Scottsdene self-help project dispute: briefing by Western Cape & City of Cape Town

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

26 October 2012
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

This was the third time the Committee was meeting on the Scottsdene project although this was the first time the MEC on Human Settlements was taking part. The Committee was originally approached in 2010 by the Kraaifontein Community and Economic Development Forum (KCEDEF) after which there was an oversight visit to the community. Since then the Committee had waited for local government elections to pass to give new councillors time to inform themselves on relevant community matters. Three spheres of government had been requested to come and report today – the national and provincial departments and the City of Cape Town. All levels of government seemed to be in agreement on the matters debated and were not far apart on issues. An alternate governing structure had been set up as there was a need to ensure broad community participation to overcome past problems of distribution. It was not a difficult issue to resolve but the Committee was surprised to find they were coming back to the same story over and over again and thus there was a clear need for the intervention of the political leadership to reach a solution.

The Provincial Department of Human Settlements was aware of the history around the project but it seemed that as time went by government had lost touch with the details. No one would be excluded from benefiting from the project in Scottsdene. Beneficiaries had no difference in opinion and areas for consideration included the type of development that was undertaken before 1994 which was different from the current development as people now qualified for free subsidies whereas before they had to apply for a loan. The provincial department had engaged with the city because people were complaining they had been left out. However, according to the city a complete list of people claiming to be overlooked was never furnished by the community. Together with beneficiaries, the city would verify with people who were overlooked, as they did not want to leave anyone out. This would be part of the way forward and would include checking if the affected people were part of a demand database. If they were not, there would be a need to convene a meeting with the community to verify whether these people were to be prioritised.

The current project involved 550 opportunities in Scottsdene and was looking at a mixed development for people earning above R3 500 per month. 1 500 people had been drawn from the list to fill in the subsidy form through the new Finance-Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP) but without a complete list the Province was not sure who should benefit. There was also a need to follow all policy guidelines that were in place to prevent loopholes and account for all those in need. A resolution was long overdue and it was unfortunate that it needed to come to the Committee before it came to the MEC, who had only learnt about this matter recently.

Members asked the Province for a timeline on the resolution of the project and the MEC hope it would be resolved by year end. Members of the Kraaifontein Community and Economic Development Forum (KCEDEF) expressed dissatisfaction with local councillors and the resolution process from which they had largely been excluded. It was hoped the MEC would include them in the negotiating process moving forward to a speedy resolution to their housing concerns.

Meeting report

Introduction by Committee Chairperson
The Chairperson noted this was the third time the Committee was meeting on the Scottsdene project although this was the first time the MEC was taking part. There had been good progress through the Province’s intervention. She apologised for rescheduling the meeting to Friday and noted the need to quickly resolve the critical matters facing Scottsdene.

The Committee was originally approached in 2010 by the Kraaifontein Community and Economic Development Forum (KCEDEF) after which there was an oversight visit to the community. Since then the Committee had waited for local government elections to pass to give new councillors time to inform themselves on relevant community matters. Three spheres of government had been requested to come and report today – the national and provincial departments and the City of Cape Town. All levels of government seemed to be in agreement over the matters debated and were not far apart on issues. An alternate governing structure had been set up as there was a need to ensure broad community participation to overcome past problems of distribution. It was not a difficult issue to resolve but the Committee was surprised to find they were coming back to the same story over and over again and thus there was a clear need for the intervention of the political leadership to reach a solution. The Committee and the government parties had managed to pursue the matter amicably and would decide together on what direction to follow. It was fundamental that the different spheres of government work together on the matter to come to a speedy resolution.

Western Cape MEC of Human Settlements comments
Mr Bonginkosi Madikizela, MEC, Provincial Department of Human Settlements, Western Cape, was aware of the history around the project but it seemed that as time went by government had lost touch with the details. No one would be excluded from benefiting from the project in Scottsdene. Beneficiaries had no difference in opinion and areas for consideration included the type of development that was undertaken before 1994 which was different from the current development as people now qualified for free subsidies whereas before they had to apply for a loan. The provincial department had engaged with the city because people were complaining they had been left out. However, according to the city a complete list of people claiming to be overlooked was never furnished by the community. Together with beneficiaries the city would verify with people who were overlooked as they did not want to leave anyone out. This would be part of the way forward and would include checking if affected people were part of a demand database. If they were not, there would be a need to convene a meeting with the community to verify whether these people were to be prioritised. The Province was here to account for the work that had been done already and the MEC felt strongly that there was no need to put the project on ice while this matter was being dealt with.

The current project involved 550 opportunities in Scottsdene and was looking at a mixed development for people earning above R3 500 per month. 1 500 people had been drawn from the list to fill in the subsidy form through the new Finance-Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP) but without a complete list the Province was not sure who should benefit. There was also a need to follow all policy guidelines that were in place to prevent loopholes and account for all those in need. A resolution was long overdue and it was unfortunate that it needed to come to the Committee before it came to the MEC, who had only learnt about this matter recently.

The Chairwoman agreed with the MEC that there was a need to ensure beneficiaries were correct. This would go far in living up to the expectations of concerned parties. The community did have a list and so it was good that the MEC was present to get the full information from community members. As well, Scottsdene City Councillors had all of this information even if it had not yet been forwarded to the MEC. The responsibility now lay with the Province.

Discussion
Ms M Mashishi (ANC) said she was pleased the MEC was finally here and the Committee would rely on his executive authority to conclude this issue. A timeframe moving forward was asked for.

Ms G Borman (ANC) said there had been a lot of positive input into the meeting however there was still a lengthy amount of time spent dealing with this issue. It seemed like there was such a simple process that should have happened around the beneficiary list and it was not understood how so much time could have passed without first verifying the beneficiary list. Could the MEC provide some idea of what the problems were relating to verification especially since these lists were available within the community? The timeframe was also important as the Committee would like to see this come off the agenda. The city had exciting plans but there was a need to come to a quick resolution.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) said although she was not on the Committee when the oversight visit was made to Scottsdene, the community’s story was clear. It was hoped the matter would soon be resolved because 2014 was approaching and this would bring new elections and Committees would change. As such, timeframes became important and schedules should be clarified. For example, by such and such a time we should be at this stage. There was a need to verify the list the MEC was going to work with and further verification with the community so it would be satisfied that the final list was authentic. The matter would be left largely at the MEC’s discretion but at some point the Committee would want another presentation or report before the end of next year.

Mr Madikizela said he was aware of divergent community dynamics where development was ongoing and it was commonplace to find different grouping that were in direct competition for government resources. The intention of the government was to unite people, not divide them, so in that regard there was a need to work collectively and in a way that was acceptable to the whole community. There must be general agreement on a way forward as the government could ill afford to politicise housing issues. The issue of the waiting list was understood and it was necessary to hand over houses to the older generation first as they had been waiting longest. The first priority however was to verify those people on the lists.

In terms of a timeframe, the MEC would be in constant interaction with the Chairperson but he did not want to put his ‘head on the block’. As these interactions would be ongoing, in the near future the MEC would give an indication as to where the process is in terms of progress. He would schedule another meeting for the provincial department to come back and make a further report.

Mr Ernest Sonnenberg, Mayoral Committee Member and Councillor, City of Cape Town, said that the city wanted to take these issues forward with the aim of a speedy resolution.

Ms Sindisiwe Ngxongo, Acting COO, National Department of Human Settlements, said it was the responsibility of the three spheres of government to get back to the people and provide them with what they deserved.

Mr Wilson Daniels, Kraaifontein Community and Economic Development Forum (KCEDEF), said that as a community there was a problem as KCEDEF did not have recognition and were referred to as a small grouping. KCEDEF had been present before the current councillor was elected. However, this new councillor now refused to acknowledge KCEDEF and the city said they did not have information on file; yet all the information they wanted was in their possession quoting various file numbers. The original files were in the city archives, and the city had the data on how many people were without housing. Simply there was no will to undo the wrong. KCEDEF had been running up and down but many years had passed without any meaningful resolution.

The Chairperson said the Portfolio Committee was very committed to making sure this issue was resolved. The fact that the MEC was in attendance was an indication of his commitment to take up the matter. However it should be realised that within government there were certain procedures that needed to be followed as a part of their constitutional mandate. This would help to ensure that no party would be left behind and until all possibilities were exhausted. The MEC had not been part of these discussions until now and the Committee could only call on him after exhausting discussions with the city. We must give the MEC our confidence as he was accountable to the citizens of this country. It was noted however that a relatively small issue such as this had now taken five years to deal with and it was still unresolved. To say people must go back and reapply would be unacceptable.

Ms Borman said the new governing structure was put in place but it could not move forward unless members from the Kraaifontein Community were included. The community was asking for confirmation that they would not be excluded.

The MEC responded that he could not promise that. It was believed that members of the community council had been democratically elected but that did not mean that group members here today could not take their concerns elsewhere to attempt to achieve satisfaction. And it did not mean their grievances would be ignored. The new governing structure was not intended as a gatekeeper to prevent people from taking part but the assumption was that these structures were democratically elected so the MEC could not impose his will on top of them.

Mr Leslie Siegemay, Kraaifontein Community and Economic Development Forum, thanked the MEC for his commitment but regarding a timeframe it had now been 26 years. Could the Kraaifontein Community have the extra mile from the MEC that the parties involved would finalise these agreements within the current project? The last development had begun in 1977 and there was a grave concern that if it was not completed this round the people waiting for homes could go another 26 years without.

The Chairperson said the MEC’s presence was enough to satisfy the Committee that he was committed to the resolution of the project.

The MEC said it was a personal intention that people who should be prioritised would be included in this current project. The assumption was that people in the room today were on the waiting list provided to the city. In the next two weeks the MEC would convene a meeting to verify the provincial department’s list against the city’s waiting list as there was an obvious need for a credible and complete list. The department would then take it from there but the MEC did want this issue to be resolved within this financial year despite only six weeks remaining before the end of year.

The meeting was adjourned.





Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: