Article re-cap
- The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment on whether the Tafelberg site in Cape Town should be converted into social housing units.
- Housing activists are appealing a Supreme Court of Appeal decision that upheld the Western Cape Government's sale of Tafelberg Properties to Phyllis Jowell Jewish Day School for R135 million.
- The Western Cape Government decided against using the property for social housing due to financial feasibility and land use limitations.
- Activists argue that the provincial government and City of Cape Town have failed to redress spatial apartheid by not providing well located social housing.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment following arguments regarding whether the Tafelberg site in Cape Town should be transformed into social housing units.
Housing activist organisations Ndifuna Ukwazi and Reclaim the City appealed against a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that upheld a Western Cape Government decision. The activists are seeking to set aside the provincial sale of Tafelberg Properties in Sea Point to the Phyllis Jowell Jewish Day School for R135 million.
According to the activists, the provincial government and City of Cape Town failed to redress spatial apartheid by not making well located provincially owned land available for social housing. They argued that poor residents are increasingly being forced out of the city centre and noted that no affordable housing has been developed in central Cape Town since 1994.
Counsel for the Western Cape Government, Eduard Fagan, submitted that the decision to dispose of the property was made after considering the possibility of using it for social housing. He stated that the government decided against this purpose after considering factors including the financial feasibility of establishing affordable housing on a property with land use limitations.
The City of Cape Town argued that budgetary and financial constraints influence its ability to buy property at market related prices. Nazreen Bawa, representing the City, suggested that other areas closer to where people reside may be preferable for the provision of social or affordable housing.
The Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa was admitted as amicus curiae in the matter. In written submissions, the group said the general policy of the Province and the City is to provide affordable housing in areas where it is less costly, which they described as a retrogressive measure inconsistent with the Constitution.
This follows earlier local coverage of Court declares Sea Point Tafelberg site sale unlawful.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Constitutional Court deciding about the Tafelberg site in Sea Point?
The court is ruling on whether the Western Cape Government's R135 million sale of the Tafelberg Properties to the Phyllis Jowell Jewish Day School should be set aside. Activists argue the provincially owned land should have been used for social housing instead.
Why do housing activists oppose the Tafelberg property sale?
Ndifuna Ukwazi and Reclaim the City argue the provincial government failed to address spatial apartheid by not using well-located public land for social housing. They note no affordable housing has been developed in central Cape Town since 1994, forcing poor residents away from the city centre.
What reasons did the Western Cape Government give for not using Tafelberg for social housing?
The government considered but rejected social housing due to financial feasibility concerns and land use limitations on the property. Counsel Eduard Fagan stated the decision was made after evaluating these factors alongside the sale option.
What is the City of Cape Town's position on affordable housing in central areas?
The City argued budgetary constraints prevent buying property at market prices in central locations. Counsel Nazreen Bawa suggested other areas closer to where people reside might be preferable for providing affordable or social housing.
What did the Socio-Economic Rights Institute argue in this case?
As amicus curiae, the institute said the Province and City's policy of providing affordable housing only in less costly areas is retrogressive and inconsistent with the Constitution.
Source: businessreport.co.za
