Placing poor out of sight is no solution
Click here to link to the full report via the DAG website.
Helen Macgregor, Informal Settlement Upgrading Co-ordinator, Development Action Group
Stories from families relocated to the Delft Temporary Relocation Area (TRA) in 2005 are disturbing, and provide insight into the concerns underpinning the protests of present Joe Slovo residents refusing to relocate. The protests are a desperate response to the lack of opportunity to influence the N2 Gateway Project. Statements by the Minister of Housing, Dr Lindiwe Sisulu on 12 September are disappointingly coercive in that removal from the housing waiting list would constitute a de facto threat to the constitutional (and human) rights of the protestors. The Minister’s response challenges the rights of the poor on two critical levels. Firstly, it challenges their right to demand access to adequate housing and challenge or question state policy and practice. Secondly, it challenges their right to adequate housing which is recognised globally as the right to a dwelling that not only provides adequate shelter but which is, amongst others, also properly located in order to provide access to economic opportunities and other amenities necessary to support the wellbeing of residents.
In a survey conducted by the Development Action Group in early 2007, 34% of households interviewed stated that since relocating from Joe Slovo to the Delft TRA in 2005, someone in their household has either lost their job, or found their attempts to find employment frustrated. One resident said: “by moving to Delft we lost our informal jobs as the cost of travel to Langa now became too expensive for us”.
Delft is 15km from Langa and can only be accessed by taxi resulting in high additional household expenditure on travel. Residents in the TRA explained “In Langa we used trains to go to a lot of places and during weekends we would use the trains for free; things like the market in Epping and shops in Athlone were within walking distance, but now we need to pay for transport. We spend a lot of money on transport here; there is no access to trains so we are forced to use taxis. This place is far away from everything, hence there are high transport costs”.
The repercussions are not limited to the economic impact for households but also have social dimensions. Like other areas on the periphery, Delft is not well located because of the limited public transport options, the absence of economic opportunity and the lack of social and community infrastructure: “this place is like a desert; we are far from everything.” These areas function as dormitory suburbs impacting negatively on household livelihoods and social security. This in turn leads to social dysfunctionality which is already evident in Delft.
The costs are not only carried by the household but also by the state. Government presently carries the high costs of crime prevention due to the prevalence of a range of social problems festering in such communities as well as the high costs of transport infrastructure. These high hidden costs which are borne by government highlight the unacceptability of the construction of houses for the poor on the urban periphery.
The City of Cape Town plans to relocate a further 48 000 households over the next four years. However, the impact of relocation needs to be analysed more carefully before moving citizens to inappropriate locations such as Delft. Relocation can leave them worse off, even after they have become the owner of a brick and mortar house with a title deed in hand. The Breaking New Ground policy framework introduced by Minister Sisulu in 2004 acknowledges this when it states that: “the 1.6 million subsidy houses that have been built have not become valuable assets in the hands of the poor.” The Breaking New Ground framework thus marked a shift toward the upgrading of informal settlements and an over arching focus on the development of sustainable human settlements.
The development of the Delft TRA was however, approached in a technocratic manner with a narrow focus on physical development, without due consideration for the social and economic aspects of the total housing environment. This approach contrasted with the newly introduced Breaking New Ground framework which recommends in situ upgrading through a developmental approach; the framework states: “minimise disruption, enhance community participation in all aspects of the development solution.”
The recent Joe Slovo protest heralds the beginning of several protests which can be expected by other N2 communities in line for relocation. The Minister’s public statements attempt to silence the voices of the poor and threaten their rights whilst it is they who bear the brunt of ill-conceived top down development. Government should be open to engaging the citizens on their concerns in a meaningful way as proposed in its policy documents. Housing development should address the fundamental issue of sustainable development for both government and the households concerned and government should seriously consider the pertinent question of who pays the cost of relocation of poor households to the periphery.
For those already relocated to the Delft TRA, the future remains uncertain. One woman said: “we were dumped here. There is nothing nice about staying here. I know that we will stay for too long here.” With over 61% of households earning below R1 500 per month, most households are unable to afford the high rentals or planned high mortgage payments in the new housing in former Joe Slovo. Most of these households are likely to remain in Delft, perhaps in formal subsidised houses. This prospect is almost a certainty despite households having moved in 2004 on the premise that they would return to the original location and be accommodated in the new N2 Gateway Development.
Relocating informal settlement dwellers to badly located housing developments in the name of ‘slum upgrading’ does not address government’s objectives, of building sustainable settlements, nor does it address the Millennium Development Goals, which are designed to reduce poverty, not increase it. Such developments serve only to ‘demolish slums’ and place the poor out of sight. We, the public should not stand by and silently witness the dumping of the poor in remote wastelands whilst their democratic rights are eroded.