Dilemma of Cape’s homeless

Cape Town - When Nomanindia Mfeketo was Cape Town mayor she made a commitment that within a year there would be no more children sleeping on the city’s streets.

That was in 2004 and, as she later acknowledged, the problem was a lot more complex than she had originally realised.

There have been a number of efforts since then to reduce the number of homeless people on the streets.

Before the World Cup in 2010, NGOs accused the city of rounding up street children and the homeless and dumping them at Blikkiesdorp near Delft. The city denies this, though, saying Blikkiesdorp was established as a Temporary Relocation Area in 2008 to house people who were evicted after invading N2 Gateway houses.

And last year there was a talk of the establishment of “community villages” outside the city centre where people could live and have access to skills training and drug rehabilitation programmes.

Greg Andrews, convener of the Street People’s Forum, said this proposal had since been canned.

The forum is a collective of several organisations working with street people in the city.

Andrews said the city’s “community village” idea was a perennial proposal that had surfaced in many guises over the last two decades.

“Even if such a community village were established, why would people want to go there? Would they be compelled against their will?

“On the other hand, perhaps it would be a really attractive proposition which someone on the streets would love to go to, in which case why would people leave once they have entered?”

Hassan Khan, chief executive of the Haven Night Shelter, believes the streets are no place for people to live.

“The streets should be a cold place, a place where you are hungry, so people come for help.”

But he says people are given permission to be there by politicians and some encouraged by NGOs who go out and give blankets and food to the poor.

“People are pre-programmed to help. They also pay someone just to be left alone.”

Not that he believes that poverty should be policed like the CCID with their private armies who force people to the edge of the CBD.

Khan said there were an increasing number of people coming to the streets, mainly adults.

“There are guys in their 50s from Welkom who have worked their whole lives in the Post Office and are virtually unemployable now.”

There is a large gay population, people who are not accepted by their families, and youngsters lured by the bright city lights.

“The important thing is how quickly a child on the street is identified and helped. The same with adults.”

Zara Nicholson, spokeswoman for mayor Patricia de Lille, said the City of Cape Town was the first city in the country to have adopted a policy for people living on the street.

“The city’s strategy is to reduce the number of people living on the street and to place them back with their families and communities of origin.”

Part of this reintegration effort included attempts to secure employment opportunities via the Expanded Public Works Programme.

Nicholson said that street people could not, however, be forced into accepting the city’s offers of assistance.

The City of Cape Town’s Reintegration Unit, launched in December, had successfully assisted 85 street people in its first three months of operation.

The city is also in the final phase of its Street People Survey which would include conducting a headcount of street people. The last comprehensive survey conducted by the city was in 2001 and there are estimates that there are around 7 000 transient people either living or begging on the street (across the whole city).

Councillor Suzette Little, the city’s mayoral committee member for social development and early childhood development announced recently that the city had nearly doubled its budget for its winter street people programme this year. The budget for the 2014 programme was R280 000, but this year R600 000 had been allocated.

Little said they also ran a number of programmes in communities most at risk to prevent more people migrating to the streets.

“These programmes are focused on issues in the home, truancy and substance abuse and to provide support to street people who are reintegrated into their communities to prevent a return to their former life.”

But Andrews doesn’t believe the city’s Street People Policy is actually effective.

“The central aim of its current policy boils down to the removal of people from the streets, though this is couched in gentle terms like ‘reintegration’ and ‘reunification’ so it’s quite palatable.”

But he explains that reunification or reintegration only worked if it was self-determined.

“Take for instance the typical example of someone who has come to the city centre desperate for work. Precious few opportunities exist and eventually he either is begging or parking cars, scrounging a pittance any way he can.

“Even if he never makes enough money to support his family, at least he feels he is not a burden to them – another mouth to feed, a body taking up precious space.

“But sometimes, he may be able to get a bag of groceries back home, maybe for someone’s birthday or for Christmas. Now the city’s Reintegration worker finally compels this man to go home.

“Imagine the shame of being escorted home by the larney from the welfare with nothing to support your family and them being told they must look after you. This is not sustainable.”

Andrews believes reintegration was only possible once the “40 percent unemployment and intractable brutal violence” that characterises daily life in the home communities that people on the streets run away from, are addressed.

“Furthermore, we need to address the bottleneck of over-full shelters, over-stretched services and inadequate social housing. Reintegration is meaningless when we have nothing to reintegrate a person into.”

Andrews says it would be refreshing if the city were to admit that people on the streets are not the problem and they’re not going away any time soon.

“The real problem is that 20 years into freedom, poverty is worse and it’s high time we stop trying to remove the poor from our well-to-do areas just because they make us feel uncomfortable or threaten our illusion of security.”

helen.bamford@inl.co.za

- Cape Argus

Hostels must fall, says housing minister

Lindiwe Sisulu wants to tear down South Africa’s notorious hostels – the scene of much of the xenophobic rioting in Joburg last month.

Indunas, the hostel leaders, have warned though that they won’t be part of anything that does not guarantee them proper houses – and they refuse to go into temporary shelters while the government breaks down existing hostels and builds new ones.

On Thursday, at a pre-budget vote, the human settlements minister said told MPs during her budget vote that hostels had to go because they had no place in a reconfigured state.

“Most of them (hostel residents) have spent a great deal of their time in cities. That they may have a holiday home in Mqanduli (in the Eastern Cape) doesn’t make them different from someone with a holiday home in Camps Bay who works in Brakpan,” she said.

Hostel residents would qualify either for a state-subsidised house, or community residential unit. It was time for South Africa to shed lingering legacy of apartheid and deal with the often atrocious living conditions in hostels: “They (hostels) are a very painful relic of our past... They (hostel residents) should live as part of society,” said Sisulu.

But in Alexandra’s Madala hostel, induna Bafowethu Sokhela said on Thursday ight: “What she’s saying has been said for years by many other politicians. Right now, they’re supposed to be developing the hostel as they said they would – but they’re doing nothing.”

He has lived in the hostel since the 1980s.

“The hostel has many people living in it. I don’t think they’ll have enough space to house us all. We won’t allow them to put us in temporary homes. We want houses just like other people in the country.”

Sokhela said the government must house every Madala hostel resident before it shut the place.

“They need to come in and get everyone’s information and move us into houses block by block if they have to. But they can’t close it till we have houses.”

The decision comes on the back of the refusal by residents of some Gauteng hostels to move into upgraded buildings, renovated from the apartheid-era single male accommodation into family units since 2009.

Following the upgrade, residents had to pay R750 a month.

Hostel residents complained they hadn’t been properly consulted and couldn’t afford the monthly rental.

Diepkloof, Soweto, hostel residents took to the streets to protest over housing on Monday.

This was the second protest by the hostel dwellers in Diepkloof following a protest in the area in June last year over lack of housing.

In Parliament, Sisulu said the government would like to “gradually abolish hostels in our towns, and hostel dwellers who have lived in our towns for a number of years would qualify for a Breaking New Ground house, or the CRU (community residential units) subsidy, depending on their specific circumstances”.

She said they had agreed with the mayors that upgraded hostels would be taken over by the Social Housing Regulatory Authority.

“This we will do in every town where we have upgraded hostels and hostel dwellers have not taken up residency.”

She said the government would accommodate hostel dwellers in temporary shelters while it put up permanent houses for them.

These social housing units would be given to young people under the age of 40 and who cannot afford to buy a house.

Sisulu said the recent raids on hostels in Jeppe and Alexandra in Joburg during xenophobic violence were not because they were targeting hostel dwellers.

The army and police raids at the hostels were a result of the violence emanating from those areas.

“We don’t associate them with evil,” she said.

The minister said there was no fixed date for the plan to complete the abolishment of hostels.

Surveys would be done on all the hostels throughout the country.

Subsequently, Gauteng Human Settlements MEC Jacob Mamabolo told The Star the survey had already been undertaken and would finalised by next Friday.

DA MP Makashule Gana said houses built for hostel dwellers in Diepkloof and Mzimhlophe in Soweto were still empty after more than 10 years.

The national Department of Human Settlements is shifting its focus to mega-projects in order to tackle the country’s 1.5 million-unit housing backlog.

About 150 project applications have been received from the public and private sectors.

These would be processed to get under way over the next four years.

Sisulu said 60 percent of work would be done by youth brigades, funded by a ringfenced R159m, in an effort to transfer skills and create employment opportunities for young people.

However, the Human Settlements Department is also undertaking a review of its tender processes, described as its “biggest headache”, to prevent corruption and fraud.

A new procurement system should prevent abuse.

- Political Bureau and The Star

Foreigners here legally need housing too – Sisulu

Cape Town – If South Africa is to heal itself of the long-term effects of xenophobia, it must find a way to ensure that those who are in the country legally have somewhere to live. 

Housing Minister Lindiwe Sisulu made the comment on Thursday at a news conference at Parliament before her budget speech and debate in the National Assembly. 

She reiterated the promise that she made last year regarding the housing backlog – to build 1.5 million houses and to provide housing opportunities. 

When the department counted the housing backlog, it counted South Africans, said Sisulu. 

“It has become obvious with the unfortunate xenophobic outbreak that there are many people who need housing of all kinds. 

“And if we are to heal over the long-term, we need to find a way to ensure that those people who are here legally have a place to live – either in rented accommodation or community housing units – because there is a tendency to buy houses from our beneficiaries. We must look further than last year, and try to find a measurable way to count our backlog.” 

Sisulu called on people to look after their houses, because they were assets. The value of a low-cost house built by the state is currently R160 000. 

The government was also committed to eradicating hostels – a remnant of the apartheid system. 

“Those who have lived in hostels for several years will qualify for state housing or a subsidy for community dwelling, depending on their specific requirements,” said Sisulu.

- NEWS24

Cape Town cries foul after councillor ‘asked to leave’ human settlements meeting

THE city of Cape Town has cried foul after one of its councillors sent to attend a Department of Human Settlements meeting in Johannesburg this week was asked to leave the meeting venue by Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu.

Ms Sisulu is said to have asked Cape Town mayoral committee member for human settlements Benedicta van Minnen to leave Monday’s meeting arguing that it was only for mayors.

The incident is likely to put further strain on the relationship between the city of Cape Town and Ms Sisulu. Last year the minister and the city clashed over the Lwandle Commission of Inquiry. She also accused the Democratic Alliance-led city of "buying" the title of World Design Capital in 2014.

According to Ms van Minnen, Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille could not attend the meeting because she had a previous long-standing commitment that she could not cancel for a meeting where she was given only three days’ notice.

"She communicated her unavailability to the minister’s office the very next day, but added that she would be sending me as her representative in my capacity as mayoral committee member for human settlements. Considering that the meeting pertained to my directorate, both myself and the mayor felt it apt that I should attend the meeting," Ms van Minnen said.

"This morning (Monday) I proceeded to travel to Johannesburg to attend the meeting. An e-mail was sent from the minister’s office ... when I was already en route to the meeting once more indicating that I was not allowed to attend. Upon my arrival, I entered the meeting.

"About 40 minutes into the discussions, Minister Sisulu arrived and asked me to leave the meeting venue. She personally blocked me from taking part in the discussion that directly impacts my directorate, and service delivery in the city at large," Ms van Minnen said.

She said Ms Sisulu has "once again misused her position as the national minister of human settlements to purposefully block service delivery in the City of Cape Town".

Ms Sisulu’s spokesman, Ndivhuwo Mabaya, said that Ms van Minnen was not an acting mayor and therefore her presence at the meeting "would not have assisted with anything, as she does not have mayoral executive powers — she was just there to take minutes".

"The city was informed that only mayors will attend the meeting. Mayor de Lille issued a number of media statements attacking the national Department of Human Settlements in the past six months; it was only fair for her to attend the meeting herself so that she can explain herself on a number of issues. We suspect she did not attend the meeting to run away from them," Mr Mabaya said.

- BDLive

DA questions cost of fixing RDP houses

Cape Town - The Democratic Alliance said on Wednesday that the Department of Human Settlements had spent over R2 billion in the last three years to rectify poorly-built houses sometimes at the cost of R300 000 per house. This is three times the cost of a standard house built in the Reconstruction and Development Programme.

DA MP Makashule Gana said: “At this week’s Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements we learnt that it could cost up to R300 000 to restore just one RDP house. This is three times the cost of building one from scratch.

“The presentation revealed that in the Northern Cape, R6 929 000 was spent on the restoration of just 32 houses. This amounts to R216 000 per house,” Makashule said.

“In the Free State, the department spent almost R80 million on the restoration of just 264 houses in that province. This amounts to R302 250 per house. R334 million was spent in the Eastern Cape fixing 3 123 houses at R107 000 per house - that is just over the estimated cost of building a new one.

Makashule said it would have been cheaper to demolish the houses and build new, more durable ones and that he would be putting forward questions in parliament. He called on Minister of Human Settlements Lindiwe Sisulu to provide information on:

The contractors responsible for the original shoddy workmanship;

The exact nature of the repairs that cost more than it did to build the house; and

The systems put in place to monitor the quality of house being built.

“Due to over-charging, it now seems that far less houses were fixed than would otherwise have been possible with this money,” he added.

“In any event, the need to repair so many houses across the country points to a tender process that is highly irregular. The minister would do well to focus her efforts on ensuring that the process of awarding such contracts is objective, transparent and free from, what we suspect, is undue political influence.”

- ANA

'Proud of ourselves' Lindiwe Sisulu on SONA 2014 speech

Sisulu's house centre of fight - large family evicted

A HOUSE that belonged to Minister of Human Settlements Lindiwe Sisulu is at the centre of a storm involving the new owner and a large family of tenants.

Ruskiya Karaniya, who has lived in the house in Yeoville, Johannesburg, for the past 11 years, accuses Sisulu of selling the house without giving her notice.

Sisulu's spokesman Ndivhuwo Mabaya confirmed the house was sold six months ago.

"Those people living there were given notice and they know the house was sold," said Mabaya.

The new owner, Sibusiso Maphisa, said he was now renovating the house, which he bought from Sisulu six months ago.

However, Karaniya and 22 family members said they could not move out of the house as they were not notified in time about the sale.

She accused Maphisa, a metro police officer, of threatening to kill them should they not move out soon.

"We are not refusing to move out if it is the case that the house has been sold but at least they should give us three months notice," said Karaniya, a Congolese national.

"We are a big family and there is no way we can just move out. We need to look for another big place where we can stay."

Sowetan found the house in a dilapidated state yesterday with no doors or windows, broken furniture, electric cables stripped off the walls, damaged water pipes, a leaking geyser and a passage flooded with water.

Karaniya said the damage was caused by Maphisa.

Maphisa denied the allegations.

"Those people are lying . I do not know if it is a crime to renovate your house but if it is so you know there are lawyers and courts as well as police, [then] I should be arrested."

Karaniya, who has been paying R7000 monthly rent to property agents Trafalgar for the past 11 years, said she felt she had been betrayed by Sisulu as she had added another two bedrooms outside and plastered the whole yard.

"I never missed any payment, not even one rand, but today I am being evicted like a dog.

"Even if she has sold the house, I feel she should have also told me about it so that I would have made an offer too," Karaniya said.

Maphisa's lawyer, Abram Mogoboya, said: "If the tenant and the landlord had it on agreement that when the house is sold, the tenant would get first preference, then there can be a strong case, but we do not know the terms between Sisulu and Karaniya."

ndlovus@sowetan.co.za

- Sowetan

Proof that Zuma did intervene on Nkandla

A relatively minor detail has emerged in the Nkandla affair, but it holds several more significant conclusions and contradictions concerning President Jacob Zuma’s defence.

It is a small incident and is merely another piece of the puzzle but a powerful one. The implications are fairly profound and it needs to be viewed with a broader set of evidence.

Zuma’s — and the government’s — defence on the cost of upgrading security at his private residence at Nkandla has been that the decisions were made by officials, and their nature and scope beyond his control. He was merely an innocent bystander and by no means complicit in the decisions; they were, he argues, imposed on him.

Politically, this has allowed the government a "scapegoat defence", where it can acknowledge wrongdoing — errant officials and dysfunctional systems and protocols — but exonerate the president.

But the government suffers a credibility problem. To believe it, one would have to also believe the president, commander-in-chief of the country’s defence forces, either felt too intimidated to intervene or was oblivious to the scale of the upgrades and thus did not regard them or their cost as problematic.

This has been the main point of contention, politically and legally. Those who argue Zuma is culpable argue it is not plausible to claim he was unaware of the scale and therefore the cost, a criticism compounded by the fact that a number of the "security upgrades", for example the swimming pool, served no security purpose. They point to meetings with Zuma’s personal architect and members of government, and to the fact that, while at Nkandla over the course of the construction, Zuma must have seen what was happening.

One of the key questions is: what evidence exists that demonstrates Zuma had agency with regards to the security upgrades and was willing and able to intervene, which could have changed or influenced the final outcome?

For his defence to work, Zuma must have had absolutely no involvement. If he demonstrated any interest in the nature of the security upgrades, he would demonstrate agency and, in turn, culpability.

There is precious little on the public record from Zuma himself on this matter. His political handlers have steered him well clear of public interrogation and, aside from those parliamentary sessions where he provided a scripted answer to questions on the upgrades, he has had next to nothing to contribute; with one noticeable exception.

In his letter to the speaker of Parliament, required by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela in response to her report, the president states that, despite being briefed by those ministers in charge of the upgrades, he "was not intimately involved with the finer details".

Then the president notes an exception: "At these briefings I expressed concern with what appeared to be inordinately lengthy delays which impacted on my family. Equally I found some of the security features like the bulletproof windows an excessive encroachment on my use and enjoyment of my property."

This constitutes a significant contradiction.

What is the president referring to? There is one media interview in which Zuma discusses Nkandla in a meaningful way, an exchange with eNCA, on February 16 2014. In it, he elaborates on this point.

Five minutes and 18 seconds into the second half of the interview, Zuma states in response to the suggestion that he should have intervened: "So when, at what point should you debate? The only thing I debated was when I saw one of my bedrooms, one of my bedrooms, with one little window, like it was a cell. I said to them, ‘Look, I was in prison for 10 years, I can’t be in prison for life now in my home. This one, I cannot accept.’ Now, that’s the only thing. I was looking at it from a subjective point of view to say, how do I sleep in a bedroom, if I open a window I can’t see the outside because of security? I said no."

The president then explained he didn’t debate the changes. "I’m just saying, you don’t debate, you don’t ask, they impose security measures, that’s what it is."

But it was too late; the president had already given the game away. No doubt this was the reason he included reference to this incident in his letter to the speaker.

One small bedroom window pales in comparison with the other measures. It is a very minor detail. But it is all one needs to demonstrate that the president was both aware of the changes and their implications; and, more importantly, willing to intervene. Only that the reason for his intervention was the aesthetic value of the view from his bedroom, as opposed to how public money was being spent.

Later, the president is asked whether, had he been informed, he would have taken issue with the upgrades (nine minutes, three seconds), to which he replies by strongly denying he would have said anything anyway, on the grounds that he is no expert on security: "It is done by the state, for whatever they consider to be a security measure, I mean I would be debating it from an uninformed position." That defence, too, is rendered inconsistent by his attitude to his bedroom window. If aesthetics is reason enough to intervene, why not excessive spending?

From Zuma’s attitude to the bulletproof window in his bedroom, the following facts flow:

• He had a critical opinion on the appropriateness of the installation; in his view, a reasonable one.

• He expressed a clear and unequivocal reservation to those making the decision: "This one, I cannot accept" and "I said no". In his letter he describes them as an "excessive encroachment".

• Those security experts who would have advised otherwise did therefore not intimidate him on this issue. He had an opinion and he felt strongly enough about it to express it, with a view to it being enacted, whatever the security implications.

• Although the outcome of that reservation is unclear, the suggestion is his request was ceded to too. Had it not been, he would have used it to further illustrate his point that he had no control, as opposed to the opposite.

One could argue too that his dissatisfaction with the delays on the project likewise constitutes a reservation and an attempt to intervene. Given those facts, it becomes clear that the president had a view on the security upgrades, and was able to express it and expect those responsible to change the plan accordingly. It appears they did.

But even if the president’s reservations about the window were ignored, it still demonstrates he was able at least to register an objection. Zuma is at pains to point out during the interview that this was the only thing he "debated"; an admission that makes the raft of developments he did not take issue with all the more glaring and inexplicable. If he said no to the window, he could have said no to other "excessive encroachments".

And it is on this point Zuma’s defence is fundamentally compromised: the very inanity of his concern, the seeming insignificance of a bedroom window is rendered profound when weighed against the exorbitant cost and non-security-related expenses attached to so many other of the upgrades. His one petty concern reveals his profound and general ignorance with regards the others. But not so as regards his culpability. On this front, his concern confirms he was generally complicit.

As a metaphor, the government’s defence is akin to a colonel at an army base, his men supposedly looting without his authority. Yet he notices one thing and requests it be changed: that when pillaging, their shoes are not well polished and he insists they must be shiny. In doing so, he reveals both his general ignorance and his specific involvement. And he would be culpable for both.

It is an interesting thought to imagine what Zuma thinks when he looks through that window. As he takes in the scenery, does he wonder how limited the breathtaking view would have been had he not intervened? Does he commend himself for putting his foot down? If he does, it says something about the many remarkable contradictions Zuma is able simultaneously to hold in his mind. No doubt a different thought occupies his thoughts when he’s taking a swim.

- BDLive

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

Human settlement panel answer questions

TNA in Sandton with the Minister of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu, & Human Settlement Stakeholders as they unpack the Social Contract for development of Sustainable Human Settlements as signed at the National Indaba on 17th October Chamber of Mines SA, SA Affordable Residential Developers Association, Black Conveyancers Association, Banking Association of SA.

Mike Teke, President: Chamber of Mines South Africa Cas Coovadia, Managing Director of Banking Association of SA Zukiswa Ntlangula, President of Black Conveyancers Association Yusuf Patel, SAARDA spokesperson.

"I'd like to be able that I'd like to be able to confirm that perhaps in two years there will not be an indigent military veteran anywhere." 

- Lindiwe Sisulu prioritizing a select few military veterans over providing what the state is obligated to, set out in the Grootboom case

Minister defends housing age limit

Parliament - Apartheid did not steal the youth of South Africans under 40, Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu said on Tuesday as she defended her department's age criteria for qualifying for free public housing.

“What apartheid could never take from anybody is their age. They are young, they are energetic, they are able to do,” Sisulu said on the sidelines of a briefing to Parliament's human settlements portfolio committee on her first 100 days in her portfolio.

The minister was accused by the Economic Freedom Fighters last week of misleading voters and creating a generation of “hobos” after she told journalists in Durban nobody under 40 would get a free house from the state.

She said she had referred to the age of 40 on that occasion because everybody present was younger, but it was established state policy that the minimum qualifying age was 60.

Asked when the policy was introduced, her office referred to a recent press release issued by Sisulu in which she stated that the decision to make 60 the qualifying age dated to 2009 Ä towards the end of her first term as housing minister.

The minister and all provincial human settlements MECs “resolved in 2009 that priority must be given to the elderly”, the statement said, and to that end the criteria were changed to prioritise those above 60, military veterans and people with disabilities.

“The housing database or waiting list is also being audited and adjusted to prioritise possible beneficiaries by age, starting with the elderly and those with special needs,” the minister's statement added.

Sisulu told Sapa there was a basic, universal understanding that the poor and elderly would be first in line for state benefits.

“If I should ever be able to say there is no 80-year-old without a house, I would have achieved something.

“If I can say there is nobody above 60 without a house, I will celebrate, I might even get to the 40-year-olds but right now our indigency policy does not accommodate any of you.

“Our policy speaks to 60, because that is the qualifying criteria worked out in our policy. Anything that is free ... there must be a cut-off point otherwise it will be a free for all. So in human settlements that is the criteria we use.”

She said the group of journalists in Durban's protests that they too were disadvantaged by apartheid, because for example they were taken out of school, were not persuasive because they were better able to fend for themselves than the aged. They were also eligible for other forms of state support, such as subsidised low-cost rental.

“What apartheid did do to the elderly is it has taken their lives away. There is nothing an elderly person can do,” she said.

“So it had nothing to do with schooling or advantages, it had to do with the fact that there are other programmes that we have in housing that caters for a whole variety of people who are able to do that.

“What people under the age of 40 have is an enormous ability to do things themselves. That which the older people can't do.

“They have sweat equity, which is one of the programmes that we have. They can go into rental if they can get a job. We are creating a youth brigade so they will get a job.”

She added the government did not want to create a young generation dependent on state benefits.

“We want our young to grow up and be self-sufficient, we don't want them to be dependent on the state. The state has only so much that it can cater for.”

- Sapa

Wife to get RDP house in divorce: Sisulu

Parliament - A law amendment is in the pipeline to ensure that if a couple in a free government house get divorced the house goes to the wife, Human Settlements Minister Lindiwe Sisulu said on Tuesday.

“That is how our policy should read,” Sisulu told Parliament's portfolio committee on human settlements after a briefing on the first 100 days of her second stint in the portfolio.

“In 2006, we were involved in a women's build in Gauteng and after that we had an imbizo, and we came up with an idea that I had hoped in my second coming would have crystallised into policy, where we agreed that the house belongs to the man and the wife for as long they're married.

“When they get divorced the house belongs to the woman. That is our policy. So the man picks up his jacket and gets out,” she added.

The minister said her thinking was informed by the fact that mothers were the primary caregivers for their children.

“The wife stays because the wife is indeed responsible for the children.”

Sisulu suggested the policy had not yet found its way into law because the department had been “presided by men”.

She said if a wife died the house would go to the husband, on condition the children were also considered beneficiaries and that the house accrued to them if he remarried.

“If he finds somebody else, he gives the house to the children and goes to the other woman.”

Sisulu served as housing minister from 2004 to 2009. The portfolio was then given to Tokyo Sexwale before she returned to it earlier this year.

She told Sapa the provision on divorce would be enshrined in upcoming amendments to the Housing Act. She hoped in a year it would be on its way into law books.

In the meanwhile, her department would implement it as policy, she said.

- Sapa

Lindiwe Sisulu and the New Denialism

In 2005, early in her in her first term as Minister of Housing, Lindiwe Sisulu announced that the state had resolved to 'eradicate slums' by 2014. This was a time when the technocratic ideal had more credibility than it did now and officials and politicians often spoke, with genuine conviction, as if it were an established fact that this aspiration would translate into reality.

It was not unusual for people trying to engage the state around questions of urban land and housing to be rebuffed as troublemakers, either ignorant or malicious, on the grounds that it was an established fact that there would be no more shacks by 2014.

As we head towards the end of 2014 there are considerably more people living in shacks than there were in 2005, in 1994 or at any point in our history. The gulf between the state's aspirations to shape society and what actually happens in society have also been starkly illustrated at the more local level. Sisulu's flagship housing project, the N2 Gateway project in Cape Town, resulted in acute conflict and remains in various kinds of crisis to this day.

One of the lessons to be learnt from the denialism around the nature and scale of the urban crisis that characterised Thabo Mbeki's Presidency is that although the state is certainly a powerful actor, it has often been profoundly wrong about its capacity to understand and to shape social reality.

But Sisulu's first term as the Minister of Housing is not only remembered for her failure to grasp either the scale of the demand for urban land and housing or the limits of the state's response. There was also a marked authoritarianism to her approach. She did not oppose the escalating and consistently unlawful violence with which municipalities across the country were attempting to contain the physical manifestation of the urban crisis via land occupations.

Sisulu also offered her full support to the failed attempt, first proposed in the Polokwane Resolutions, and then taken forward in the KwaZulu-Natal parliament in the form of the Slums Act in 2007, to roll back some of the limited rights that had been conceded in the early years of democracy to people occupying land without the consent of the state or private land owners.

At the same time she also earned some notoriety for her unilateral, and clearly unlawful, declaration in 2007 that residents of the Joe Slovo settlement in Cape Town would be permanently removed from the (entirely mythical) 'housing list' for opposing forced removal. She was also silent in the face of the violence marshalled through party structures against shack dwellers who had had the temerity to organise around issues of urban land and housing independently of the ANC in both Durban and on the East Rand in 2009 and 2010.

Her second term as Minister, in a portfolio now termed Human Settlements, has been marked by a similar silence in response to the even more brazen forms of repression, including assassination, now visited on people organised outside of the ANC in shack settlements in Durban. But there have been some important shifts in her position.

One is that like her predecessor Tokyo Sexwale, she no longer speaks as if the 'eradication of slums' is imminent. In this regard the state has developed a more realistic understanding of the situation it confronts. Another shift is Sisulu's opposition to unlawful evictions in Cape Town. This is, given her on-going silence in response to violent and unlawful evictions elsewhere in the country, clearly an expedient rather than a principled position. But in a context where land occupations are routinely misrepresented through the lens of criminality or political conspiracy her framing of her opposition to eviction in Cape Town in the language of justice may open some space in elite publics to politicise the contestation over urban land, something that is relentlessly expelled from the terrain of the political by a variety of elite actors.

But it is Sisulu's recent declaration that the state intends to do away with the provision of free housing and that people under forty will no longer be eligible for public housing that has been particularly controversial. Both aspects of this comment position her in direct contradiction to the law and the policies to which the government is, at least in principle, committed.

This is nothing new. When it comes to its response to the urban land occupation the state routinely speaks and acts in direct contradiction to both law and policy. What is significant here is the indication that the state, increasingly short of cash, intends to step back from some of its commitments to sustain some forms of public welfare.

Sisulu is presenting the state's public housing programme as if it were a temporary state response to apartheid, which now that things have been normalised, can be abandoned. Both parts of this equation are seriously problematic.

The ANC, in a posture that these days is simply farcical given that it is Putin rather than Lenin that restores the sparkle to Zuma's eyes in tough times, likes to pretend to itself that it is a revolutionary organisation. But public housing, far from being some kind of unique and temporary South African exception to the general status quo, is a standard part of even basic social democratic programmes.

Countries in the South like Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela all have public housing programmes of various kinds. These programmes all have serious flaws, but the fact that they exist and that other states are committed to public housing as a principle, should not be denied. In Venezuela the public housing programme includes housing that is entirely free for entirely impoverished people. There are also governments in the South that have actively sought to legalise land occupations and support the improvement of conditions in shack settlements.

Sisulu's assertion that people under forty "have lost nothing [to apartheid]" is one of the most extraordinary statements to have escaped from the mouth of a cabinet minister since 1994. The pretence that apartheid's consequences came to an end in 1994 is the sort of denialism that is so out of touch with reality - and in a way that works to naturalise inequalities inherited from a long history of brutal oppression that turned race into class - that it's almost obscene to even engage it as if it were a serious proposition.

In a situation in which millions of people cannot access housing through the market the state should recognise the social value of land occupations, offer all the support that it can to improve conditions in shack settlements and develop the best and most extensive public housing programme possible.

But if the state continues to see most land occupations as criminal and to curtail its own public housing programme, it will place millions of people in a situation that is just not viable. The inevitable consequence of the state committing itself to an urban agenda that simply has no place for millions of people will be a radical escalation of the already intense conflict in our cities. To put it plainly guns will become even more central to how our cities are governed. Sisulu's comments amount to a declaration of war.

Dr. Pithouse teaches politics at Rhodes University.

- allAfrica

Dear Lindiwe Sisulu

Dear Lindiwe Sisulu

by Biko Monyatsi @bikomfident on twitter

Daughter of the struggle, flower of the relentless revolution of Azania, when the rainbow masses drafted the Freedom Charter in Kliptown, they weren't in some shebeen under the influence of opium. When the Likes of Tambo and Tata Sisulu declared that ‘there shall be houses, security and comfort’, they didn’t leave out an age-restriction clause by some mistake. This was done with sheer sobriety understanding the socio-economics of this country.  They understood that challenges the old were confronted were the same the youth were faced with. The struggle in general was not age specific. In fact, the youth were affected the most.

I must admit, I was not only taken aback by your utterances, being appalled is an understatement. I was disappointed beyond words, not exactly by your testament but by the fact that these painful words were spewed by you mama. I could simply not believe that such immeasurable and inexplicable ignorance coupled with arrogance is coming from you, you mama,a liberation fighter who had a first-hand experience of apartheid. 

You, who understands what, being black, desperate, oppressed and destitute means. Could this selective amnesia be so culminated that you can forget where you left us before you ascended ranks of government? Could you be so well-cushioned in your expensive suburban house that you've forgotten that our young people are still (like in the past) squashed in shacks with hopes of one day occupying 50 square meter RDPs?

Have you forgotten that Langa, Dieplsloot and other informal settlements aren’t old age homes but places were young people are squeezed in perpetual suffering hoping for a better tomorrow?

Lest you forget mama, a 39 year old South African was born in 1975. Lest you forget 11 million children getting child grants aren't getting them as freebies or gifts but because their parents are unemployed and cannot afford basic needs. Parents of these children happen to be these under 40s you are referring to. 8 million young people (under 40s you are referring to) are unemployed, not because they are lazy but because some could not finish school, some could afford to go to varsities and some cannot (even after studying) find jobs, all because of the socio-economic conditions of this country , all as a result of apartheid.

To then turn a blind eye of our plight with such confidence is worrying. The apparent conscience sclerosis you have is very concerning. 

Your statement is not only glaringly preposterous but seeks to inform us (as young people) that you are not there in our interest, which is self-defeating since we form more that 70% of the population in this country. If we can’t afford education or get jobs, how are we supposed to afford shelter? RDPs aren’t for the old aged but for the disadvantaged and indigents, a category we happen to be part of.

Mama, it is in your own interest to retract what you said and apologise to us young people.

- Opinion24

DA Calls On Minister Sisulu to Come Clean On Tongaat Mall Funding

The DA will today write to the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, Nocawe Mafu, requesting that she summon the Minister of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu, to Parliament to account for the department's involvement in partially funding the Tongaat Mall in Durban.

Reports revealed yesterday that Minister Sisulu confirmed that her department had been involved in the funding of this mall and thus we implore the Minister to come clean on the extent of her department's involvement.

Minister Sisulu said: "The tragedy about that building is that it was partly funded by myself [... ] Part of the funding did come from human settlements."

The DA will submit parliamentary questions to ascertain how funds from the Department of Human Settlements were channelled and approved by the Minister to fund the construction of the mall.

Housing money should not be spent on building malls.

After the investigation is complete, the full might of the law must be enforced to hold those accountable for abusing tax payer's money.

Sadly, two people were killed and 29 workers were injured in the collapse of the mall on 19 November last year.

We cannot stand by and watch money that is meant to assist the poor to be used on building malls.

Taking money meant to build houses for the poor to build malls is criminal and as such all involved must face the full might of the law. It does not matter if they are developers, politicians or Human Settlements officials

Makashule Gana

Deputy Federal Chairperson of the Democratic Alliance | Shadow Minister of Human Settlements

- allAfrica

Cape Town's Joe Slovo residents “too young” for houses

Residents of Joe Slovo informal settlement, Langa, have been left homeless after they started demolishing their shacks under the impression that keys to new housing units would be handed over to them. The MEC for Human Settlements, Bonginkosi Madikizela, has said that the shack demolitions were premature and that many of the beneficiaries are “too young” to be prioritised for housing. By Daneel Knoetze for GROUND UP.

On Wednesday, when community leaders told Ntombi Mpozolo, 26, and dozens of her neighbours to move out of their shacks in anticipation of receiving new houses, they were happy to oblige. Mpozolo’s section of Langa’s Joe Slovo informal settlement borders the newly completed Phase 3 of the N2 Gateway Housing Development. She and 55 neighbouring households claim that they have been registered as beneficiaries in line for new houses at the development since 2010. Title deeds for the units have already been signed, she says.

“We have been waiting for those houses a long time. Our ID numbers are all on the list and we were not expecting to be so disappointed. Instead of sleeping in our new houses, we were left outside to sleep among our possessions.”

Mpozolo showed GroundUp to the hearth around which some of the families slept the night before. The coals were still smouldering, which would make it easier to light the fire later, she said. Couches, fridges, kitchen cabinets, luggage, clothing and remnants of shacks lay scattered about.

Nearby, Mzwanele Zulu, of the Joe Slovo Task Team, had convened an impromptu community meeting. He used a loud hailer to address some 200 people who had gathered.

The Task Team is the community’s liaison to government and the N2 Gateway project managers - the Housing Development Agency.

“There is a lot of sudden confusion on our side and, more so, from the community,” he told GroundUp after the meeting.

“We are just here to show that we are in solidarity with them. Last night I was here until 2am, sitting with people who had no option but to sleep outside - mothers and infant children.”

Zulu said the Task Team, on instruction from the HDA, told 56 families to move out and to start demolishing their shacks.

“We had a fruitful meeting with the HDA last week and it was agreed that the beneficiaries would move in on Tuesday and Wednesday. Now, suddenly, we are told that these beneficiaries are too young and that they will not receive houses at all. That has come completely out of the blue. The community feels that they have been stabbed in the back. It may seem peaceful now, but this is a recipe for violence.”

The issue of age and housing allocation was addressed by national Minister of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu, at the 6th Planning Africa Conference in Durban on Tuesday. According to Sapa, Sisulu told reporters that people below the age of 40 are not “a priority” for government housing allocation.

“Our intention in giving free houses was to right the wrongs of the past and make sure that we can give our people dignity. And that group of people is not the people below the age of 40,” she is reported to have said.

“I don't know of a country that gives free houses to young people. Free housing in a few years will be something of the past. You (the young people) have lost nothing (to apartheid).”

The HDA could not confirm reports that the issue of age came up in their discussions with the Joe Slovo Task Team this week. Spokeswoman Kate Shand said that the HDA would only be able to respond to GroundUp’s queries later this week.

Madikizela of the Western Cape Human Settlements department, which is a partner in the N2 Gateway project, acknowledged that expectations had been raised in the Joe Slovo community that keys would be handed over this week.

“But, at no stage were those residents told to move their possessions or to demolish their shacks,” he said.

“The development’s contractor is the only body tasked with doing this. If they do not give the instruction, which they did not do, it would be irresponsible to start the process of moving.”

On the issue of age, Madikizela said:

“There is no way that we are giving houses to kids in their 20s. It cannot be fair that youngsters - who are new on the waiting list - get houses when there are people in their 60s and 70s who have lived in shacks for decades. They may threaten violence, but government will not bow to this pressure.”

But Mpozolo, a mother with a four year old boy, said that she was merely asking for government to make good on previous agreements that she and 55 of her neighbours would move into the new houses.

If they were not handed the keys to the new houses, Mpozolo said, the community would violently resist relocation.

“We are old enough to vote for these politicians to be in power, but now all of a sudden we are not old enough to be given the houses that we were promised.”

“They themselves agree that we have been on the housing waiting list. We qualify for these houses, they are ours. This is unfair and, as you can see, we must now live outside without a roof over our heads.” 

- DM

Human Settlements Minister lives in the future and forgets her involvement in the past - not learning from history

Housing: Why did Germany succeed where we've failed? - Lindiwe Sisulu

Minister notes that that country rebuilt the 6m houses destroyed in WWII in less than a decade

ADDRESS BY L N SISULU, MP, MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, AT THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS INDABA

16 OCTOBER 2014, SANDTON CONVENTION CENTRE

We have been here before with some of you in 2005. Those of us in government look at that period as the dawn of new thinking around housing development, at a time when we examined our own policies, their relevance and quickly caught on to world trends and adopted the groundbreaking approach of Integrated Human Settlements. What did come as a complete surprise to us at that Summit of 2005, was the level of support we received from the sectors we have here assembled today.

It went way beyond the economic rationale we had taken advantage of. We, as government, had set ourselves an ambitious target and allowed ourselves to dream that the best was possible for us. Essentially, we knew that there was no way we could make it alone. And so we called a summit such as this one, in which we could bind ourselves, the private sector and our partners to test the new policy and to achieve the goal we had set ourselves. It was a golden age of hope of new ways and enhanced delivery support.

We had realised then that unless we had a total mobilisation of the Banking Sector, the Private Sector, the NGOs and other stakeholders, we would not achieve what we had set ourselves to achieve. We successfully mobilised the stakeholders that helped us deliver 6 successful mega projects that helped us refine our policies and helped us exceed our own goals.

We used our collective muscle to test our new approach and our successes will speak for themselves later in our deliberations. I was excessively proud of our joint efforts. I had the opportunity at the recent budget vote debate to express my sincerest appreciation to the MECs who trod this path with me and now I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who cooperated with us to achieve what will always be a cameo in the history of human settlements in this country. For every major project we undertook there was a bank ready to provide support, not only financial support, but the banks, in fact, geared themselves to establish the necessary structures to have joint implementation capacity. Either out of naivety or carried away by our own enthusiasm, we managed to get the heads of all the banks in one room. Too late we realised we might have fallen foul of the Treasury rules in this collaboration - too late: the deed was done! Our profound appreciation to the Banking Sector. And a special appreciation to Cas Coovadia and the Banking Association of South Africa, whose belief in us allowed them to exceed the R42bn they had originally earmarked for us. May they continue to believe in us.

To the developers who had faith in us and our vision, we appreciate your support for our work. When it was not profitable to work in the human settlements environment we saw an exodus of the main construction companies - they mostly found their way to Dubai. But those who stayed with us can rightly be proud that together we created more than 1.2 million housing units in five years. Well beyond our target. Translating into 240 000 units a year, 20 000 units a month and 660 units a day. The challenge now is to out-do that and do it without having the many glitches we experienced then.

The Slum Dwellers International exposed us to new thinking, taught us that people are prouder of their achievements when they feel they have contributed to providing shelter for their families. They made us proud, so proud that they were nominees of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, because we bask in that glory too.

UN Habitat gave us the platform and used us to lobby for the prioritisation of human settlement on the world agenda. UN Habitat, you could not have chosen more committed partners for this. We are grateful for the exposure and the ability to stand here and claim we helped shape Human Settlements Policies for developing countries. And our woman contractors, what can I say? I just wish they were more organized because they are simply the best, better than anyone. Women of South Africa in the construction industry, I urge you to organise yourselves and take full advantage of the quota that has been allocated to you. You have nothing to lose but the men who use you to front for them.

The Chamber of Mines, it is with extreme regret that we were not able to accomplish what we had hoped we could do, for we were all certain in 2005 that we could change the lives of our workers on the mines. We were determined we would do it before tragedy struck. Perhaps we should have known even then that we needed the workers themselves to be part of the Social Contract. We learn and grow every day in government. Now we know. But we know now and we have invited them too this time, so that we can work with them to better their living conditions.

The Black Conveyances, we will make better use of this opportunity. Property is not an asset without a title deed and most of our beneficiaries have not realised the full potential of what we have given them, because its value is so limited to shelter. We are behind in the issuing of title deeds, for various reasons, while our people are experiencing economic difficulty. Together we need to recommit to measurable outputs so that we revive the dead assets in the property we have given them, revitalise the secondary market and unleash the economic potential of our townships.

We are here today to recommit ourselves and mobilise even greater participation. Not because it makes business sense to do so, but because we are driven by our patriotic responsibility and because we are all aware that the restoration of the dignity of our people begins with shelter. And that which defines us as a human species is our social interaction and therefore need for communities. Our people are in appalling conditions as we sit in air-conditioned summits. In just this year, KwaZulu-Natal has had eight protests over housing.

To those of you who are new to this summit, you are most welcome. We meet here to ask you to come along with us and help us meet the challenge of housing, the challenge of reversing the deeply entrenched racial spatial patterns of apartheid. We are battling as South Africa continues to rank number one in the world as the country with the sharpest inequalities. These manifest themselves along racial lines, along residential patterns. We are further challenged by a number of impediments of our own making. An unresponsive slow bureaucracy, the increasing number of people in our backlog against the huge drop in delivery of more than 1.5 million people over the last five years.

We have resolved that to regain our delivery pace our target for this next five years is 1.5 million housing units, fifty catalytic projects, 200 000 Housing units in the mining towns over the next three years. We intend to continue to appeal to all employers to join us in our work. The living conditions of their employees are as much their responsibility as it is ours to assist. We have created a policy for a Government Employees Housing Scheme, which will give guarantees to the bank, so that they are not over exposed. They will, with the concurrence of labour be assured that the mortgage deductions can come directly from the pay role. We do this as government because we want to show that it is possible to do it and urge all employers to consider the same.

With all that we have been through as a country, where a house was used as part of a coercive system to subjugate the masse of our people, we can use that same instrument to provide settled communities, responsive to their obligations as citizens, give them a stake in the economy and I can assure you we will change lives, create a better country and a responsible citizenry. Together we can improve the economy of the country, create more jobs and thrive as we should, given the amount of goodwill we as a people are gifted with.

Our emphasis for the next five years is mega projects, while allowing for pockets of site and service and People's Housing Projects. Mega Projects have the advantage of building on scale and generating jobs and subsidiary industries. They allow all three spheres of government to learn to work together and hopefully the "foot dragging" of municipal processes can be brought under central control of all three spheres working together. It cuts down on time spent. Together we can plan and ensure proper integration and spatial coherence.

National Government will provide a centralised database for beneficiaries.

We would like all of you here to join us on this monumental chance to make a significant impact. It is rare that any of us are given a second chance. We have been given that second chance and we intend to ensure its impact.

For our part as government, this is what we are committing to in this partnership:

1. We commit to the struggling contractor, we will help you access funding. We will be restructuring our Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) to make them more responsive and to help them access the necessary finance so that you may be assisted.

2. We will help to the extent possible to access land for low income housing and ensure you get all the help you can get through our bureaucratic maze, with the assistance of the Housing Development Agency, who will work with you through the Provinces and municipalities.

3. We will establish a dedicated unit in the department, headed by a DDG, to ensure that you are paid on time. We have seen many frustrated contractors going under because of the burden of delay in payment. That should be behind us now.

4. Over and above that, we will establish an office of an ombudsman so that you have easy recourse to redress as and when you should require that.

5. We will create fora where you can participate together with other stakeholders like Water and Sanitation, Eskom, the roads agencies, the education and sport and recreation sectors, the Estate Agency Affairs Board, the municipalities and the communities so that we do not cause you the financial risks you have had to take where you spend years before the project is allocated. These fora will be convened by the MECs of the Provinces and we expect no less than four a year.

6. Human Settlements has a potential as a great job creator. We intend to harness the energy of our unemployed youth. We would like to test the Cuban model of a Youth Brigade for every project so that we can deal with unemployment while we skill the youth.

7. We have a Master Spatial Plan which will help you understand the direction we are going, where our future projects will be. This will be used to ensure that by the time we have the approved projects, the necessary bulk infrastructure, electricity, etc has been put in place.

From all of you we ask, seek better and more cost effective ways of building. Our exhibitors out there are here to show you what is possible. New methods are available and once approved, try them. From you we want an increase in the number of affordable rental stock. This is one of our most serious challenges. Not every homeless person qualifies for a free house and no stock is available for the rental bracket.

From you we want solidly built houses. From the Banking sector we need a recommitment to create access to mortgage funding. The Black Conveyancers must help our municipalities to access title deeds at shortest time possible so that in future it should be possible to give a title deed as we give the house. Our Military Veterans, come help us build houses for people who have done so much for us. SDI, we have to upscale our numbers. The more you succeed the better are our chances of stopping an unhealthy decency syndrome that has set in

It took Germany less than ten years to rebuild the houses that were destroyed in the 2nd World War. By the end they had built 6 million houses. How did they do it? They prioritised housing in their reconstruction. They received a dedicated fund for this and created a special purpose vehicle and by the early 1950s they had completed this task. We have had twenty years. We have prioritized housing. We have special purpose vehicles. We have dedicated funding. But we have a backlog that is almost as large as the number of units built so far. We need to do something drastically different. We are open to ideas that would make this possible.

The revised growth down from the last assessment means that we have to brace ourselves for even more stringent cost cutting measures from Treasury. We can do our bit in getting out of this economic gloom. We jointly have the capacity to grow jobs and skills.

We, each if us here, have a significant role to play. Join this Human Settlements family and we can beat our own target, create new cities that reflect our new identity, break down racial barriers. And give expression to our freedom. Let's make an indelible mark in our history because we have the opportunity to do so.

I thank you.

Issued by the Ministry of Human Settlements, October 16 2016