"Housing policy needs new foundations"
The housing challenge in this country presents an opportunity for us to take a fresh look at housing policy going forward. We need to take a conscious and well thought out decision around this matter and provide guidance as to what is in the best long term interests of the country. The numbers in terms of housing needs are alarming; there is no way that we will be able to match this demand with the available resources, both in terms of land and finance.
The current backlog is estimated at around 500,000 provincially, and with in-migration to this Province estimated at 1, 7% annually. With the current allocation of just over R2billion from the national treasury, we can only build 16,000 units and 16,000 serviced sites. We also need about 9,000 hectares of land, and at this rate it will take us no less than 28 years to clear the backlog.
Unfortunately the backlog is not static; it is a moving target due to in-migration patterns. Factor in the current economic crisis which affects the revenue collection, which means less budget allocation in the following financial years, then it becomes clear we are dealing with crisis.
One cannot deal with this issue in isolation to the general socio-economic conditions of our people.
The housing challenge in this country presents an opportunity for us to take a fresh look at housing policy going forward. We need to take a conscious and well thought out decision around this matter and provide guidance as to what is in the best long term interests of the country. The numbers in terms of housing needs are alarming; there is no way that we will be able to match this demand with the available resources, both in terms of land and finance.
The current backlog is estimated at around 500,000 provincially, and with in-migration to this Province estimated at 1, 7% annually. With the current allocation of just over R2billion from the national treasury, we can only build 16,000 units and 16,000 serviced sites. We also need about 9,000 hectares of land, and at this rate it will take us no less than 28 years to clear the backlog.
Unfortunately the backlog is not static; it is a moving target due to in-migration patterns. Factor in the current economic crisis which affects the revenue collection, which means less budget allocation in the following financial years, then it becomes clear we are dealing with crisis.
One cannot deal with this issue in isolation to the general socio-economic conditions of our people.A number of countries have adopted this approach to deal with this challenge and we should certainly learn from them.
The most pressing need for us currently is to ensure that at least everyone has access to basic services like water, sanitation, electricity, roads and refuse removal. It will take us a very long time to deal with the housing backlog so we must ensure that people are waiting under acceptable conditions. We need to spend more money to accelerate access to basic services.
We also need to look seriously at some housing policies which have become an albatross around our necks because they are stalling the process of speedy housing delivery. Planning processes need to be streamlined to ensure quick and effective service delivery. It makes absolutely no sense, for instance, to have 11 different grants to put together a single housing unit.
Again it doesn't make sense to have a separate Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) from a housing grant because you can't build any houses without infrastructure. Another serious problem that is stalling the housing delivery is land invasion. The requirement by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act (PIE Act) for people to be provided with alternative accommodation before they can be moved off invaded land encourages this practice.
This makes the housing demand database or waiting list impossible to manage. As a result of the PIE Act, people are holding government to ransom by invading any land that is earmarked for development because they know that they will be moved to alternative accommodation. The sad part about this is that those people living in backyards that have been on the waiting list for years become compromised by this Act.
This cannot be right and surely needs to be revisited. In this case it's usually individuals that hold us at ransom and delay the development for thousands of people. People cannot demand their rights at the expense of others which is why we must act immediately to remove people who are illegally occupying land before a stipulated time in the PIE Act has lapsed.
We will never succeed in addressing the challenge of housing if we continue like this. The current approach of housing delivery is further entrenching and deepening poverty on our people. Free houses will never be a substitute for a job and a solution to poverty. We must change our policy in order for us to respond to most vulnerable groups of our society (like elderly people, disabled people, child-headed households etc), inculcate and encourage our economically active people to play a more active role and to take more responsibility in the provision of their homes. While we understand that people have rights we must ensure that we balance those rights with responsibilities.
We must change our criteria for people who qualify for our subsidised state housing. It doesn't make sense for instance that because a person is 18yrs old and has a baby that he/she therefore must qualify for a house. This policy inevitably has unintended consequences encouraging teenagers to have babies and promoting dependency.
We also know that people get subsidised state houses and often sell them for next to nothing. They then go back to shacks, thereby increasing the demand and the spread of informal settlements. I personally did a door to door survey with my department officials in some areas where we discovered that many of the state subsidised houses have been either sold or rented out to people who do not qualify for subsidised housing. Which means that even though we are boasting about having built close to 2, 8million houses over the last 16 years, this has not really changed the quality of life for many people.
In addition, the obsession with chasing numbers has compromised the quality of these houses. According to a report presented by the National Human Settlements department to Parliament Portfolio Committee, we'll need more than R30billion to rectify and do the remedial work to a number of houses built over the years that are currently falling apart.
We must now pay more attention to the "Affordable" or "GAP" market (people earning between R3501 - R15000 who do not qualify for state subsidised house and a mortgage bond from the bank) in order to deal with unintended consequences as a result of neglecting that market. These are the people who are buying subsidised state houses from the poor because they have no recourse. Not that I blame them, we can't neglect people who are contributing to our economy by prioritising poor only.
It is very clear to me that most of the commentators have no clue what they are talking about when commenting on housing challenges. To some of them delivering a house is a simple exercise that must be done by government. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Often the development in these areas is blocked or hijacked by people who would do anything to delay or prevent it for the following reasons;
1. Some people received a state subsidised house before, sold it and went back to informal settlements. They know that if an area is developed they will not benefit, so they disrupt the development
2. Those involved in illegal activities often prefer to block infrastructure development because it's not easy for law enforcement to trace them.
3. Some earn too much to qualify for a subsidised house and prefer to live in an informal area where they will not pay for any services.
4. Some instigate communities deliberately to fight their political battles in order to oust the incumbent leaders/councillors.
5. Some trade their formal houses for informal areas where they can conduct business because there are no laws and zoning regulations there.
6. In most cases we also get entangled in community leaders fighting over which is the legitimate group to engage with.
7. There is almost always conflict over access to limited resources in poor communities.
As the Provincial government we have raised with National government the negative impact these issues and many legislations has in service delivery. National government is the competent sphere to deal with these issues in terms of the Constitution, yet so far we have received no response. I'm raising these issues because I get very disturbed when people make sweeping statements without understanding what we are dealing with.
We acknowledge that we have many short-comings. We are committed to deal with these where we can, yet we also need the support of National government and communities to deal with some of the legal issues and community dynamics that prevent us from executing our mandate of service delivery. Housing development is not possible without functional partnerships.
Bonginkosi Madikizela is the Provincial Minister of Human Settlements in the Western Cape. This article first appeared in the Cape Times.
- polticsweb
The most pressing need for us currently is to ensure that at least everyone has access to basic services like water, sanitation, electricity, roads and refuse removal. It will take us a very long time to deal with the housing backlog so we must ensure that people are waiting under acceptable conditions. We need to spend more money to accelerate access to basic services.
We also need to look seriously at some housing policies which have become an albatross around our necks because they are stalling the process of speedy housing delivery. Planning processes need to be streamlined to ensure quick and effective service delivery. It makes absolutely no sense, for instance, to have 11 different grants to put together a single housing unit.
Again it doesn't make sense to have a separate Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) from a housing grant because you can't build any houses without infrastructure. Another serious problem that is stalling the housing delivery is land invasion. The requirement by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act (PIE Act) for people to be provided with alternative accommodation before they can be moved off invaded land encourages this practice.
This makes the housing demand database or waiting list impossible to manage. As a result of the PIE Act, people are holding government to ransom by invading any land that is earmarked for development because they know that they will be moved to alternative accommodation. The sad part about this is that those people living in backyards that have been on the waiting list for years become compromised by this Act.
This cannot be right and surely needs to be revisited. In this case it's usually individuals that hold us at ransom and delay the development for thousands of people. People cannot demand their rights at the expense of others which is why we must act immediately to remove people who are illegally occupying land before a stipulated time in the PIE Act has lapsed.
We will never succeed in addressing the challenge of housing if we continue like this. The current approach of housing delivery is further entrenching and deepening poverty on our people. Free houses will never be a substitute for a job and a solution to poverty. We must change our policy in order for us to respond to most vulnerable groups of our society (like elderly people, disabled people, child-headed households etc), inculcate and encourage our economically active people to play a more active role and to take more responsibility in the provision of their homes. While we understand that people have rights we must ensure that we balance those rights with responsibilities.
We must change our criteria for people who qualify for our subsidised state housing. It doesn't make sense for instance that because a person is 18yrs old and has a baby that he/she therefore must qualify for a house. This policy inevitably has unintended consequences encouraging teenagers to have babies and promoting dependency.
We also know that people get subsidised state houses and often sell them for next to nothing. They then go back to shacks, thereby increasing the demand and the spread of informal settlements. I personally did a door to door survey with my department officials in some areas where we discovered that many of the state subsidised houses have been either sold or rented out to people who do not qualify for subsidised housing. Which means that even though we are boasting about having built close to 2, 8million houses over the last 16 years, this has not really changed the quality of life for many people.
In addition, the obsession with chasing numbers has compromised the quality of these houses. According to a report presented by the National Human Settlements department to Parliament Portfolio Committee, we'll need more than R30billion to rectify and do the remedial work to a number of houses built over the years that are currently falling apart.
We must now pay more attention to the "Affordable" or "GAP" market (people earning between R3501 - R15000 who do not qualify for state subsidised house and a mortgage bond from the bank) in order to deal with unintended consequences as a result of neglecting that market. These are the people who are buying subsidised state houses from the poor because they have no recourse. Not that I blame them, we can't neglect people who are contributing to our economy by prioritising poor only.
It is very clear to me that most of the commentators have no clue what they are talking about when commenting on housing challenges. To some of them delivering a house is a simple exercise that must be done by government. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Often the development in these areas is blocked or hijacked by people who would do anything to delay or prevent it for the following reasons;
1. Some people received a state subsidised house before, sold it and went back to informal settlements. They know that if an area is developed they will not benefit, so they disrupt the development
2. Those involved in illegal activities often prefer to block infrastructure development because it's not easy for law enforcement to trace them.
3. Some earn too much to qualify for a subsidised house and prefer to live in an informal area where they will not pay for any services.
4. Some instigate communities deliberately to fight their political battles in order to oust the incumbent leaders/councillors.
5. Some trade their formal houses for informal areas where they can conduct business because there are no laws and zoning regulations there.
6. In most cases we also get entangled in community leaders fighting over which is the legitimate group to engage with.
7. There is almost always conflict over access to limited resources in poor communities.
As the Provincial government we have raised with National government the negative impact these issues and many legislations has in service delivery. National government is the competent sphere to deal with these issues in terms of the Constitution, yet so far we have received no response. I'm raising these issues because I get very disturbed when people make sweeping statements without understanding what we are dealing with.
We acknowledge that we have many short-comings. We are committed to deal with these where we can, yet we also need the support of National government and communities to deal with some of the legal issues and community dynamics that prevent us from executing our mandate of service delivery. Housing development is not possible without functional partnerships.
Bonginkosi Madikizela is the Provincial Minister of Human Settlements in the Western Cape. This article first appeared in the Cape Times.
- polticsweb
No comments:
Post a Comment