housing at Joe Slovo as soon as the project was completed.

He also had questions about the density of the proposed development and the social, financial and legal effects of this massive relocation.
The MEC said if the expert confirmed that the relocation would give rise to unforeseen difficulties, those difficulties had to be addressed before implementation.

All the parties agreed to his request for time until September 30 to deliver a report.

Acceding to this request, the judges said they would suspend their initial order “until further notice”.

“Once the report referred to… has been received, further directions may be issued.”

# karen.breytenbach@inl.co.za

# Read the full story in the print edition of Cape Times

Eyewitness News | 2009/08/25 08:33:40 AM

The Western Cape Housing MEC has admitted some flats in the N2 Gateway development are so badly built they should be demolished.

Bonginkosi Madikizela says he now understands why tenants refuse to pay rent.
N2 Gateway tenants reportedly owe the national government over R7 million in outstanding rent.

So far, the Human Settlements Department has only been able to recoup R600 000.

Madikizela says in some cases the shoddy workmanship cannot be rectified.

“Some of the units, it will not actually help to fix them. I think a possible solution which is something very difficult to do would be just to demolish the building you know and start afresh.”

JOE SLOVO RESIDENTS FEND FOR THEMSELVES

At the same time, informal settlers in Joe Slovo in Langa say they believe they are capable of building their own homes.

The Constitutional Court halted the eviction of the squatters from an area where authorities wanted to build homes as part of the troubled Gateway project.

The court ruled that 70 percent of the houses should go to Joe Slovo inhabitants.

Community leader Mzwanele Zulu says a study has been done to determine exactly how many homes are needed.

“From the community’s point of view we are able and capable of doing development. We’ve done a numeration, we’ve gathered information, we’ve got findings that we are planning to share all this information with the government,” says Zulu.

an emergency effort is needed

It is good news that Tokyo Sexwale and Helen Zille have decided to bury the hatchet on the petty squabbling between the ANC and DA (largely, let it be said, initiated by the ANC) over the N2 Gateway project and land allocation in the province.

The spat has hampered housing delivery in the province. We are now told “the three spheres of government are to sit around one table to decide on the future of the project.” (“Sexwale, Zille and city to decide on N2 Gateway,” August 10).

But Sexwale, Zille, Dan Plato and their officials would be making a big mistake if they believed the future could be settled without involving beneficiary communities, through their representative committees, at the decision-making table.

Unlike his predecessor as housing minister, Sexwale has at least already gone on walkabouts in N2 Gateway Phase 1 and the Joe Slovo informal settlement. But walk-abouts are not the same as meaningful involvement in decision-making.

In the past “consultation” or “negotiation” meant for officials merely informing beneficiaries of dogmatically set plans without any intention of altering them.

What needs to happen is that the past needs to be rectified and the future of N2 Gateway planned with the beneficiaries rather than over their heads.

There is a crisis in housing nationally and in the Western Cape. In Cape Town alone, there is a backlog of 400 000 houses, which is increasing by 18-20 000 a year, with only 8-9 000 houses built a year.

On that basis, the housing backlog will never disappear. It is time for some bold and imaginative thinking.

Let us recall that the Auditor-General’s special report on N2 Gateway found:

• Parliament still has not passed the legislation underlying the project, though it was started in 2004;
• The business plan for the project was not finalised before the start and was not available for audit;
• Sufficient land was not secured before the start;
• There was non-compliance with the prescribed requirement of listing the proposed beneficiaries in the final business plan;
• Documentation was not consistent on qualifying criteria for proposed beneficiaries, especially the monthly household income requirement;
• Affordable housing was not provided in Phase 1 for the target market identified (Joe Slovo informal settlement residents);
• There was considerable “fruitless and wasteful expenditure” on the project – Parliament’s Scopa estimates up to R2 billion;
• The initial building consortium (Cyberia Technologies) was sixth on the tender evaluation list, its appointment was not properly authorised and it had no contract;
• Thubelisha Homes was appointed in 2006 to replace Cyberia without proper tender procedures or a contract. (Thubelisha has since gone bankrupt, replaced by the National Housing Agency).

Deficiencies in construction of the Phase 1 flats mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report include:

• The certificate of completion for the building contract issued by the principal agent was issued erroneously;
• Compliance with registration and inspection procedures identified in various regulations could not be verified;
• Instances were identified where “as built” specifications did not comply with minimum specifications for social housing;
• There were deviations from contract specifications;
• The large public stormwater canal constituted a foul health hazard; and
• Site inspections revealed numerous cracks in the walls and floors, peeling paint, doors that were not fitted properly, loose fittings, uncovered drain pipes and blocked drains.

This amounts to a morass of officially committed illegality. The beneficiaries have borne the consequences and need redress.

For example, residents in Phase 1 have held a rent boycott for two years because of the defective housing and higher rates than they had been told to expect.

They are being asked to pay exorbitant rentals to make up for the cost overruns and corruption in the construction of the flats.

This is unfair. Recent Thubelisha head Prince Xanthi Sigcau has claimed that residents in the area were aware of the rentals when they moved in. But they moved in during a period of the transition in management from Cyberia to Thubelisha – well before Sigcau appeared on the scene.

The residents claim Cyberia announced a rental rise from R350-R500 to R650-R1 050 without explanation and pressured them to sign contracts without even reading them.

Phase 1 residents should have their rentals reduced to a mutually agreeable, affordable level.

There are reports that the management of Phase 1 is to be given to the Cape Town Community Housing Company (CTCHC), which since 1999 has been embroiled in complaints, about defective housing quality and exorbitant rentals, from tenants in nine villages.

Moreover, why must CTCHC, with its appalling record, manage these flats? Why can’t the tenants assume co-operative management?

In addition, why can’t some arrangement be made to transpose rents to reasonable bond payments, so that residents can eventually own their homes rather than rent for life?

These ideas have been considered by the representative committee.

They are the sort of ideas that Sexwale, Zille, Plato and their officials could consider implementing.

The same applies to the residents of the Joe Slovo informal settlement, still under threat of forced removal to Delft, from which barely 12 percent of them will be able to return on the existing N2 Gateway plans.

They are victims of the incompetence of Thubelisha.

The Breaking New Ground housing policy, conceived in 2004, was supposed to break with apartheid-style city planning (blacks to the periphery) and practise upgrading in situ. Both provisions are being violated in the case of the residents of Joe Slovo.

Two things need to be considered here – firstly, finding land in Langa, where they can be placed temporarily rather than in Delft (originally, in 2004/5 sites were identified in Langa/Epping but business owners threatened court action.

These owners could be persuaded otherwise by Sexwale and Zille.

Secondly. higher-density housing – even if this involves, as Plato has suggested, buildings that rise over several storeys.

Medium-density housing is being considered in other townships.

Both ideas have been considered by the representative committee in Joe Slovo, and they need to be brought into the planning process.

The failures of N2 Gateway are largely of an ANC government (the DA was excluded from N2 Gateway shortly after taking office in the City of Cape Town). But both the DA and the ANC need to reconsider their housing policies.

The occupation of N2 Gateway housing by Delft back yarders in December 2007 and the recent occupations of vacant municipal land in Macassar, Kraaifontein and elsewhere by equally desperate back yarders stems from the housing crisis in the city – with the backlog increasing every year.

The city is again threatening to evict Delft back yarders from the shacks they have built on Symphony Way, just as it tore down the shacks of the Macassar occupants – an illegal act, covered up by the city applying resources superior to those of the residents.

The Delft back yarders are all eligible for N2 Gateway houses, but when they submitted their applications Thubelisha lost them.

They engaged in a protest at a handover of N2 Gateway homes and Sigcau promised to deliver new forms but never did so. Now the city wants to condemn them to the prison-like temporary relocation area in Blikkiesdorp.

The ANC may be imagining, in vain, that all informal settlements can be eliminated by 2014. It is equally foolish for the DA to try to implement a policy of zero tolerance for land occupations.

Until sufficient housing can be provided, space must be allowed for the swelling urban population to build shacks on vacant land.

It is incumbent on public bodies to provide such space. Otherwise the city will face overcrowding, resulting in more crime, drug abuse, and the abuse of women and children – all of which are against the policies of the DA and ANC.

And while Sexwale, Zille, Plato and their officials are reconsidering housing policy – in conjunction with the beneficiaries of N2 Gateway and others – they might consider something else. 475 000 jobs have been lost this year due to the recession, adding to the more than 30 percent unemployment rate (including those discouraged from seeking work.)

Why not organise, through an expanded public works programme, emergency training for the unemployed (many have inadequate homes) men and women in bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing and so on so that they can be employed to build the much-needed houses?

Cosatu should put its weight behind such a plan.

The current housing budget is only 1.5 percent of GDP as opposed to the developing country norm of 5-6 percent.

With an emergency effort, spearheaded by the presidency, resourced through the treasury (Zuma has promised R2.4bn to retrain the retrenched), and motivated by the beneficiaries, the nationally needed 2.2m houses could be built quickly.

# Legassick is Emeritus Professor at the University of the Western Cape and is active in the field of housing.

Note: As usual, the media ignores the actual people of Joe Slovo.  No one bothers to ask what they really think about the billionaire turned politician.

Joe Slovo residents ‘must be given time’

HUMAN Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale has promised the residents of Joe Slovo informal settlement a reprieve, saying they will not be immediately removed from the area to Delft.

Sexwale, who visited a number of the city’s informal settlements yesterday, told a meeting of about 500 people in Joe Slovo that despite the Constitutional Court ruling in favour of the housing department to remove the residents to Delft so that the next phase of the N2 Gateway project could start, he will have the implementation of that judgment postponed.

He said that, while the government respected the court ruling, he had met President Jacob Zuma over the matter and discussed how “we can’t just move the people”.

“I said these are our people, we have to work with them.”

“You don’t come to people brandishing a judgment and saying move.”

Sexwale said he was not defying a court decision, but that his own decision was to say “hold on, but I cannot implement the ruling now. I’m not moving my people until I’ve worked with them”.

“We understand that you want to be close to your place of work. That’s not going to be easy, but it will have to be done,” he said to loud cheers from the crowd.

Late last night Sexwale was locked in a meeting with the community’s leaders to “further understand their problems, discuss details of how we do this thing and to get a proper buy-in”.

He was scheduled to meet Western Cape Premier Helen Zille, Cape Town Mayor Dan Plato and Housing MEC Bonginkosi Madikizela today to discuss the Joe Slovo matter.

Also on the agenda is the land that the DA alleges was illegally transferred to the Housing Development Agency by the ANC provincial government just before the April elections.

Sexwale told the Cape Argus that although the court had not set a date to evict people, it had put in place conditions for the process. One was that all stakeholders at local, provincial and national level engage to resolve the process of moving.

The Constitutional Court judgment which was delivered in June, underscored the necessity of meaningful engagement and the provision of alternative accommodation. It also directed the state to provide 70 percent of the low-cost housing to be built at Joe Slovo to former or current residents who have applied for – and qualify for – housing.

Sexwale said among the crucial issues that needed to be addressed (at his meeting with Zille and Plato) was determining who qualified to be in that 70 percent laid down by the court. Another was the residents’ request that when they move, the government should provide transport for their children who go to school in Langa and surrounding areas.

“We want to make this thing as humane and sensitive as possible,” he said, adding that the court ruling was an “activism judgment” and sensitive to the feelings and desires of the people.

He said the government wanted to correct its mistakes, and do the right thing.

Sexwale spent the whole day interacting with informal-settlement residents, from Langa to Gugulethu and Delft.

At each visit, he was bombarded with a barrage of complaints, ranging from long waiting lists to defects in government-provided houses, and corruption.

He said his was a genuine listening campaign and he would go back and report to the cabinet and to Parliament.

“As a minister responsible for spending public money, I have to see where the funds go,” he said.

Meanwhile, Sapa reports that City of Cape Town officials yesterday told Parliament that politicians had placed “intense pressure” on officials to build an “unrealistic” 22 000 houses for the troubled multibillion-rand N2 Gateway Project.

City manager Achmat Ebrahim said in a written reply to questions from Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts that municipal, provincial and national politicians involved in the project had ignored concerns raised by city officials.

“The N2GP was driven from a political level that ignored all protests from the administration,” Ebrahim said.

The aim of the project was to provide housing adjacent to the N2 Highway between Bhunga Avenue near Langa and Boys Town in Crossroads.

A report by the Auditor General found a number of irregularities in the project which, since its launch, had been dogged by protests and a series of court challenges over evictions from the informal settlements it was supposed to replace.

Committee chairman Themba Godi said it was clear that decisions about the project had been made at a political level.

Note: I may be quite interesting to see how these kinds of government commissions operate in relation to controversial projects such as the N2 Gateway.  There is a lot of discussion but the commission does not seem to know what is going on.  Neither does it have any idea what the truth is.  For instance: They ask many times whether there continues to be structural defects in Phase 1 and never get a clear answer.  But shouldn’t they go visit and inspect the flats for themselves rather than talk about theoretically in these kinds of bureaucratic meetings?  Also notice how Phase 1 flat tenants were not even invited to participate despite Thubelisha’s misleading claim that they were being consulted.  Enjoy this insight into how failed government projects are rationalised as inevitable…

–

Thubelisha Homes Closure Report

Constitutional Court Judgment dealing with Joe Slovo Residents

Summary:

The Committee noted that Thubelisha Homes was due for closure on 31 July 2009. The Acting Chief Operations Officer explained that its mandate had been changed in 2006, and in 2007 it was set up as a Section 21 Special Purpose Vehicle company, to procure housing stock in line with Servcon’s rightsizing programme, and with a set closing date. However, Cabinet had not approved the mandate, and National Treasury refused to approve its full funding requirements, so it had become technically insolvent. It was granted a life line to sustain itself until closure, which would take effect on 31 July. The Board was dysfunctional as it did not have a quorum. Thubelisha had a troubled history from the start, due to under costing and its involvement in the N2 Gateway Project, which was dogged with political problems. Members asked questions about the funding to Thubelisha, both by way of the Municipal Infrastructure Grant, and the life line, the appointment of the Acting CEO for another year, whether Thubelisha had charged a management fee, why the mandate was extended in light of Thubelisha’s historically poor performance, its current achievements, and the progress of the closing down.

The Committee was given a briefing on the closing down process, which noted that four task teams had been created. The staff complement had already decreased from 250 to 140 due to resignations, and only 40 of these staff were still not guaranteed of job transfers. Unfinished projects were to be transferred to Provinces. All financial reconciliations would be fully investigated and completed after 31 July. Members asked questions about the closing-down time frames, whether all employees should and would be given job transfers, the reasons why financial reconciliations were not yet completed, why provinces were unwilling to take on staff, how many matters would be taken over by the Housing Development Agency, and the reasons for Thubelisha’s failure. Members had not realised that the closure would be as complex, and the Chairperson noted that there seemed to have been many misunderstandings. Future service agreements would need to be more carefully drafted. Provinces must be told that they could not take on projects without staff.

The Regional General Manager of Thubelisha gave a presentation on the status of and problems surrounding the Joe Slovo informal settlement. Residents were boycotting payment of rent, claiming that it was exorbitant, and had staged a protest march. Members noted that there had been many complaints, initially, of defects in the rental units, and asked whether these had all been identified and corrected, whether there was any other good reason why residents could withhold rent, what remedies were provided for non-payment, whether the difference between anticipated and imposed rentals was a factor, whether the rental units were viable, how many of the original intended beneficiaries were housed in these units, how many were given to people from other areas, and whether the residents were employed and able to pay.

Members were handed a document outlining the history of the Court actions and decisions of the Constitutional Court in respect of the Joe Slovo area, noting that the Constitutional Court had ordered that residents must be relocated to temporary residential areas, and had imposed conditions on the temporary residences. This was due to begin by 19 August, but Thubelisha, the Minister and MEC could not meet this deadline, and had suggested a start date of 19 October. Two representatives from the Joe Slovo Task Team who were present expressed their concern that there had been no engagement with residents on the dates, and called for meaningful future engagements by the Housing Development Agency. The Chairperson acknowledged their concerns and asked that the Department deal with the issues immediately, and report back to this Committee on progress after the recess. She said all parties had contributed to the current problems, and not only Thubelisha could be demonised. Conflicting information had made it difficult to know what had happened, and the Department must report back to the Committee on the current situation.

A management committee was elected, consisting of four ANC and three opposition members, for the Committee. Members also adopted the Minutes of meetings on 24 May and 28 June

Minutes:

The Chairperson noted that the meeting would be structured around the closure plan for Thubelisha Homes. She explained that Thubelisha Homes (Thubelisha) had been the provincial implementation agent for the formerly-named Department of Housing (DOH) in terms of two mandates. The Minister had announced that the entity would be wound up on 31 July 2008. Today the Committee would hear about its wind-up plan, the current position of the organisation and the future of its employees, on which certain commitments had been made by the Minister.

Thubelisha Homes (Thubelisha) Mandate Presentation

Mr Mano Pillay, Acting Chief Operations Officer, Thubelisha Homes gave a very brief background presentation on the entity to benefit the new Committee members (see attached document). Thubelisha Homes was a Section 21 company that had been founded in 1997 as a Special Purpose Vehicle to procure housing stock in line with Servcon’s ‘Rightsizing’ programme. On 1 July 2006 its mandate was expanded to include the upgrading of informal settlements, the unblocking of housing projects, the fast tracking of emergency housing solutions, and leading the development for the Government’s Mega Projects. However, the expanded mandate was not approved by Cabinet, which led the National Treasury to reject Thubelisha’s budget requirements from 2006/2007 onwards. This in turn led to the insolvency of Thubelisha. A life-line had been thrown to the company when the MinMEC agreed to let Thubelisha utilise the interest income on advance payments from Provinces, which had been enough to cover the bulk of the entity’s operational expenses.

Discussion

Ms M Borman (ANC) had asked for clarification on the numbers of R6.3 million for 2009/2010 and R6.6 million for 2010/1011 asking if these were the numbers that were the “life-line” referred to. If so, she asked how was the money being spent.

Mr Pillay responded that the R6 million, which was payable to Thubelisha for 2009/2010, represented only a portion of the entity’s operation costs. The sum was not related to the “life line” but had been awarded by the National Treasury, and he did not know how National Treasury had arrived at the specific numbers.

Mr A Steyn (DA) asked why Thubelisha’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had not stayed on to see the process of the wind-up through, and why an Acting CEO had been appointed.

Mr Pillay said that Thubelisha had had an acting CEO since 2007, when the previous CEO had resigned. It was the Shareholder’s responsibility to fill that position and to decide on how to do this. Thubelisha’s Board had become dysfunctional in August 2008, as a number of resignations resulted in there being no quorum. Since a new board had not yet been appointed, the accounting officer, in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) was now the Acting CEO.

Mr Steyn asked how the Minister could have awarded the extended mandate, including the N2 Gateway project, to Thubelisha, when it had delivered very poorly, delivering only 13 000 homes over six years on its previous mandate.

Mr Pillay said that at the time that Thubelisha was established, it was projected that the rightsizing programme should be completed in March 2006. Once that had been done, Thubelisha was expected to close, since, as a SPV, it had a finite lifespan. However, the Minister then thought in 2006 that Thubelisha could add value to the housing environment, which was the reason for the mandate being extended.

Mr Steyn asked why the National Treasury had not approved the funding.

Mr Pillay said he had been led to believe that this was due to the non-approval of the mandate by Cabinet.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) wanted bulletin three in the presentation clarified.

Mr Pillay said that the fast tracking of emergency housing solutions related to situations such as widespread fires or other emergencies within informal settlements, although in fact there had not been many other emergencies apart from fires.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) wanted to know more details about the funding. In respect of the “life line”, he asked, if it was used, what percentage this would offset from National Treasury, and whether the life line had assisted in Thubelisha concluding the mandate. He also asked when Thubelisha had found itself in trouble, and whether this was right from the outset or after the completion of certain projects.

Mr Pillay gave some background information before answering the specific questions. He said that the reason for many of the board members’ resignations had been the problems with the funding and the company’s technical insolvency. During the MinMec meeting the funding problems had been discussed. The only viable way to keep Thubelisha as a going concern was to utilise the interest income on advance payments. After the close down on 31 July 2009, all the money that had been forwarded to the entity by Provinces would be returned. The “life-line” funding had enabled Thubelisha to deal with close down costs other than the large accounts such as creditors, Voluntary Severance Packages (VSP) and retirement funds packages, which were to be covered by other funding, as would be explained in the second presentation.

Mr Pillay said that many would have argued that Thubelisha had been in trouble from the onset. He conceded that for Thubelisha only to have right-sized 13 000 houses in six years was not an admirable achievement. However, it had been a very difficult environment to work in. Right-sizing meant that dwellers had to downsize, often from a house of 90m2 to a house of 30 m2, and the beneficiaries were reluctant to move. At the end of the period only 50% of the targets had been met. For the rest of the cases Government had had to pay out banks to allow beneficiaries to remain in their original houses.

The Chairperson wanted to know more about the unblocking of housing projects, asking how many projects there were and how many had been successfully unblocked.

Mr Pillay said that about thirty stalled projects had been unblocked. These had been very difficult to manage. There had to be audits performed on all units, estimating the spend, and rectifying houses and other aspects. Unfortunately it would take a long time to get those projects dealt with. There had also been a problem with Provinces’ willingness to cooperate, although some had been helpful. It had be pointed out that the last year had been the most successful one in the lifespan of Thubelisha, with 8 300 houses built, which was only 600 short of its target.

Mr Steyn said that when the Housing Development Agency (HDA) had given a presentation to the Committee, it had been indicated that the CEO of Thubelisha would be transferred to HDA, which contradicted what was now mentioned.

Mr Pillay responded that Mr Steyn’s question about the CEO’s position was very valid. He did not know why the statement had been made that the Acting CEO of Thubelisha would be transferred to HAD, when Mr Pillay had in fact signed a contract employing the Acting CEO for another year.

Mr Steyn also commented on a more general note, saying that this Committee had been under the impression that the mandate given to Thubelisha was approved and above board.

Mr Steyn said that Thubelisha was doing work on behalf of the Provinces, and therefore the Provinces should be paying a management fee that should cover the operating costs. If such fees had been charged perhaps the insolvency could have been avoided.

Mr Pillay responded that Thubelisha had charged a management fee on some of the projects. Other projects had been fully subsidised from the provinces.

Ms Borman said that if the amounts provided by the National Treasury and the life-line were separate amounts, then the Committee needed details on the life line. She pointed out that even if Thubelisha did not know exactly how National Treasury had arrived at its final figure, there should be a business plan that outlined the required amounts.

Mr Pillay said the interest income had been about R2 million a month. There had been a business plan outlining the required funding, but this had requested an amount of R130 million. This was the reason why he was unable to say why National Treasury had fixed the amount of R6 million.

Ms Borman asked whether Thubelisha, having been given the rightsizing mandate, had realised how difficult it would be, and whether it had assessed its ability to successfully complete the mandate.

Mr Pillay explained that when Thubelisha was given the mandates, it was assumed that it would be able to complete them. After the expiry of the first mandate Thubelisha had been trying to reinvent itself, and trying to survive so that it would not lose about 70 staff members. It had, in those circumstances, been willing to take on projects that no one else would touch.

Mr E Mtshali (ANC) asked why Thubelisha had continued its work if the Cabinet refused to approve its mandate.

Mr Morris Mngomezulu, Acting Chief Director, National Department of Human Settlements, said that when the Minister had given Thubelisha its new mandate a submission had been made to the Cabinet for Thubelisha to take on the emergency housing. This outlined, either explicitly or implicitly, other aspects of the mandate including the unblocking and upgrading of housing projects. The Cabinet had approved the submission made by the Minister and the Department had assumed that this had been a blanket approval of the whole memorandum. The National Treasury did not consider that this mandate included the Mega Projects, since they had not been explicitly mentioned in the submission. The Department, on the other hand, did consider that the Mega Projects fell under the housing project upgrades. When Cabinet had approved the emergency housing mandate, Thubelisha had been awarded R50 million to increase its capacity to handle the new mandate. National Treasury was responsible for funding the operating costs, but had only awarded Thubelisha part of its requirements, to match the part that Treasury considered was included.

Mr Mngomezulu said that this begged the question why, if the mandate was not regarded as approved, any funding was awarded to Thubelisha at all. Here it seemed that National Treasury had been exercising its authority over the Department. There had been discussions between the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance, but the issue had not been resolved when the previous Parliament’s term had ended.

Another issue that had not been mentioned was that the business model of Thubelisha had given trouble from the start. There had been an under-costing of projects from the beginning, and the fact that the entity got involved in projects that no one else wanted to be associated with also indicated that there was something wrong with the business model. The Department had tried to assist Thubelisha, and had encouraged it to change its business model.

A final point to be taken into account when assessing the performance of Thubelisha was that when the N2 Gateway Project had been assigned there had been three parties; being the provincial, the national and the local authorities. Although he did not want to go into the political aspects, the change of administration of the City of Cape Town had also impacted on the project.

Mr Mtshali asked at what stage Thubelisha had realised that the national government had refused to approve the mandate, and what had been done about it.

Mr Mngomezulu replied that the project had been a flagship of the former Minister and Government, and there was a desire to see it succeed. The N2 Project was unique in that three parties had been involved, and the decision of one party not to pull its weight would not result in the project’s discontinuation. There had been realisation of the difficulties but also the hope that those difficulties could be overcome. The N2 Gateway project had been initiated a while back, but the funds that were due to Thubelisha had been withheld, and only paid this year.

Thubelisha Homes: Closure Report

Mr John Duarte, Acting CEO, Thubelisha Homes, said that the Closure Plan for Thubelisha had been prepared in September 2008 and had been approved by the Minister on 15 December 2008. The implementation of the closure process had commenced on 9 March 2009, with the National Department (formerly named Housing, now named Human Settlements) guaranteeing the closure costs. Four task teams had been established to close down the different areas of Human Resources, Projects, Facilities and Assets, and Finance and Accounting.

He reported that in respect of the closure of Human Resources, a number of staff had resigned during the past year, resulting in the number of staff decreasing from 250 to 124. Out of those 124 current staff members, 40 had not yet been guaranteed another job. The Facilities Task Team had cancelled all rental agreements, had finalised negotiations with Nashua and Telkom, and dealt with relocation and sale of furniture and movable assets.

The Projects Task Team had planned meetings with the different Provinces to discuss the transfer of projects. Draft cession contracts were now being approved by the legal team. Creditors would be notified about the closure of operations by 31 July 2009, and the key focus of the Projects task team would be to deal with the financial reconciliation of all projects after 31 July.

In the area of Finance and Accounting the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) loan had been repaid. Thubelisha was still waiting to receive R60 million from Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) debtors. It was in negotiation with South African Revenue Services (SARS) regarding VAT recovery. Claims had been submitted to the Department for the first portion of the closure cost, but no amount had been received as of yet. Thubelisha needed to bring the financial records up to date, analyse and collect all debts, settle the interest on the NHFC loan and negotiate the future of MIG debtors with the HDA.

Discussion

Mr Steyn wanted to confirm that as of the end of the month Thubelisha would not exist.

Mr Steyn asked, in view of the previous statement that the CEO had been given a contract for one more year, how long the closure period was expected to be, and how this compared with the initial timeframe.

Mr Duarte said that the law required that the operation had to have an accounting officer. Seeing that the Board was dysfunctional, the CEO had taken over the Board’s responsibilities and needed to be in place to sign off on the finalisation processes. The CEO had been appointed internally in this instance because of the lack of a Board.

Mr Steyn said it was of concern that the staff levels had voluntarily dropped; he noted that it was likely that the most skilled individuals had left, and that was why there was difficulty in transferring the remaining 40. Provinces had accepted transfer of the projects but they still did not want to take Thubelisha staff on board. Although he did not want to see people becoming unemployed, it must be questioned whether Thubelisha had a duty to continue to provide staff that were not competent with jobs and salaries.

Mr Bhoola noted, in respect of employment, that if 31 July was the last day of operations then it was important for employees to know if their employment would continue. He noted the comment that the staff in KwaZulu Natal would only be transferred if their salary payments would also be transferred, and he asked what would happen if this was not achieved.

Mr Duarte said that there would be no more Thubelisha staff employed permanently from 31 July. Any staff dealing with the winding up would be employed on a contractual basis, and some had been kept on because they had institutional knowledge that was important to finalise the closure. He agreed that it was often the less skilled staff who had not been transferred, but said that this did not render them any less important. The closure of Thubelisha had not been their fault, and it was the employer’s responsibility to take care of them. In respect of those in KwaZulu Natal, he said that the provinces had changed their minds; KwaZulu Natal, having initially said that it would take on Thubelisha staff, had refused to sign to do so. Similar problems had arisen with almost every other agent with whom there had been negotiations.

Mr Steyn said that he was willing to bet that no Department dealing with housing was fully staffed since all appeared to have vacancies, and therefore he stressed that he could not understand why they had been unwilling to accept Thubelisha staff. He also pointed out that the vacant positions were already funded, so there seemed to be no reason why those provinces should insist that the Thubelisha salaries also be transferred.

Mr Steyn asked whether the R60 million of MIG funding excluded what had been received earlier this year.

Mr Duarte said that MIG funding had always been a problem. The normal financial year ended in March. However, now it was necessary to provide closure accounts to all parties and it was important that these were correct. This meant that complex analyses had to be done in areas where there was a possibility that something could be overlooked. He cited, as an example, a project in Mandela Park, which currently had 50 foundations, 20 walls and various other items, and all of these had to be analysed and quantified correctly so that when the Provinces took over the projects all information was correct. It had to be accepted that this was a complex voluntary liquidation process.

Mr Pillay added that the MIG funding mentioned by the Department had related specifically to the NHFC loans that Thubelisha had taken out a few years ago to fund some of the MIG expenses. The R60 million did not relate to that at all, but was funding that was owed to Thubelisha for work that had already been done.

Mr Steyn was worried by the statement that creditor and debtor analysis was still ongoing, as he would have expected this to have been done earlier; the majority of it should already have been finalised so that Thubelisha could get a clear picture of its status. It was also worrying that the Committee was not being provided with the full picture.

Ms Borman asked within what time frame the task team in charge of finalising the winding up was working. He commented that it was important that the final creditor and debtor statement was produced in order to provide an insight into future balances and settlements.

The Chairperson said that Thubelisha was still awaiting approval from National Treasury about transfers, but no timeframe had been mentioned within which the matter was to be finalised.

Mr Duarte responded to all the questions on time frames together. As a Section 21 company, Thubelisha had to adhere to the PFMA, which meant that the closing down procedure was complex. It had been agreed that the operations would be closed down on 31 July 2008. It was not possible to give an exact time frame by when the smaller task teams would be able to wrap up. For example, in the Human Resources area, the final taxation, VSPs, UIFs, reconciliations and other matters still had to be done, which meant that the task team would be busy for another 30 to 90 days. Thubelisha was a relatively large company when judged by cash flow, but it had a relatively small number of staff, which added to the complexities in shutting down.

Mr B Dhlamini (IFP) asked the Department what indications there were that things would be done in a different way now that the HDA was to be taking over Thubelisha’s mandates.

Mr Mngomezulu said that the N2 Gateway Project had provided many lessons to be learnt. It could already be seen at Zanemvula, which had been much better implemented. The Department believed that with the transfer to HDA there would be a great improvement. Not only staff, but also expertise needed to complete the projects would be transferred. HDA would be run in a different way from Thubelisha, since lessons had been learned from the problems with Thubelisha and Servcon. The Committee could rest assured that there would be an improvement.

The Chairperson asked how many of these projects would be transferred to the HDA, and what timeframe the HDA had to complete these projects, so that the Committee could continue to carry out its oversight duties.

Mr Duarte said that Thubelisha had not prepared an analysis of the projects to be transferred for this presentation, but would gladly revert with those details. It was fortunate that the closure had informally started a long time ago, when Thubelisha had stopped taking on new projects. This had decreased the operational sustainability due to the decrease in investments, but it had also resulted in staff leaving and costs decreasing, which had contributed naturally to the closing down progression.

The projects that were transferred would be outlined in the closing down report. Corporate governance would be honoured as a third party company had been brought in to ensure proper procedures. A closing down Committee had been established, with representation from the Department, National Treasury and Thubelisha, as well as various watch dogs to ensure that the process was carried out correctly. Thubelisha was appreciative of all the questions asked during the meeting because some of them had highlighted sensitive areas that might needed to be reexamined.

.

Mr Steyn asked if anyone could say why Thubelisha had failed and what was responsible for the difficulties.

Mr Duarte responded that the failure had been due to poor internal management. Thubelisha had been successful in the last year, which meant that it must previously have had a capacity for success.

Joe Slovo Residents’ protests: Briefing

Prince Xanti Sigcawu, Regional General Manager: Western and Eastern Cape, Thubelisha Homes, gave a briefing on the march the previous week by protesting Joe Slovo residents. Some residents, who were currently residing in Thubelisha’s rental stock in the N2 Gateway Project Phase One, had marched to express dissatisfaction with the rentals they were paying. He noted that before these residents had been allowed to take up occupation in the rental homes, a company had been appointed to screen all beneficiaries’ financial capacity to pay the rental of the different units. After being approved, these beneficiaries would also have signed a contract agreeing to pay the amount of rental, so it was clear that the people now protesting were defaulting on their agreements. There had been structural defects with the units initially but these had all been corrected, and now residents were expected to comply with the contracts they had signed.

Discussion

Mr Steyn said that the first concern was that the current tenants were not the ones whom the N2 Gateway Project was supposed to benefit initially. Secondly, the people who had been screened and deemed qualified to pay rentals had boycotted doing so due to the structural defects of the houses. It was crucial to ensure that all these defects had in fact been corrected. If so, and there were no defects that would justify non-payment, then the law should be allowed to take its course, because Government could not afford to lose any more money on the rental units. Money should instead be spent on building houses for those who were initially supposed to have been the beneficiaries of the units, but who had now had to wait for an additional two or three years. The fact that there had been structural defects also lowered his confidence in Thubelisha’s capacity. That aside, he believed that the Committee should do a site inspection to ensure that all defects had been attended to.

Ms Borman said that the problem was that people were desperate for houses and it was important to be extremely careful in the criteria used when allocating houses. Her concern was that the final list of beneficiaries had not been properly screened. She noted that having one structural defect often led to the appearance of others, and she agreed that it was very important for the Committee to pay a visit to the site to ensure that there was nothing currently wrong with the units.

Mr Dhlamini said that the situation at Joe Slovo was not unique. Many people wanted houses but they did not want to pay the rent, or they wanted to buy units. People were desperate and would often do anything to make themselves appear as qualified for the house, whether or not they could afford to keep it. It was the Committee’s responsibility to determine if the Department was providing a service that was needed, since there were generally problems with rental stock.

Mr Bhoola was curious to know details of the agreement between the beneficiary and Thubelisha Homes, asking what legal action could be taken in terms of non-payment. Although the Committee had to be sensitive to the human factor, clearly it could not allow a culture of non-payment to take hold. He suggested that clarity was needed whether the non-payments had been due to residents having to pay to fix their own defects, or if they were due to a general inability to pay.

The Chairperson asked about the initial version of the building plan for the rental stock. From previous reports it had been suggested that it was to be an affordable housing rental stock, and that people would qualify to rent the houses if they earned at least R1 200 a month. However, when the programme was actually implemented, the minimum salary requirement had been raised, so that it was then stated as between R1 500 and R7 500 per month. She asked whether Thubelisha was sure that all those who entered into the agreements were indeed qualified to benefit from the programme. She also noted that changes in the programme had led to other changes, including the design of the houses, and asked that this be further explained.

Prince Sigcawu commented in general on all the questions. He said that Thubelisha could not be held responsible for the poor quality of the Phase One units, since it had only got involved in the N2 Gateway Project in 2006, when Phase One was 95% complete. He said that the screening process was reliable in that the company used had performed similar services in other campaigns and had always completed its mandate successfully. The contracts specified the legal action that could be taken in terms of non-payment, and those who refused to pay had to be evicted. However, before taking steps to evict, it was important to engage with the residents so that they understood the gravity of the situation. Thubelisha had engaged with residents extensively in this manner, but had up until now been unsuccessful in getting residents to pay the rent. In order to further emphasise the seriousness of their situation, eviction letters had been sent out to the residents, but these too seemed to have no effect. After closure of Thubelisha, the task of collecting rent would be transferred to the HDA, who were currently negotiating with the Cape Town Housing Company to run the project.

Prince Sigcawu said that in respect of the rental model, a survey had been done, before the units were completed, indicating that the units would cost between R160 and R650 a month. After the completion of the units, it became clear that they had been more expensive than projected, and as a result the rental amounts were raised to between R500 and R1200 per unit. Residents would obviously have to be earning in proportion to what they would have to pay on rental. The rental model had been brought in by the Social Housing Foundation and employees from the Department of Housing (as it was then named). He said that the design of the houses Joe Slovo Phase One had not changed.

Mr Mngomezulu added, specifically addressing Mr Dhlamini’s question, that the provision of rental units was much more expensive than providing ordinary Reconstruction and Development Project (RDP) houses, and in addition the running costs were higher. The units had been intended for employed persons who had relocated to the city. Other urban dwellers should be afforded ordinary houses.

Mr Steyn said that since the units had proved more expensive, and the rentals had increased, there had also been a change in beneficiaries. When the Committee had last visited the area they had seen expensive German sedans parked outside the houses, and had queried this, to which the Department had responded that those renting the units were not the people originally on the waiting list for housing, but were employed people. Mr Steyn asked how large was the percentage of defaulters, since he suspected that there had been a concerted effort by all the tenants to get their housing for the lowest possible price.

Mr Steyn also noted that there was no confirmation that the complaints list and the defaults had been attended to. He also enquired if there had been any additional complaints that Thubelisha had perhaps deemed it not necessary to respond to.

Mr T Botha (COPE) commented that Mr Dhlamini’s question was very pertinent, since this situation did not affect rental stock. The Department had invited the private sector to build affordable houses, in order to address a market whose affordability problems would otherwise not be addressed. However, once people were given houses, they were either unable or refused to pay for them. Servcon had been created in order to help with the normalisation of payments and to ensure that houses were only given to persons who, based on their earnings, were shown to be able to afford the bond payments. Because there were people who could not pay bonds, the Department then decided also to provide rental stock. People moving into the units had found fault with them, were unwilling to pay the rental, and in most cases nothing was done about it. The Department now had to find some way to stop the political mobilisation against payment of rentals. The N2 Gateway Project had had very little to do with affordability and much to do with the politics of Cape Town. There had been tension between the national, provincial and municipal departments, which had resulted in costing problems, as well as contractors going on to site before proper contracts were put in place. The one thing that could be learnt from the N2 Gateway Project was how not to do things.

Mr A Figlan (DA) asked why people were refusing to pay rent, whether there had been any communication between Thubelisha and the N2 Gateway tenants, and whether any repairs had been carried out. He pointed out that he had visited the development two or three times and noted that many of the residents were not employed or working.

Mr Bhoola said that the original intended beneficiaries had been given false expectations that their rental would be between R160 and R500. This had subsequently been increased. He asked if the people who had qualified for the higher rental were the same beneficiaries, or were different ones. If they were different, then he asked what was being done for the people who were initially expecting to be housed.

Mr Mtshali asked who was responsible for the cost of repairing structural defects.

Mr Dhlamini pointed out that in 1996 large contractors were employed to develop low cost housing. This had been badly done, and the State had had to intervene to rectify their mistakes. After that, commercial contractors had refused to touch that market. In order to entice commercial contractors back to work on these projects, Government had changed the plans for the market to include rental stock and better quality houses. When the commercial contractors did return, they did so on their terms, not wanting to build the cheaper units, unless this was done in terms of the mixed development concept. This meant that the development of housing was not driven only by the needs of the people, but also by the needs of the large developers. The Department needed to explain its financial model, so that problems similar to Joe Slovo could be avoided.

Mr Dhlamini concurred that some people did not want to pay for housing. This may be so, but they had also been given the expectation that rentals would be between R160 and R600, when in fact they then rose to between R500 and R1200. He said that promises were being made to the people, and they must be fulfilled.

Ms Mashishi said that there were a number of contradictory remarks. The Department had said that the residents were employed, but Mr Figlan said that he had observed that this was not so. She asked if a proper quality monitoring had been done.

Mr Botha pointed out that people had to be working in order to qualify to be allocated rental stock. If they were not working, then there was something wrong with the process. He said, to clarify the points made by Mr Dhlamini, that at one stage the larger contractors had stopped building in this market but that the Department had tried to get them back because the small contractors were not able to build at the rate that the Government wanted houses delivered. The housing mix had then been implemented, so that there would be a cross subsidisation of the infrastructure cost. On that basis, the commercial contractors had agreed to come back. It was expected that those moving into the houses would be paying for their accommodation. Government only subsidised the indigent. It was unfair to lambast the commercial contractors, as they had been invited to participate on specific terms. This was a political issue since Government and politicians gave conflicting signals in this area.

Prince Sigcawu said that Mr Botha’s comment indeed did answer Mr Dhlamini’s question. He said that there had been constant communications between the tenants of Joe Slovo Phase One and Thubelisha. Many of the flats were now being sublet. The default rate was between 75% and 80%. The expectations created in terms of the initial rentals did not apply to the residents who were now in place, and who had been screened for their ability to pay the higher rentals. He was not aware of any complaints that would justify residents not paying their rents. The contractors had had to pay for the costs of the structural defects, and Thubelisha had compiled a report on how it had attended to defects, which would be forwarded to the Chairperson.

Mr Pillay added that the capital grants were given to Thubelisha for repairs and maintenance of the units, but that these grants only covered the initial period. If Thubelisha did not receive the due rentals there would inevitably be a deterioration of the area, since the cost of the maintenance was about R300 000 a month and Thubelisha had been receiving about R40 000 a month in rentals.

Ms Borman asked if there were any controls in terms of the subletting and if tenants had been told during the screening process that subletting was not allowed.

Prince Sigcawu replied that the rental contracts did specify that residents were not allowed to sublet the flats, but as alluded to previously, there had been some political problems with the matter, sometimes even to the point where Thubelisha could not even carry out its administrative tasks.

Mr Figlan said that there had been a split of 70%:30% in residency between local residents and others. He suggested that perhaps some people had become unemployed and asked if adherence to the original allocation may have resulted in the current problems.

Prince Sigcawu responded that this was not the case. Thubelisha had abided by the policy that 70% of the houses were to be offered to local residents of Joe Slovo, and the remaining 30% to residents of Langa. However, some from the local community who had qualified for the rentals had declined to move into the new units. Thubelisha had then offered those declined houses to people outside, such as those from Nyanga and Gugulethu. Residents who were unemployed and not earning anything were given free housing.

Joe Slovo Constitutional Court Case: Briefing

Prince Sigcawu said that he had provided an eight page document for the Members to read and that he would only highlight the most important aspects.

He noted that Thubelisha, the National Minister and the Provincial MEC had originally challenged the residents of Joe Slovo in a Western Cape court and won their case. An appeal was lodged, which found in favour of Thubelisha, the Minister and the MEC. However, the Constitutional Court was then requested to rule on the matter, and, on 10 June 2009, laid down certain conditions, such as that the residents had to be relocated to temporary residential areas. These areas’ units must be 24 m2, should have electricity, there must be tarred roads, and other conditions. The relocation should begin by 19 August, but unfortunately Thubelisha, the Minister and MEC were not in a position to meet that deadline. The lawyers for Thubelisha and the lawyers of the Joe Slovo residents had met and it had been suggested that the relocation should start on 19 October. The document provided was self-explanatory, save that he asked that paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 be deleted, since they were not applicable. He suggested that the Committee should ask any questions to clarify the matter.

The Chairperson of the Task team for Joe Slovo noted that Thubelisha had been ordered by the Constitutional Court to consult with Joe Slovo residents, and the due date had been the previous day. He said that he could not understand how the date for the relocation had been decided before Thubelisha had engaged with the residents.

The Chairperson noted that she had not been aware that the Joe Slovo Task Team were present in the meeting, and confirmed that the Committee needed to hear the questions of the residents and ensure that they were addressed.

Mr Mtshali suggested that the Department and Joe Slovo Task Team should be given the opportunity to engage, but that the Committee should not intervene in this process.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would offer the Department the opportunity to engage with the residents, and would monitor to ensure that this was done. She pointed out that Members, having been appointed to represent the electorate, had a responsibility to listen and deal with their questions very thoroughly.

Mr Mzwanele Zulu, Spokesperson for the Joe Slovo Task Team, said that it was important that the new Housing Development Agency should meaningfully engage with residents of Joe Slovo so that the houses were not further delayed. The issues being discussed today should never have been allowed to arise. RDP houses should not have been delayed as they were by a lack of transparency and meaningful consultation. All residents needed to be consulted on housing developments, so that marginalised people were allowed to be part of the development and were empowered, not forced to the outskirts of the city. Relocation had been an apartheid policy that should not happen in a democratic South Africa.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee took these views seriously and needed to establish a timeframe. When Parliament reconvened in August, the Committee would follow up that the Department had indeed discussed the matters raised by the Joe Slovo residents. At least half of the matters brought up should have been dealt with. The need for consultation was not even up for debate.

The Chairperson commented that there were many lessons to be learnt from the N2 Gateway Project, and these should be applied by all to ensure that a similar situation did not recur. The Committee had believed that the process of closing down Thubelisha would be more simple, but this was clearly not the case. It was also evident that there had been many misunderstandings between the parties involved. In the future the service level agreements must be clear, so that everything could be more easily understood by the Portfolio Committee.

The Chairperson said that it was also clear that all parties involved had contributed to the “current mess” and Thubelisha could not be demonised as the only perpetrator. A special report commissioned by the Department had made it clear that the environmental assessments had not been done, that there was conflicting information, making it difficult to know what had really been happening. The Committee should request the Department for a report on the current situation, since the Committee would advise and assist the Department as part of its oversight. The Committee had not been informed that the Thubelisha Board was dysfunctional.

Provinces should be told that they could not take on projects without also taking on Thubelisha staff. It was the responsibility of the Government to retrain employees to ensure that they were skilled.

The Chairperson also said that after the recess the Members would visit the N2 Gateway Project.

Election of Management Committee

The Chairperson asked Members to nominate members to a management committee for this Portfolio Committee. This management committee would deal with the day to day running of the Committee, including preparing the budget and the strategic plan. It would be made up of seven members – four from the ANC and three from the opposition. The ANC delegates would include the Chairperson and the Whip, so an additional two ANC members needed to be nominated.

Members nominated and accepted Ms Borman and Mr M Motimele as the ANC additional members. They then nominated and accepted Mr Steyn (DA), Mr Botha (COPE) and Mr Dhlamini (IFP) as the opposition members.

Adoption of Minutes

The Committee considered and adopted the Minutes of the meetings on 24 May and 28 June, as amended.

The meeting was adjourned.

NO TO EXORBITANT RENTS AT N2 GATEWAY! NORMALISE OUR RENTS!

NO TO MANAGEMENT FROM JOHANNESBURG! VOETSAK THUBELISHA!

WE WANT LOCAL MANAGEMENT UNDER OUR CONTROL!

Since we moved into the N2 Gateway flats we have been very unhappy. The flats were very poorly constructed and the rents were much higher than we had been told when we applied for the flats. We pay up to R1050 in rent for defective flats. That is what people paying for bond houses pay, but we are not buying our houses, but only renting them for life! Because of this, we have been on rent boycott for two years. We have raised these issues time and again with Lindiwe Sisulu, Richard Dyantyi, and the Thubelisha management but our complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

In Langa people in the newly-built “show flats” pay maximum rents of R290 and in the old ‘new flats” rents of R40. It is unfair that we should be paying exorbitant rents of up to R1050. We are paying for the well-publicised corruption and overspending that went into the building of the N2 Gateway flats.

We are crying because we are being abused. We demand that our rents be normalised!

We are sick and tired of being managed from Johannesburg. People in Johannesburg do not care about our problems and ignore us when we try to contact them. We are being remote-controlled. We do not need or want Thubelisha, nor its replacement, the National Housing Agency. They must voetsak!

We are well capable of managing our own flats as a community.  We demand a management system under our control!

We have no faith in any political parties. We are addressing this memorandum to you, Helen Zille, not because you are in the DA. but because you are in power in the province and the province still bears responsibility for the N2 Gateway project.

We ask you, Helen Zille, and your housing MEC to, jointly with the Anti-Eviction Campaign (who have consistently supported our struggle) convene a meeting of all relevant stakeholders to negotiate and conclude a decent and fair way forward. We demand your personal involvement – it is crucial to this meeting.

The N2 Gateway project was supposed to be a flagship pilot project for the whole country. For us, its first residents, it has been a disaster. We want to change that! We will change that!

Form more information contact Luthando 079 896 6126 at and Jimmy at 073 158 4835

This march is being carried out with the support of the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, Abahlali baseMjondolo of the Western Cape and Joe Slovo Informal Settlement.  We recognise that communities all over Cape Town are affected by the failure of the N2 Gateway project.  This includes the communities of Joe Slovo, Symphony Way and Blikkiesdorp who are all going through struggles relating to the failure of top-down planning and N2 Gateway corruption.  To learn more about how the N2 Gateway affects other communities contact Mncedisi at 0785808646, Mzonke at 0732562036, Mzwanele 0763852369.

Tension is mounting in Langa near Cape Town as informal settlers from Joe Slovo slowly fill up every available piece of open land in the more established areas.
Joe Slovo residents, many of whom were moved to make way for the Gateway project and who do not want to move to residential units in Delft, have settled in other parts of Langa in their hundreds and erected shacks.

More move in almost every day and some Langa residents have now called for the authorities and community leaders to intervene.

One resident, who did not want to be named, said tensions had been mounting between residents and the newcomers and police have had to be called on occasion.

“We understand their plight but we cannot condone their acts because they live under hazardous conditions that are dangerous and unhealthy. These conditions affect all of us because they have no electricity, water or sanitation and they dump everything in the drains.”

She said there were new shacks going up “on a daily basis” and “it was getting out of hand”. She called for leaders to intervene because things were turning “nasty”.

Last week the Constitutional Court handed down a judgment that the Joe Slovo residents be given proper alternative accommodation. It also ruled that 70 percent of the current and former residents be accommodated at any future low-cost housing project at the N2 Gateway.

Residents still living in the informal settlement can be moved to temporary residential units in Delft but many people do not want to move.

Thubelisha Homes, connected to the Gateway projects, and the Joe Slovo residents have been given until June 30 to agree on the start of any new relocation process.

Community task team chairman Sfiso Zulu said they had raised many concerns about the move to Delft. In the past people who had agreed to move were given forms to sign which were never properly explained to them.

“They were told to take their assets and they were loaded into trucks and their shacks were dismantled without them really knowing what was going on.”

Zulu accused the ANC government of implementing “apartheid laws” under which people were moved to distant areas where there were no job opportunities or access to transport.

They did not want to disrupt the government’s efforts to relocate people to temporary residential areas, but Delft “was out of the question”.

He said Langa was central and people could get part-time jobs in the surrounding areas.

“The authorities do not have our interests at heart and are making decisions about where we should be accommodated.”

Joe Slovo resident Siyazi Siziba said people who had voluntarily moved to Delft had come back because “there was no life” there. She said they wanted to remain in Langa and many had started moving to backyards before the relocation deadline.

Promises that certain sections of Langa would be developed had been made by the authorities but nothing had come to fruition.

Shack dweller Vusumzi Vokwana said local houses were “too small” to accommodate big families and the only option was to build shacks where land was available. Shack dwellers only paid for the electricity from more established homes and did not pay rent.

But ward councillor Mayenzeke Sopaqa said Joe Slovo residents needed to obey the government’s rules because the move to Delft would ultimately benefit them. He condemned people who were moving out of the informal settlement and erecting their shacks in open spaces in Langa.

“Their behaviour cannot be tolerated. There are by-laws which prohibit people from building in certain areas. The government wants to eradicate poverty and provide people with decent houses.

“They have to move out of Joe Slovo so that construction can start happening and there is no land available in Langa to accommodate them.”

Sopaqa said those who were building shacks in Langa should return to where they came from. “We don’t want a situation where forced removals and political and police intervention will be required.”

* This article was originally published on page 7 of The Cape Argus on June 21, 2009

Sandra Liebenberg – Business Day
Published: 2009/06/22 06:49:37 AM

OVER a period of 10 months commencing on August 17, the largest judicially sanctioned eviction of a community in SA’s post-apartheid period will take place. The 20000-strong impoverished community of the Joe Slovo informal settlement on the outskirts of Cape Town will be required to relocate 15km away to a temporary relocation area in Delft.According to provincial and local government, their relocation is required to enable the upgrading and building of formal housing as part of the N2 Gateway Project. Following resistance by the residents to the relocation, the housing authorities applied for and obtained an eviction order from the Western Cape High Court in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998. The residents of Joe Slovo appealed to the Constitutional Court and a weighty judgment was handed down on June 10.

The judgment is significant as it spells out the implications of the housing rights in section 26 of the constitution in circumstances when state organs seek to evict a large, settled community from their homes to facilitate a major housing development. The government will be taking note as the principles articulated in the judgment go to the core of its Breaking New Ground policy, of which the N2 Gateway is a key pilot project. In this policy, the Department of Human Settlements seeks to eradicate informal settlements through structured in situ upgrading, and, where this is not possible, through relocation of relevant communities.

In the case of Joe Slovo, the decision was that in situ upgrading was not feasible and the community should accordingly be relocated to Delft. An initial commitment that 70% of those relocated would be able to return to low- income housing in Joe Slovo morphed over time into a diffuse undertaking to apply “objective criteria” in allocating the housing units in Joe Slovo to the relocated community. The trust between communities and the representatives of the various spheres and agencies of government was further eroded by the fact that the first phases of the development did not give effect to the promise to accommodate 70% of the Joe Slovo residents. Moreover, the dream of a home was becoming ever more elusive as rentals in the development were pitched far higher than initially envisaged and more emphasis was placed on bonded housing which was inaccessible to the vast majority of the families, whose incomes were below R3500 a month. Moreover, many residents feared that the relocation to Delft would destroy their already fragile livelihood and communal networks, and that they would lack access to the schools, transport and other facilities on which they depended in the Joe Slovo settlement.

The Constitutional Court rejected the arguments of the residents that the state was not entitled to seek their eviction in terms of the act. It also held that their eviction and relocation to Delft to enable the upgrading and development of the Joe Slovo settlement was just and equitable in the circumstances.

However, three significant legal and practical victories were won by the residents. First, all five judges, who wrote separate judgments, underscored the necessity of the provision of adequate alternative accommodation when the state evicts a settled community from their homes. This obligation is derived from a long line of cases commencing with the groundbreaking Grootboom judgment in 2000, when the court held that the state must make reasonable provision for those facing homelessness or living in intolerable conditions. Not content to rely on vague guarantees regarding the nature of the alternative accommodation to be provided at Delft, the court stipulated detailed standards with which the “temporary accommodation units” in Delft had to comply, including the provision of services and facilities. Second, the government was ordered to allocate 70% of low-cost housing at Joe Slovo to the relocated communities (the remaining 30% would be allocated to the back-yarders of Langa). Finally, the authorities were required to “meaningfully engage” with the community on the nuts and bolts of the eviction, such as the timetable and the provision of transport facilities to places of work, schools and clinics.

Despite these important gains, the willingness to effectively condone the inadequate consultation processes raises serious concerns. This consultation process was littered with mixed messages conveyed by an array of officials, broken promises and, in the words of Judge Albie Sachs, the “frequent employment of a top-down approach, where the purpose of reporting back to the community was seen as being to pass on information about decisions already taken rather than to involve the residents as partners in the process of decision- making itself”. This represents the antithesis of the “structured, consistent and careful engagement” by “competent, sensitive” officials skilled in engagement which the court has previously underscored when state organs seek to evict large groups of vulnerable people.

A few of the judges held that the laudable objectives and greater good of the N2 Gateway project outweighed the defects in the consultation process. It would be too burdensome to expect higher standards from the state in these circumstances. This fails to take seriously the court’s own insight that procedure and substance are inextricably connected. Meaningful participation is not only an expression of the dignity of citizens, but is indispensable to ensuring that the design and implementation of programmes to realise socioeconomic rights are effective and sustainable. In the Joe Slovo case, for example, there are serious questions whether an in situ upgrade would have been less disruptive and more effective.

If “meaningful engagement” is not to become a meaningless platitude in realising socioeconomic rights, it must be taken seriously by the courts, which have a constitutional mandate to control all evictions of people from their homes. Unless this happens, the realisation of socioeconomic rights in SA will exhibit all the flaws of a top-down approach in which the intended beneficiaries have had little real say.

- Prof Liebenberg holds the HF Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law at Stellenbosch University and was a member of the legal team for the amici curiae in the Joe Slovo case.

Tension is mounting in Langa near Cape Town as informal settlers from Joe Slovo slowly fill up every available piece of open land in the more established areas.

Joe Slovo residents, many of whom were moved to make way for the Gateway project and who do not want to move to residential units in Delft, have settled in other parts of Langa in their hundreds and erected shacks.

More move in almost every day and some Langa residents have now called for the authorities and community leaders to intervene.

One resident, who did not want to be named, said tensions had been mounting between residents and the newcomers and police have had to be called on occasion.

“We understand their plight but we cannot condone their acts because they live under hazardous conditions that are dangerous and unhealthy. These conditions affect all of us because they have no electricity, water or sanitation and they dump everything in the drains.”

She said there were new shacks going up “on a daily basis” and “it was getting out of hand”. She called for leaders to intervene because things were turning “nasty”.

Last week the Constitutional Court handed down a judgment that the Joe Slovo residents be given proper alternative accommodation. It also ruled that 70 percent of the current and former residents be accommodated at any future low-cost housing project at the N2 Gateway.

Residents still living in the informal settlement can be moved to temporary residential units in Delft but many people do not want to move.

Thubelisha Homes, connected to the Gateway projects, and the Joe Slovo residents have been given until June 30 to agree on the start of any new relocation process.

Community task team chairman Sfiso Zulu said they had raised many concerns about the move to Delft. In the past people who had agreed to move were given forms to sign which were never properly explained to them.

“They were told to take their assets and they were loaded into trucks and their shacks were dismantled without them really knowing what was going on.”

Zulu accused the ANC government of implementing “apartheid laws” under which people were moved to distant areas where there were no job opportunities or access to transport.

They did not want to disrupt the government’s efforts to relocate people to temporary residential areas, but Delft “was out of the question”.

He said Langa was central and people could get part-time jobs in the surrounding areas.

“The authorities do not have our interests at heart and are making decisions about where we should be accommodated.”

Joe Slovo resident Siyazi Siziba said people who had voluntarily moved to Delft had come back because “there was no life” there. She said they wanted to remain in Langa and many had started moving to backyards before the relocation deadline.

Promises that certain sections of Langa would be developed had been made by the authorities but nothing had come to fruition.

Shack dweller Vusumzi Vokwana said local houses were “too small” to accommodate big families and the only option was to build shacks where land was available. Shack dwellers only paid for the electricity from more established homes and did not pay rent.

But ward councillor Mayenzeke Sopaqa said Joe Slovo residents needed to obey the government’s rules because the move to Delft would ultimately benefit them. He condemned people who were moving out of the informal settlement and erecting their shacks in open spaces in Langa.

“Their behaviour cannot be tolerated. There are by-laws which prohibit people from building in certain areas. The government wants to eradicate poverty and provide people with decent houses.

“They have to move out of Joe Slovo so that construction can start happening and there is no land available in Langa to accommodate them.”

Sopaqa said those who were building shacks in Langa should return to where they came from. “We don’t want a situation where forced removals and political and police intervention will be required.”

o This article was originally published on page 7 of Cape Argus on June 21, 2009

June 16, 2009 Edition 1

Source: Cape Argus

Your editorial (“A mixed outcome”, June 11) claims the Constitutional Court’s decision on the eviction of the residents of Joe Slovo informal settlement to make way for N2 Gateway homes included the provision that “70 percent of the shack dwellers who were recorded as being resident there in 2000, and qualified for this housing, should be returned to the area once new homes have been built.”

This is incorrect.
The court decided that 70 percent of the N2 Gateway houses built in Joe Slovo should be allocated to the former and present residents, not that 70 percent of the residents should be returned to the area.

The difference is apparent. There are presently 4 386 households there, and possibly another 4 500 who were moved around 2005 to Delft. On your reckoning, 6 220 of these households should be returned to housing in Joe Slovo.

But only 1 500 houses are to be built. Thus, in reality only 1 050 households will return to Joe Slovo – not 70 percent but 12 percent of the present and former residents.

The remainder are to be evicted – apartheid-style – from Langa to the outskirts of the city in Delft.

There, they will be housed in concentration-camp-like temporary accommodation (which the Constitutional Court demands be of “decent quality” – a “decent” concentration camp!) and then, possibly, get N2 Gateway housing in Delft (though the process of allocation of that newly built housing is far from transparent).

N2 Gateway is essentially the national government’s programme. The city and now provincial DA government’s programme is even worse.

There is a backlog of 400 000 houses in the city, increasing by 18 000 a year – yet only 8 000 houses a year are being built.

Meanwhile the DA (despite proclaimed policies of free market entrepeneurism) is determined to prevent any overcrowded backyarders building shacks for themselves on vacant municipal land, as the recent violent and forcible prevention by Metro police of land occupations in Macassar, Mitchells Plain and Kraaifontein demonstrates.

Martin Legassick
Emeritus Professor
University of the Western Cape

Click here to read this article in a word document and here to read previous entries on the Joe Slovo settlement.

Kate Tissington
15 June 2009

The highest Court in South Africa has decided the fate of the 20 000 Joe Slovo informal settlement residents to be evicted to Delft to make way for the N2 Gateway housing project, in what is a disappointing and frustrating judgment that orders their eviction, albeit on the proviso that engagement occurs and that certain mitigating measures are undertaken.
Two years spent battling the possibility of this mass eviction has ultimately resulted in a naïve patch-up job by the Constitutional Court, whose actions have allowed the government to make appallingly triumphalist statements like “a better life beckons for the people of Joe Slovo informal settlement. The Court has pronounced its judgment, and the biggest winners are the families who will soon put the misery of shack dwelling behind them.” What shameless spin and utter nonsense.

What follows can be described as a personal ‘insider’ reaction to the judgment and why it is disturbing, given what many already know to be the sad reality of the N2 Gateway project and what I have learnt over the last two years being involved in the case. In many respects I am most likely preaching to the converted. It was written in response to a preliminary reading of the judgment and does not constitute a rigorous academic or legal analysis of it. Indeed, I doubt anyone has yet to fully digest all 220 pages of the judgment and in the next few weeks and months it remains to be seen how the engagement process between the parties will play itself out. There is surely much incisive analysis and commentary still to come.

What I argue below is that despite the Court’s ordering of meaningful engagement and the provision of alternative accommodation for all Joe Slovo residents, the reality is that the N2 Gateway project was never conceived or implemented in a reasonable manner, and the mass eviction sought in its name is thus unreasonable. There are manifold reasons for this and I will touch on the socio-economic impact of eviction to Delft; government’s persistent misunderstanding of informal settlement upgrading; the numerous flaws with the N2 Gateway project as described by its provincial project manager and recently exposed by an Auditor-General’s report; the choice of Delft as a site of temporary relocation and the reality of life in Delft TRAs; problems with the deeply political bent of the project; and what N2 Gateway looks like at Joe Slovo at present. Finally, the deeply problematic belief (which the Court has seemingly adopted) will be discussed, which implies that simply because there is a ‘good’ end (in this case the delivery of some low-cost housing), there is justification for top-down, bureaucratic and unacceptable means that render many people worse off.

The Joe Slovo case and judgment(s)

Sitting in the Constitutional Court and listening to Justice O’Regan read out the order, one got the sense of a Court completely naive and out of touch with reality, failing at its duty to adjudicate on socio-economic rights compromised by bad implementation of wrongly interpreted government policy. The Court refused to condemn the eviction of Joe Slovo residents to Delft, which will result in an uncertain future for them in so-called ‘temporal housing’ (basically, government shacks) managed by that defunct and debatable “national public entity” called Thubelisha Homes. Lest we forget that this agency is now technically insolvent.

The Court, unwittingly or not, has effectively allowed government to get away with a national project that was misconceived from the start, described by many as merely a grandiose ‘vanity project’; implemented with no consultation or bottom-up planning; and which is contrary to the spirit and letter of national housing law and policy and the Constitution. This, despite it being the pilot project for the Breaking New Ground (BNG) housing plan.

This failure is sadly true for every one of the five judgments, despite agonising individual attempts by Yacoob, Moseneke, Ngcobo, Sachs and O’Regan to defend their devastating ‘consensus’ to grant the eviction order. The order is highly problematic, regardless of the mitigating efforts made by the Court to render the eviction more “humane”, by ordering ongoing meaningful engagement, setting standards for the alternative accommodation at Delft and stipulating the 70% allocation for current and former Joe Slovo residents.

There is perhaps an element of sympathy with the Court’s predicament – this was obviously not a straightforward case for them to adjudicate. The legal strategy of the applicants was to argue this highly complex case on the most winnable legal points, which also happened to be rather technical, arguing that the residents had tacit consent to occupy the land, were thus lawful occupiers and were entitled to adequate notice before their eviction, which never occurred. Therefore, there are no grounds to evict. Given the nature of the case and that of the Court, this tactic was not necessarily wrong. However, it has unfortunately resulted in over 220 pages of a judgment which still condones a mass eviction (including 25 pages spent by Justice Yacoob agonisingly unpacking the nature of ‘consent’).

It should be stated at this point that the above comments in no way serve to bolster recent criticisms made by Judge Hlophe (who initially ordered the eviction of the residents in the Cape High Court with no regard for their predicament or provision of mitigating measures). He attacked the Constitutional Court for their long judgments and the “complex and scholarly” manner in which they write them, stating that the Court has a responsibility to write simple and accessible judgments which can be understood by ordinary people. While this is undoubtedly an enduring problem with the judiciary and needs to be addressed urgently, it is rather a cheap shot from Hlophe. Most likely Joe Slovo residents did not really care that when their eviction was ordered by him it was done in a short, “simple and accessible” judgment. Content that favours “ordinary people” is surely as important as the form it takes.

During the hearing, the Court expressed some distaste at the technical line of argument followed, in a case they viewed as so clearly being about more complex issues of justice and equity. The amici curiae submission by the Community Law Centre (CLC) and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) attempted to counter this ‘deficiency of reality’ by providing the Court with insight into how the N2 Gateway project runs contrary to international best practice and South African housing law and policy, explaining why the temporary relocation areas (TRAs) in Delft do not constitute adequate alternative accommodation for Joe Slovo residents considering their lived reality, and stressing the lack of meaningful engagement throughout the project.

However, this information came to the Court as ‘an aside’ in a sense, and they clearly did not it into account sufficiently. Likewise, information known by those actively working on the project, like the provincial project manager I will mention below and that which has emerged from the Auditor-General’s report, was never going to make it to the Court. Thus its ability to properly or fully decide whether an eviction would be “just and equitable”, given the realities of how and why the socio-economic rights of Joe Slovo residents are affected by misinterpreted government policy and its thoroughly flawed implementation, was constrained by its focus on addressing, and rebutting on the whole, the technical arguments presented.

And yet there are many reasons why the Court should not have granted the eviction order. While conducting research for the amici submission on the socio-economic impact of the removal to Delft, as well as how and why the N2 Gateway project looks the way it does, I came to several obvious conclusions.

Socio-economic impact of eviction to Delft

Firstly, it is clear that the lives of Joe Slovo residents will be severely disrupted if they are forced to move to Delft. This conclusion is not simply an academic one, but emerges from hundreds of affidavits submitted to the Court, which provide testimonies of Joe Slovo residents facing eviction to Delft. Even Thubelisha acknowledges this much (although they assert, misleadingly, that this will be merely a temporary disruption). At Joe Slovo, residents are close to Langa, Pinelands, Epping and other economic hubs where jobs and food can be easily sourced. Children attend school within walking distance, young adults attend night classes which they are able to make in the evenings due to proximity, and gogos attend churches they have frequented for 15 years. The settlement is close to Cape Town CBD, and there is a cheap train network operating, making commuting brute early and late at night to and from work easier for people. There is no train network in Delft, transport is expensive and the TRA settlement is more than 15 kms further from the City.

Due to their poverty, residents lead fragile existences and therefore a strong community and social networks are extremely important to mitigate its effects. A telling quote from a resident sums this up well: “Delft is a new place, and we do not have a community there. I have visited Delft. Houses are built from asbestos and are brittle. My things will not be safe inside. It is fine for rich people to live in a place without a community, because they can afford expensive security. We cannot. We need our community to be safe.”

Thubelisha’s assertions that the move to Delft will be merely a “temporary hardship” for Joe Slovo residents have been misleading and shameful, and will be discussed further below.

Government misunderstanding of informal settlements

This leads me onto how and why the N2 Gateway project looks the way it does. Firstly, from the above, it is clear that the project never took the actual lived realities of Joe Slovo residents or their needs and desires into account in the process. The decision to do a massive relocation rather than in situ upgrading on the site was never adequately explained by government (further, neither was the decision not to build more densified housing typologies at Joe Slovo).

One likely reason seems to be that government, despite its progressive informal settlement upgrading programme (Chapter 13 of the Housing Code) included in BNG in 2005, has consistently misinterpreted ‘slum eradication’ to mean demolishing informal settlements. According to Marie Huchzermeyer, professor at the Wits School of Architecture and Planning and informal settlement policy expert, the national Housing Act, Code and BNG policy, as well as international best practice, all speak to indirect measures that need to be taken to improve the lives of shackdwellers, and which will ultimately result in the eradication of the need for informal settlements and thus actual informal settlements themselves. Government continues to misinterpret this goal as being about eliminating the symptoms of the problem, rather than addressing its causes. Informal settlements are a reasonable and legitimate response to apartheid geography and a major housing backlog in South Africa. If this had been taken into account by the project, and a real dedication shown to the true spirit of informal settlement upgrading, the N2 Gateway project would have undoubtedly looked very different.

N2 Gateway – a flawed project by all accounts

Second on this point, from the outset there was no real consultation with Joe Slovo residents, and the project was condemned at the time by non-governmental organisations working in the settlement, who later pulled out of the project citing lack of bottom-up planning and engagement. During research conducted on the N2 Gateway project by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) in November 2008, I spoke to the N2 Gateway project manager at the Western Cape provincial department of housing.

He slammed the project and revealed that there has been no proper communication between Thubelisha and the provincial department; that Thubelisha is poorly managed and largely incompetent; that there has been no community participation in the project; that the situation at Delft is dire; that there have been endless problems with contractors at the Delft site; and, finally, that there is an acute lack of an efficient and transparent TRA allocation process which has led to major corruption and the bizarre situation of beneficiaries not being found for newly built houses and them standing empty once completed. According to him, when houses were finished in Delft 7-9 and they needed to hand over the units, there was no list of beneficiaries from Thubelisha and they had to “just find and put people in.” People had not been signed up fast enough in the TRAs to be put through the provincial Housing Subsidy System (HSS) in order to be allocated a house.

In April 2009, a damning report on the special audit conducted by the Auditor-General for the National Department of Housing emerged (it was written in June 2008), which found serious problems with the N2 Gateway project and its implementation. Among these:

• Lack of adequate planning and lack of approval of a business plan before construction started;
• “Fruitless and wasteful expenditure” occurred since reasonable care was not exercised during the planning phase;
• Identification and securing of sufficient land was not finalised prior to construction;
• Adequate geotechnical surveys not conducted before construction;
• No clear roles and responsibilities defined between the different spheres of government;
• Selection of beneficiaries not finalised prior to the commencement of construction;
• Affordable housing was not provided for the target market identified: “The national Housing Code, the Breaking New Ground plan and the draft business plan were not consistent with regard to the qualifying criteria for proposed beneficiaries, especially in respect of the monthly household income requirement. It was also noted that the criteria communicated to the different communities were not consistent.”
• Overambitious time-frames adopted. As of 31 May 2007 (two years after project commenced) only 5% units of the revised planned units had been completed, while 21% of the total budget had been utilised;
• Initial project manager was appointed despite being ranked number 6 in the evaluation committee’s evaluation, not preparing costing in compliance with the terms and conditions of the request for proposal, lacking sufficient in-house and specialist expertise to perform various project management functions, and was furthermore paid project management fees exceeding the norm and which were not performance based;
• Thubelisha was appointed without following a proper procurement process.

It was clear from my meeting with the gatvol provincial official (and now supported now by the Auditor-General’s report) that the entire N2 Gateway ‘housing delivery’ exercise has been, and continues to be, extremely technocratic and top-down. He explained this to me aptly as there being ‘no matching up, no bottom up’ and it was clearly visible when we discussed what would happen if the Joe Slovo eviction order was granted and he frantically shuffled around maps and numbers on his desk. According to him, there is simply no more space left in Delft.

Delft was a last resort

It is important to note that the decision to move residents to Delft was never a preordained or beneficial one for residents, as government has spun it to the media. According to a report by the Development Action Group (DAG), Delft was a last resort for establishing temporary accommodation, following several months of lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations to find suitable land for relocation. The decision came after no less than 17 other sites closer to Joe Slovo were considered, in the first instance to relocate those affected by the fire at Joe Slovo in 2005, and later for those envisioned to be removed to make way for Phase 1 of N2 Gateway.

The reason these 17 sites were rejected in 2005, including the preferred sites in Epping and Langa, was due largely to objection by Langa and Athlone residents, and organisations like the Epping Industrialists Association and Pinelands Residents and Ratepayers Association, amongst others. Unsuitability of land and other reasons, which mainly included anticipated community opposition, were also cited for rejecting certain sites. Eventually, the only feasible site was the former hostel site on the edge of Langa and a planned cemetery site on the edge of the built-up area in Delft. Thus, Delft TRA was born.

Life in Delft TRAs

A March 2007 survey conducted by DAG entitled Living on the Edge: A Study of the Delft Temporary Relocation Area concluded that 63% of respondents were unhappy about living in the TRA, mainly due to being on the periphery of the city and the resulting high transport costs, as well as dissatisfaction with the TRA structures summed up by one resident as “being very cold during winter, very small and, above all, they are not safe.” Further, people talked about their social and economic networks being severely disrupted; service provision lacking (poor maintenance of ablution blocks, lack of electricity, dissatisfied with access to water and washing facilities, refuse removal); overcrowding; tension with existing backyarders in Delft; loss of jobs as a result of the move (due to high cost of transport, lateness for work) and less opportunity to look for informal work; the need to spend money and time on their so-called ‘temporary shelter’; and unhappiness with levels of crime in Delft.

In its recommendations, DAG cited the importance of location and the enormous impact it has on households’ income and expenditure and on their social networks. It stressed that the impact of relocation needs to be analysed carefully before decisions are made as it can leave people worse off, even if some of their living conditions are improved as a result. Apart from the socio-economic impact of the move on households, the survey also highlighted the potential burden on the government to provide a larger social safety net and to mitigate the social problems caused by the relocation to a peripheral area like Delft. Indeed, the mitigation measures handed down by the Constitutional Court, particularly their ordering “the provision of transport facilities to the affected residents from the temporary residential accommodation units to amenities, including schools, health facilities and places of work”, speak to this.

The survey points to how the burden on the state to provide a social safety net often increases due to relocation, particularly as “living in relative isolation in areas such as Delft can give rise to an increase in the occurrence and variety of social problems, which in turn can create high levels of social instability. This instability is already evident in greater Delft, and although government carries the cost in its expenditure on, for example, crime prevention, the social cost is also borne by the households who live in these areas.”

There has always been the fear that Delft TRAs would become permanent accommodation for those removed from Joe Slovo to Delft and who do not qualify for housing subsidies. Gerald Adlard, who administered the N2 Gateway project for the Western Cape provincial department of housing in 2006, stated in his affidavit for the applicants that it is precisely for these particular people that an upgrading project, such as could have been provided at Joe Slovo, should have occurred. He further stated that “TRAs are meant to provide emergency housing for disasters, such as fires and floods, not accommodation for the poor so that the land that they occupied can be provided for the better-off.”

And what about those who relocated from Joe Slovo over three years ago to Delft? Many are still living in dire conditions in shacks in the Tsunami TRA, watching houses being built across the road and waiting for one to be eventually allocated to them.

Politicking vs. progressive realisation of housing

Another important point that should not be sidelined is that of the deeply political bent of the project. N2 Gateway came to its zenith during the period when the DA controlled the City and the ANC controlled the Western Cape province. The project has been as much about political campaigning and mud-slinging as it has been about low-cost housing delivery.

The fact is that there are thousands of people living in backyard shacks in and around Delft who qualify for government houses, and who have been living in the surrounds as long as Joe Slovo residents have been at Joe Slovo. Allocation of houses should have been based on meeting a housing demand and need that existed on the ground, not playing around with percentages that favoured particular political constituencies or showed up rival political parties. There continue to be families living along Symphony Way in Delft who were evicted from N2 Gateway houses that they occupied in protest of the project and its flawed allocation process. They refuse to move to TRAs for many of the same reasons Joe Slovo residents do not want to move there, and now face eviction by the City.

It is common knowledge that the DA pulled out of, and has repeatedly slammed, the N2 Gateway project in the past. It is going to be very interesting to see how the former ANC-led provincial government, who played largely a monitoring and allocation role in the project, and who recently became DA, are going to respond to the judgment.

The end cannot justify the means

Indeed, Joe Slovo residents’ only ‘mistake’ has been to access well-located land in the city and build shacks there, in the context of a massive housing backlog and the continued legacy of apartheid spatial planning. The irony (unfortunately more common and malevolent than the Court appreciates) is that this mass eviction is part of a low-cost housing development being implemented by government, ostensibly to provide poor people with housing. This cannot and should not serve as simple justification for its manifold failures. If a golf estate was to be built on Joe Slovo informal settlement would the Court have even entertained the thought of a mass eviction? Highly unlikely.

N2 Gateway to date at Joe Slovo – a farce

The reality is that Phase 1 of N2 Gateway has resulted in very poorly constructed rental units built at Joe Slovo, which have turned out to be unaffordable to the low-income bracket. According to the Auditor-General’s report, “although the average income of households in the region was approximately R1 200 per month according to the earlier versions of the business plan and communities had raised their concern regarding affordability, the actual tenant profile indicated that the income of 99,6% of the current tenants ranged from R1 500 to R7 500 per month.” Since mid-2007, Phase 1 tenants have been on a rent boycott as they claim no one is willing to address their concerns over unacceptable rent increases and poor living conditions in the flats. The Auditor-General’s report also revealed that despite the R40 000 per unit overrun, there were problems with the units including cracks, doors not fitted properly, uncovered drainpipes and blocked drains. Apparently, the certificate of completion for the building contract was erroneously issued.

Phase 2 consists of ‘affordable bond’ houses, which are distinctly unaffordable to Joe Slovo residents, as well as what Thubelisha refers to as a “show village” of subsidised BNG houses. Standing in Joe Slovo settlement, looking next-door at what has been built already as part of N2 Gateway, the only logical conclusion would be: “hold on, there is no way this is project is going to benefit me and I am far better off here in my shack than living in extended limbo in a shack in Delft.”

One of the Court’s mitigating measures, which stipulated that 70% of BNG houses to be built at Joe Slovo must be allocated to current or former Joe Slovo residents, cynically leaves one phrase ringing in my head – 70% of nothing, is nothing. Indeed, even if the 1500 BNG houses were built on the site (and Thubelisha has two weeks to inform the Court if this is still the case), this would only mean that 1050 would be allocated to Joe Slovo residents. There are over 4000 households currently living at Joe Slovo.

Going forward?

It remains to be seen how the engagement process, as outlined in the order, will play itself out and if the parties can engage productively and come to an agreement. Given the reality of the project and the Court’s exhaustive mitigating provisions, it appears unlikely that the eviction can go ahead as envisioned. However, while this inability to effect the eviction order would probably be a blessing for Joe Slovo residents (not least because the inability will be expressed by them in the ‘meaningful engagement’ process), it does not vindicate the Court’s judgment(s), which remains technical, cowardly and naïve in the face of the obvious.

Kate Tissington is a researcher at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at Wits University. She writes in her personal capacity.

Cape Flats families given a reprieve from eviction, writes Glynnis Underhill

Ashraf Cassiem and 139 families who have set up home under the stars along Symphony Way in wind-swept Delft on the Cape Flats cele-brated a small victory last week after being given a reprieve in their fight against eviction.

“We’ll gladly move to houses that are safe, clean and adequate to our families’ needs,” said Cassiem, chairperson of the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign.
On Tuesday residents were granted a postponement of the eviction application by the City of Cape Town, acting for the Western Cape government.

Cassiem, who represented them, was delighted when acting Judge Jake Moloi ordered the families to file answering papers by June 30, and that the matter be heard on September 3.

“I’m happy that the court is finally listening to poor people who can’t afford legal representation,” said Cassiem.

The Symphony Way families illegally occupied newly completed homes intended for beneficiaries of the government’s N2 Gateway project in Delft.

When police evicted them in February last year, they erected makeshift shelters in Symphony Way, resisting removal to Blikkiesdorp, a crime-ridden “temporary relocation area”.

Cassiem said the battles of the Symphony Way community bore a striking similarity to moves to evict 20 000 shack-dwellers of the Joe Slovo informal settlement in Langa in Cape Town.

These residents are being evicted to make way for housing for the controversial N2 Gateway project and are uncertain whether they will be offered housing in the “flagship” development.

Five judges of the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled on Wednesday that they would allow the eviction of Joe Slovo residents but that they had to be given alternative housing.

Joe Slovo representative Mzwanele Zulu said he had mixed feelings about the judgment.

“I’m happy, but I feel an element of disappointment. There’ll have to be negotiations with our lawyers before there are relocations.”

Welcoming the Joe Slovo judgment as “groundbreaking”, the director general of human settlements, Itumeleng Kotsoane, said it made the fast-tracking of integrated human settlements and organised progress towards “the achievement of a South Africa free of slums and informal settlements” possible.

Click here to read the judgement in .doc and here to read it in .pdf.

11 June 2009 – The Sowetan
Anna Majavu – majavua@sowetan.co.za

Residents to get new area

One of Cape Town’s largest informal settlements – Joe Slovo, Langa – is set to be entirely demolished after the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday that its 20000 residents be moved out.

The Department of Housing wants the land for a new housing project and last year won an eviction order against Joe Slovo residents in the Cape high court.

Even though the settlement has existed for over 15 years, and residents promised houses before each election, the housing department successfully argued that the residents were “illegal squatters”.

The court upheld the eviction order, but said those evicted “must be consulted” and given accommodation in Delft’s “temporary relocation area”, 15km further away from Cape Town.

The court ruled that the relocation area shacks must be fitted with sanitation, water and electricity.

Joe Slovo residents say they are reluctant to move because a 2007 civil engineer’s report found the structures “unfit for habitation”.

The court also ruled that 70percent of the “Breaking New Ground” houses in Joe Slovo be allocated to existing residents – if they qualify.

But housing expert Richard Pithouse estimated only 20percent of the residents would receive houses.

“The rest will be evicted to Delft and may never receive houses at all,” Pithouse said.