Diverse imperatives cannot be contained in a mass housing programme

MINISTER of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu recently raised two controversial issues. One was that people younger than 40 should not expect free houses from government. Her logic is that they have not experienced apartheid firsthand. The other issue was that people selling or renting out their state-provided houses would be subject to a judicial tribunal.

Both points need urgent engagement to avoid fuelling anger and frustration. Calls have already been made to consider carefully young people’s prospects in the context of the present situation of high unemployment, low skill levels and low wages. We add our concern on the role housing plays in relation to poverty.

The rationale in 1994 was for the government to give fully subsidised housing to impoverished people to alleviate poverty, allowing them to use property as an asset. Conceptually this included the idea that the house could be used to generate income, such as letting part or all of it. It was also hoped that, eventually, the housing asset could be traded, should a household need to relocate or had found the means to move to better accommodation. Ultimately, subsidised housing was to form a component of the property market.

In 2000, the government reasoned such trading was appropriate only after a period of time and sought to restrict trade in the early years of occupation.

Our research shows that housing beneficiaries are indeed making use of their subsidised housing asset in various ways, including selling or renting the houses to others, although the extent of this unclear. Other strategies include living in the subsidised houses part-time, only on weekends or holidays, for example, if daily transport costs are too high or the location of the allocated house is inconvenient.

For many people these are rational and strategic responses to adverse conditions. They are ways to address the pressures of poverty. Criminalising these strategies does not enable beneficiaries to use the housing asset constructively to reduce poverty.

Underlying Sisulu’s condemnation of the sale or rental of RDP housing is the concern that, in disposing of an RDP house, beneficiaries might end up in worse rather than better living conditions. This is seen to undermine efforts to house the nation in formal accommodation. But the current drive by her department for decent shelter overlooks how people earn a living and the priority some might accord to minimising their living costs. These diverse imperatives cannot be contained in a mass housing programme of the sort adopted in 1994, notwithstanding the benefits that programme had for many.

The notion that the present pattern of free housing delivery is economically and spatially unsustainable has long been acknowledged. But to the long-unemployed, constrained by the uneven post-apartheid economy, the prospect of a RDP house may mean a lot. The challenges are how to change the approach of RDP housing without reducing the much-needed social benefits and how to support people’s efforts to reduce living costs and increase household income.

These are hard questions that require careful deliberation. One avenue to pursue is to greatly increase other forms of housing delivery as outlined in the decade-old Breaking New Ground. This would mainstream in-situ upgrading of informal settlements, while also accelerating the servicing of sites for self-built houses. For various reasons, this has not contributed to the overall housing production by the government to date.

Incremental, in-situ upgrading of informal settlements recognises the fragility and complexity of the livelihoods that poor households have secured in chosen localities. It aims to stitch these households more securely into the urban fabric while promoting dignity through community involvement in decision making for tangible and meaningful improvements. The emphasis is on interventions that support livelihoods. In recent years, extensive groundwork by the department’s National Upgrading Support Programme and the Housing Development Agency has paved the way for an approach that now needs full political support.

In the same vein, political support is needed for programmes that provide advantageously located low-cost rental housing, which can provide households and individuals with a base from which to accumulate resources. Additionally, a drive for well-located affordable serviced land can offer opportunities to consolidate long-term homes.

With the new mega-projects that are currently on Sisulu’s agenda, very careful planning will be required to ensure the state housing interventions positively transform SA’s towns and cities.

The minister’s recent statements seem to signal a willingness to change direction and tackle problems such as duplication and corruption in the demand database. This will be good news for those patiently waiting for a house for more than a decade.

From our base in an academic institution, we would like to see research findings considered and shared, potential consequences of new approaches examined and realistic alternatives sought for young people and those attempting to build an asset base.

Sisulu recently signed a social compact with the planning profession. While this is welcomed, there is a need for the public and private sectors, and civil and political society to engage more widely, so a constructive, participatory and mutually satisfactory outcome can be achieved for all.

• Charlton, Huchzermeyer, Klug and Rubin are with the Centre for Urbanism and Built Environment Studies at the School of Architecture and Planning at Wits University.

- BDLive