Scottsdene and Netreg, Bonteheuvel, challenges : Committee's recommendations - Department of Human Settlements and the City of Cape Town's responses

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson welcomed representatives from the City of Cape Town, the national Department of Human Settlements, civic organisations and community members. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain a report on the self-help housing scheme in Scottsdene and to hear about the challenges facing the transfer of houses in Netreg. The issue of Scottsdene was a long-standing issue and both the Government and the voters were happy about the outcome and resolutions of the meeting held on 09 December 2011.She had received a letter of complaint from Mr Ernest Sonnenberg, Mayoral Committee member, that the Committee was not up to standard in adhering to inter-governmental relations (IGR) and cooperative governance. For the record, she stated that the Committee was among the best which respected the constitution and policies of South Africa. She was not going to apologise to the City but somebody was to take responsibility for failure of coordinating the mandate. The Director-General, national Department of Human Settlements,  would shoulder the responsibility of apologising and respond to the complaint as he was the accounting officer nationally. It was not a mistake that there were three spheres as there was only one state in South Africa and the Constitution stated categorically that for Government to succeed in its mandate the three spheres (national Department, the City of Cape Town and the Province) must work together in executing Government business. There was supposed to be a culture of cooperative relations and interaction between the three parties.

The Minister of Human Settlements must consult with the Premier on the matter. An newspaper article had stated that the impediments to service delivery in Human Settlements were caused by lack of relations among the three spheres of Government. However, she cautioned that people should not raise unfounded allegations after the meeting. She had mentioned it only because the matter was of major concern to the Committee.

The Chairperson invited Mr Thabani Zulu, Director-General (DG), national Department of Human Settlements, to comment on the issue of weak relations among the spheres of Government.

Mr Zulu said that he fully agreed with the Chairperson that there was no cooperation in Government and added that the matter was critical administratively. The communication was necessary in order to ensure that there was an integrated effort in Government business and to prevent the duplication of resources. The National Department would apprise the Committee in due course on how it was going to address the concern. On 02 February the Department had made an effort through the head of the provincial department to communicate with the other spheres and even made a follow up on the matter on 12 February.  On 17 February the local office of the national Department communicated to Head of Land for Housing in the City of Cape Town who had indicated that no communication had been received by his office.

Scottsdene Self-help Housing Scheme: City of Cape Town presentation
Mr Rob Johnston: Regional Head: New Settlements, City of Cape Town, presented the report on the Scottsdene saga. He explained to the Committee what the City had done in Scottsdene since the last meeting on 09 December 2011.  He had met with the Kraaifontein Community and Economic Development Forum (KCEDF) on 12 January 2012 to resolve outstanding issues and an independent representative from Simple Justice was invited also. However they did not reach an agreement on many issues. One of the major concerns raised by the KCEDF was that it felt excluded from planning process in the area where the City was building new developments. It had emerged in the meeting that many of the residencies had not been registered with the local sub-council but the matter had since been remedied. 

The other concern was on the transfer of rental units to the people. The City had managed to transfer 759 out of 870 rental units that were not blocks of flats with only 100 remaining which could be given to people who felt excluded and were entitled to the properties. Also, the City of Cape Town had a policy that stating that if a property was upgraded it would not be sold and people had been given the opportunity to choose whether they were comfortable with buying or wanted the properties upgraded. In addition, the parties disagreed on the transfer of flats to tenants - a wish the City could not grant because it went against Council policy. According to the policy, poor communities were not given the responsibility of looking after sectional title properties because in the event that they failed to maintain the properties the City could repossess them. The City was very selective when transferring sectional title blocks of flats and it had done so only in Kalk Bay and Bo-Kaap after two years of educating the community on sectional titles. The self-help scheme started in the 1980s and ended in 1994 when it was changed to People Housing Programme (PHP). The scheme in Scottsdene was finished in 1994 and people that could build received the transfers and the remaining plots were used for a show village, an issue that was now being contested by the KCEDF.

The Chairperson said that in the last meeting, interested parties had agreed that the issue of Scottsdene was to be settled as a joint venture by the spheres of Government as it was not only an old issue but was very critical and complex. She wanted to know if the parties had met as recommended. The Committee wanted to know if it had been difficult for the City of Cape Town to implement the resolutions of the previous meeting which obligated it to settle the matter amicably in consultation with the community. She asked the National Department if it had been consulted on the matter by the City of Cape Town because the matter could only be resolved by involving all three parties.

Mr Neville Chainee, Deputy Director-General [Chief Operations Officer], Department of Human Settlements, agreed with the Chairperson that in the last meeting it was resolved that all parties were to work together to resolve the matter; it was important that the issue did not “fall off the table”. He said one of the main principles of the national Department was not to displace communities, guard against forced relocations based on affordability, and prioritisation of land for the poor as most cities were affected by down road railing which forced people into crowded areas, in particular Cape Town. The issue needed to be addressed and the Department would start with the Scottsdene issue. The inequalities in Land Relations were a matter of concern and the City and the province had been asked to compile a development plan on how the issue could be best handled which would be interrogated by the Department in the second week of March in its Open Settlement Development Grant Business Plan. He said the Committee should understand that the Department was interested only on ensuring that development objectives were delivered without force. It was not interested in dictating the course of action but to ensure that developmental objectives were executed through the allocation and resource management. The City and the Province would be given an opportunity to settle the issue as was the tradition.

The Chairperson concurred with the Department but reiterated that the spheres of Government must meet and discuss the issue as it did not help to have them bring issues to Parliament without having a joint session together. It was only after they failed to reach a consensus that they could present issues before the Committee. She asked why it was difficult for the spheres to have a dialogue on the issue so that it could be solved.

The Chairperson invited Mr Daniels to respond to the presentation by Mr Johnston.

Mr Wilson Daniels: Chairperson, Kraifontein Community and Economic Development Forum (KCEDF), said the community of Scottsdene was experiencing difficulties in communicating with the City. It had been agreed that the City was to visit the community and discuss the challenges. A meeting was convened with Mr Johnston and it became clear that the City was not interested in cooperating with the community in solving the problems. He tried to remind Mr Johnston that at the meeting on 09 December it had been agreed that people must get the units and in cases where the rightful owner had died, the units had to be given to a beneficiary or the children.

Mr Daniels alleged that the City had no intention of resolving the community’s challenges and as a result they community had approached Parliament for help. The City of Cape Town had disowned the community in the self-help project because it was busy developing the area for middle class houses without consulting the community. He had sought the help of the Premier who never showed up for the meeting. The community was afraid that if the matter was not resolved urgently there would not be enough land left to resolve the matter latter. He dispelled Mr Johnston's claims that there had been some units that were transferred and the community was disappointed in the last meeting, in which he expected that the problems of the community would be solved, but instead the City issued summons to people to vacate the land set aside for them. The City was being cruel by using the law against defenceless people whose plight it was aware of. In 1999 a decision had been made by the Council for the units to be transferred and the documents were available at the archives and had the City not been reluctant all the houses could be transferred by now. The community of Scottsdene was very poor and it would be unfair to give them land elsewhere when the City was giving the land to a developer to build middle class houses at the expense of the intended beneficiaries. The most painful part was that the community was being excluded in the new development because it was in disagreement. The community had been screaming for help but no attention had been given to its pleas. This had forced the community to approach Parliament.

Discussion
Mr J Matshoba (ANC) was furious to the extent of saying the matter was being politicised and the City was forcing the Committee to go deep into politics. Whilst Members were busy with the Sectional Titles Schemes  Management Bill the City was moving in a different direction. It appeared as if Members were wasting their time. Commenting on the policy of sectional title properties, he asked why the City was making the choice for the people and why was it relocating the people away from the City far from their work places.

Mr Matshoba asked why places close to the City were reserved for the rich in Cape Town whilst the poor masses were driven to the farms.
by the City of Cape Town's Directorate: Human Settlements and the Cooperative finance would be responsible for the indigent grant.
Ms D Dlakude (ANC) was not sure if the decision of the Committee would be taken seriously. She could not understand why the people of Scottsdene were subjected to forced removals in this age – a system of the dark days of South Africa. All provinces must be treated the same as there was no federal state in South Africa. She wanted to know why the City was pushing people away from the towns while rich people settled across the City. It was difficult to understand why people could not get houses when the Government was subsidising low cost houses and the City must regard Members of Parliament as representatives of the poor masses of the country.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) could not understand why it was difficult for the three spheres of Government to sit down and address the issue of Scottsdene and why was the City still behaving, in 2012, as if the country had not yet become independent. She wanted to know why Mr Johnston was lying to the Committee, and the Department must take the initiative to settle the matter as it impacted negatively on the Committee.

Ms M Borman (ANC) said the Committee had a huge oversight role which was a priority to the Government. The matter of Scottsdene came into the fore after an oversight visit conducted by the Committee two years previously. She had hoped that after the last meeting the issue was finally being attended to as all had seemed to be well and she was disappointed that the three spheres had not met as was the agreement, which could have saved the confusion. She reminded the City that in modern government community participation was very important and wanted to know whether a public meeting that was supposed to be held in Scottsdene on the transfers had been held together with the community.

Mr Johnston replied that the meeting was held with the KCEDF because it was the only group from Scottsdene that had approached the Committee. He had another separate public meeting on 09 February to explain the development project that would take place in the area and to choose six representatives to sit on the steering committee. The objective was achieved and the next meeting would be next week.

The Chairperson wanted to know whether the KFCDF was involved in the meeting or was it part of the steering committee.

Mr Johnston replied that it was a public meeting to choose representatives on the development project

The Chairperson asked which project Mr Johnston was referring to.

Mr Johnston replied that he referred to the Scottsdene Infill project.

The Chairperson said the debate was going in circles and there was no need for Mr Johnston to confuse matters as the agenda was concerned only with the self-help scheme and not with other projects which had nothing to do with the Committee business of the day.

The Chairperson, enraged, said the time would come when the City would account to the Committee and if the City had no logical answer it was supposed to say so. The criticism was addressed alone to the Western Cape, as the same had been done to Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality.

Ms Dlakude said the KCEDF was the sole representatives of the community members afflicted and accordingly they were supposed to be the ones elected into the steering committee about which Mr Johnston was talking.  She asked Mr Johnston to apologise

Mr Johnston said he did not recall the statement of Mr Daniels.

Mr Daniels repeated that when he had told Mr Johnston that the steering committee had recommended children as beneficiaries, the latter had told him it was 'cheap talk'.

Mr Johnston said that he did not mean 'cheap talk' but he meant that it was easy to say but there were a lot of principles involved.

The Chairperson asked Mr Johnston to explain what was not easy in the matter

Mr Johnston said a child did not necessarily inherit the parent’s property on a waiting list.

Ms Dlakude disagreed saying she had been a member of the White Committee for 15 years and when papers of applicants were filed, they were accompanied by a form stating beneficiaries and nothing was irreversible.

The Chairperson asked Mr Johnston whether or not he was willing and committed to resolving the issue amicably.

Mr Johnston answered 'yes'.

The Chairperson told the City to come to the Committee in two weeks with a clear process of how it would address the matter or indicate at least that there was progress in that direction.

Ms P Duncan (DA) thanked the community for participating in the debate and supported addressing relations between the three spheres. The national Government was to take the leading role in ensuring a coordinated effort to solving the Scottsdene question. The President had made remarks in December last year on the issue of the outcome-based approach and the goals set needed to be implemented and the monitoring and evaluation of the targets was very important. The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) process was critical in the public participation process which was a constitutional imperative. Regardless of political affiliations Members should ensure the participation of the public in governance issues. The national Department should make sure that the meeting of the spheres was conducted within two weeks and that challenges and the IDP process were addressed as well. It was unacceptable that the KCEDF was not registered with the local council as the latter was expected to keep a list of all organisations in its area of jurisdiction since the council consisted of politicians at local level as Members of Parliament were politicians at national level. However while it was good to stand for communities, people should guard against making mistakes that counted against them and should always act responsibly.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) wanted Mr Johnston to apologise for his alleged reference to 'cheap talk'. He said it was unacceptable that after the intervention of the Committee the community had to be told to vacate the properties and wanted to know the time-frames for the meeting between the spheres. He sought clarity on what happened to the self-help scheme when it was replaced by the People's Housing Projects (PHPs).

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) said the issue of Scottsdene could not be solved due to the problem of lack coordination among the spheres of Government and there was no plan put in place to help the vulnerable and poor community.  She sought clarity on why it was difficult to transfer flats to the people as this matter was soiling the image of the parliamentarians as public representatives mandated to try and mitigate the effects of poverty.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) argued that the information that had been presented showed that the issue was not going to be resolved; however, he was happy that the DG was present and would use his initiatives to address the challenge as he did in other provinces. The President had mentioned in his 2010 State of the Nation Address that at a certain time housing tenure would be delivered to the people and the Minister of Human Settlements  had said that “the transfer of houses should be from one generation to another, creating assert wealth”. Were those processes happening? Poverty did not see face or race, and the most positive approach would be to evaluate the challenges in the system and put in place precautionary measures. He was concerned that the City was faced with a lot of challenges at a time when the inequality gap between the poor and rich was widening. One of the most important ways of ensuring good settlements was to adhere to the consultative process - through engaging with the community but there seemed to be a slip in the matter of Scottsdene, which accounted for discrepancies. He expressed concern about summons that had been issued, particularly after the matter had been resolved at Committee level in good taste; he asked why, after the meeting, rather than giving relief, the City was putting more strain on the community. He wanted to know which sphere was not coming to the party and was extremely concerned that when the Department was asked about the issue it had replied that it had not been part of the process until now. Was this the first time the Department was aware of the matter? If not, what had the Department done to ensure that houses were delivered to the people.

The Chairperson invited Mr Anwar Swartz, Western Cape Provincial Department of Human Settlements, to comment on the matter at hand.

Mr Swartz said that the provincial Department was working with the City on developments in the Scottsdene area and there had been various engagements on how to align Outcome 8 with the development programmes in the area.

The Chairperson said that Mr Swartz should not tell the Committee about other development projects outside the issue of the self-help scheme. There was no need for Mr Swartz to relate the story again since it had been addressed in the last meeting and by so doing he had hurt the Committee. The Committee was not interested in developments aligned with Outcome 8, but was dealing with a specific problem which had nothing to do with other developments. The Committee was not going to go back on its word and argued that  Mr Swartz was trying to take chances by referring to Outcome 8 which came into being last year long after the Scottsdene issue had erupted.  The Committee needed answers on why the particular people had not received transfers when others had benefited; the Chairperson added that Mr Swartz should not underestimate the intellectual capacity of the Committee Members and no one would be allowed to undermine the Committee.

The Chairperson agreed that Mr Daniels was correct by saying the issue could have been solved long ago, and added that the Parliament before 1994 was a parliament; the only difference was that the current Parliament was a democratic one and people would never be allowed to undermine it. All parties responsible in the matter were urged to cooperate with the Committee in solving the issue. There was nothing wrong with the KCEDF's approaching Parliament as no one had addressed its grievances. When the Committee dealt with issues it was not dealing with 'cheap talk' but with Government business, and, as policy makers, Members of the Committee would not allow policies that oppressed the people. She asked why the City was continuing issuing summons and carrying out developments when it was aware that there was an outstanding issue that must be addressed. She asserted that this was because the City had no regard for the country’s impoverished lot. For the record, the Committee did not believe in IDPs as their credibility was questionable and the matter was not personal at all. The City was told to hold its horses on developing the land as the property was under discussion and a report must be submitted to the Committee on the matter. The people of Scottsdene must get properties on their land and they would not be relocated because of Outcome 8. The Chairperson had stressed the issue of children being beneficiaries in the event of death of their parents. The Committee requested that the City apologise for its disrespect of the resolutions.

Mr Matshoba wanted to know, who the representative from the province was, his designation and whether what he had said was the only thing he could tell the Committee on the Scottsdene matter.

The Chairperson told Mr Matshoba that it was unnecessary as what Mr Swartz had said was not on the agenda.

Ms Duncan wanted the Department to be clear on the statement that it was not its principle to displace people, since some of the informal settlements and housing were located near flood lines and wetlands.

The Chairperson said the matter of flood lines had nothing to do with Scottsdene as it was away from the danger; Ms Duncan should rather ask a specific question.

Ms Duncan asked why the Department had raised this issue –was it because it had anything to do with Scottsdene and how old was the policy which stated that sectional title houses could not be given to poor communities?

Mr Schuman, City of Cape Town,  responded to the issue saying the City was committed to resolving the issue and would update the Committee on the progress in due course. The City wanted to collaborate with the other two spheres of Government and he was committed to correcting the wrongs of the past but all must be done by law based on evidence. He said that Members should take note that there was a difference between a self-help scheme- (an ownership scheme where people got a piece of land and built on their own) and council housing scheme. The project being undertaken by the City was not on the same piece of land in question but adjacent in the old CBD side. The City would write a report to the Committee and in instances where new properties had been built on land earmarked for transfer there were mechanisms of rectifying that.

The Chairperson thought that Mr Schuman's reply was what the Committee had wanted to hear from the City and the Committee was happy with the way he had handled the matter. She asked what the comment of the Department was.

Mr Chainee said that IGR responsibility was not dependent on the Department but was a responsibility of all spheres of Government as the communication mandate rested with the City. The Department had not received an invitation in any of the processes that had happened and a senior official of the Department had been assigned to look into the matter. He emphasised that the party responsible for coordinating the City should ensure that all parties in the spheres received communication so that they could act in line with the expectations of the Committee. The Department was free to attend any meeting if invited.

The Chairperson asked Mr Daniels if he was happy with the reply from the City

Mr Daniels replied that he was happy.

City of Cape Town on Netreg, Bonteheuwel, challenges
Ms Grace Blouw, Manager: Existing Settlements, Directorate: Human Settlements, City of Cape Town, presented on the challenges the City encountered in transferring houses to the people. The City had been transferring rental units for the past 30 years  and more than 50 000 units had been transferred with about 16 200 units that still must be transferred. The properties had been divided into saleable and unsaleable units. The saleable units included cottages and row houses and unsaleable units were blocks of flats. The transfer of 50 000 houses was achieved through the Discount Benefit Scheme which came about in 1994 to assist people to be able to purchase units. Before this people could not do so due to outstanding construction costs

As a result of the Scheme the City had R750 000 that it could offset against the capital amount of the units at that time and some people got their houses free while some at a substantial cost. Through the Extended Benefit Enhancement Scheme all this changed and people could take transfers without outstanding capital
It was difficult for the City to transfer the units as there were arrears and the system did not allow it to do write-offs against nothing.

In December the Provincial government assured the City that it would provide the subsidy to offset the arrears so that the plight of the people could be addressed. The issue of transferring rental units was a matter of choice but in most cases people did not want transfers but to continue being tenants of the City as this spared them the responsibility of maintenance costs and insurance. It was problematic that those who would have preferred transfers were not able to maintain the properties. The City was giving the community incentives such as free six kilolitres of water, free 50 kilowatts electricity and indigent grant to those earning below R3000. A decision had been taken that in cases where people approached the City it would grant a once-off write-off of arrears. A meeting had been held on 07 February and Mr Steven was present. The City  had a responsibility to the community so it had put up an office where people could get advice and education on their services related to housing; however, people were not being forced to take the opportunity. A survey of housing units in Netreg would be done to ascertain among other issues the nature of ownership and whether the units were occupied or not. The City had agreed with the community representatives that a public meeting to explain the transfer of rental units would be held so that people could make informed choices on the matter but those who would not be interested in the transfer process would remain the tenants of the City of Cape Town. The survey would be held on the 29-30 of March and afterwards a report would be submitted to the Committee.

Discussion
Mr Chainee said Netreg was a national problem as its challenges were similar to those of other areas and the Department would, together with the province and municipalities, look for a comprehensive solution. The Department was discussing the matter with the Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA). It would be irresponsible to say that there was a ready solution at the moment since it was not clear how the house ownership maintenance cost could be alleviated.

Ms Borman said that it was important to involve the community in the development process and the City should put everything on paper for future reference.

Ms Duncan wanted to know the response of the Department to the proposed survey by the City of Cape Town and said that the Department must play a major role in solving the challenges.

Mr Bhoola said it was not clear that the issue was going to be resolved as the Department had indicated that there was no silver bullet to it. He wanted to know whether the City was adhering to the 51% clause in the Enhanced Extended Discount Benefit Scheme (EEDBS). He wanted to know why the City was worried about dilapidation through lack of maintenance when the scheme provided for revitalisation, refurbishment and renovation of properties. He was concerned with the write-offs and wanted to know if the subsidy was only for the Western Cape province since there was no mention of it in the scheme.

Mr Bhoola wanted to know about the 179 houses that had yet not been transferred and for the City to elaborate on red tape when it had pointed out that a subsidy would be made available. He also asked if the issue of arrears was the only challenge in the transfer of houses and whether the City of Cape Town was working with the Consolidated Bill and, if so, what the City's strategy was in the case of arrears.

Ms Blouw said the issue of how people who could not afford the upkeep of the flats would be addressed in the meeting of the spheres of Government and if no solution were reached the City would still continue with its responsibilities to the community. On the date of the survey she said that it was an agreement made with the community representatives and in the case that after explaining the transfer process - if half of the people were interested it would grant the would and the rest would remain tenants of the City. On the issue of community residential units (CRU) and upgrading of property – the programme was new and provided for major upgrades of existing units and building of new rental stock, for example, the Scottsdene project. In the first phase of the system the City was doing 750 000 upgrades and the plan would last until 2015. The units that would have been upgraded could not be sold, and this was common in multi-story blocks which were problematic. The write-offs could be done only with prior arrangement with the City. The City had a number of policies that had been crafted to ensure fairness across the board and each of the 38 house estate offices adhered to the policies. The City considered eviction as the last resort in dealing with housing problems but in most instances people did not pay their arrears until the eviction date. In some instances the City did not tolerate a culture where tenants would put someone in a property on which they, the tenants, had an agreement on with the City while the other person was in unlawful occupation. The 179 units that had not been transferred could be for the people that were not interested in transfers or would be dealt with when the fund from the province was made available. Commenting on the Consolidated Bill she said the City had two separate accounts –the rental account would be dealt with by the City of Cape Town's Directorate: Human Settlements and the Cooperative finance would be responsible for the indigent grant.

The Chairperson said the Netreg issue would be solved through a coordinated effort including the City. As public representatives it was important for Members to see that the people of South Africa were empowered as this was one way of solving problems. The Councillors, Members of Parliament and the community forums needed to forge relations in order to articulate problems facing the people in Cape Town.

The meeting was adjourned.