Mercury: ‘Change outlook on housing’

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=124&art_id=vn20081006055013156C457741

‘Change outlook on housing’

October 06 2008

By Mercury reporter

South Africa in general, and Durban in particular, need to abandon the idea that a “world-class” city is a place where the poor are hidden from view.

This is among the recommendations in a report released on Monday by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, which is based in Geneva.

The centre argues in a report on housing issues in the eThekwini region that the South African government, cities and civic organisations should undergo a general paradigm shift regarding housing policy.

It says that across different levels of government there has, in recent years, been a rapid decline from a pro-poor and rights-based view of shack dwellers and shack settlements towards an anti-poor, security-based view.

This has sometimes been picked up or actively encouraged by some media, academics, NGOs and ratepayers’ and property owners’ associations.

It argues that there is a need to see and present poverty and a lack of affordable, decent and well-located housing as the fundamental problem, rather than seeing the self-developed housing solutions of the poor as the problem.

There should be a move away from aiming to “clear” or “eradicate” “slums” to offer ongoing and carefully negotiated maximum housing support to poor communities.

In this respect, the government should take seriously the experiences in securing housing rights in countries similar to South Africa in terms of inequality and poverty rates – such as Brazil, India and the Philippines.

The centre says South Africa should abandon the idea that a world-class city is one in which the poor are hidden by active spatial exclusion and, instead, positing the development of an inclusive, integrated and just city as the primary goal of policy and programmes.

South Africa should also not allow preparations for the 2010 World Cup to encourage unjust housing practices.

Regarding Durban, the centre said the level of services provided to shack settlements “is entirely inadequate to the point where it is often a clear threat to basic safety”.

Problems are particularly acute regarding the provision of sanitation and electricity, with the absence of the latter being directly linked to shack fires.

It also notes that unlawful evictions are “routine” and that relocations are often, but not always, forced removals.

The report says that, with one exception, all of the housing professionals interviewed by the centre argued that there was a serious problem with a lack of consultation.

They argued that collaborative planning with communities would radically reduce political antagonism and improve development outcomes.

Shack dwellers said communication did not take place at a local level. While ward committees were involved, they did not represent their interests, but were a forum to discuss party politics.

The centre said statements from municipal officials confirmed that open and consultative practices were seen as a security risk.

In an interview in the film The Right to Know, by the Open Democracy Centre, city manager Michael Sutcliffe had stated baldly that, in his view, “information can also be dangerous”.

The centre said Sutcliffe argued that providing information about housing plans would enable “queue jumping”, but why this would be so was not clear.

It concluded there was no doubt that the city was sincere about its desire to build as many houses as it could and as quickly as it could.

“Its zeal to build houses does deserve to be commended. But zeal is not always sufficiently reflective. This may explain those problems with housing in the city that are technical.

For instance, it is clear that the city is not building at sufficient densities, and that this is a key driver of unwelcome relocations to peripheral areas.”