Sunday, May 21, 2017

Helen Zille responds to Sheila Madikane’s open letter

“We regard the provision of more affordable housing on well-located land a top priority for our government”

By Helen Zille
22 May 2017
Graphic of future development at Conradie Hospital
Artist’s impression of the future Old <span style="display:none"></span>Conradie Hospital Development in Pinelands. Source: <a href="http://www.pinelandsdirectory.co.za/content/live/articles/Conradie%20BLM%20Presentation%20-%20Focus%20Group%20-%2023%20June%202016%20-%20Final.pdf">Western Cape Government</a>
Dear Ms Madikane,
Thank you for putting your story in writing to me, through an open letter published in GroundUp.
We have indeed met and spoken on several occasions, about the growing demand for housing and access to land in Cape Town, and about your personal struggles in particular.

Let me deal with the broader picture first. As you are aware, more and more people want to live in Cape Town. They are coming here from all parts of the country, and beyond. Many can afford to buy homes, and pay their rates and service charges to the City. Many others are indigent, and depend on local and provincial government to provide services – from water and electricity to health and education.

Because of the way funds are allocated from the central government, the money to provide services to many people in Cape Town still goes to the provinces they came from, rather than to the Western Cape. We have to wait till after the next census for this to change. This is one of the reasons that our budgets cannot keep pace with the growing demand. For example, since the last census in 2011, the number of children in our Khayelitsha schools has grown by 30%, but we haven’t received the money we need to support them from the central government tax pool. It is very difficult to keep improving education standards in these circumstances, but we are doing so.

The struggle for access to land and housing is equally intense, leading to conflicts in many parts of the City within and between poor communities. We spend a lot of time trying to mediate these conflicts which often delay our housing programmes for many years – making the situation worse.
The many middle-class and wealthy people who come to Cape Town have a much easier time than poor people, but they also face challenges. The main one is rapidly rising property prices due to growing demand. Properties on the Atlantic seaboard, including Sea Point (for example), have become unaffordable for most people for the same reasons you like living there: safety, access to facilities, proximity to the City, and the beautiful natural surroundings. You will remember that, not too long ago, Sea Point was a suburb in decline, together with the central City, and it took a lot of hard work by many people – councillors, the community, businesses, and the metro police – to turn things around. We are undertaking similar initiatives in many other parts of Cape Town, with different levels of success. The most important success factor is a committed community who take personal responsibility for improving their area.

Wherever we succeed in bringing down crime and grime, property prices rise. That is a sign of success, but it also brings its own problems. One is that it becomes more and more difficult for people (especially working people) to find affordable accommodation in well-located areas, often near to where they work. This is a problem successful cities face all over the world.

We are very aware of this. I consider it so important to address this problem, that I have turned our attempt to find a workable solution into a “game changer” in our provincial government. That means we have a special management team that is working on implementing a new strategy to increase the affordability of housing on well-located land. I follow their progress closely.

As you know, our first project is on the Provincial Government’s 22 hectare Conradie site, conveniently located in Pinelands, a suburb you also know, because you also used to work there.
I have told you how difficult this challenge is. You have on previous occasions asked me why it is so hard.

I replied that we have to work within the Constitution, the law, and many different regulations as well as tight budget constraints. This means we have to be rational and fair, and we cannot take arbitrary decisions or give some people greater benefits, funded by the state, than others in similar circumstances. We have to make the project viable and sustainable, so that we can repeat it for other people in other places, on the basis of the funding we have.

Because of the huge demand for housing, the national government has developed a subsidy system, so that the state can assist poor families to get access to housing. The subsidy falls into different categories, with greater support for indigent families (the RDP or BNG house, as it is known). People who are poor, but not indigent, are eligible for other forms of subsidy to make housing more affordable. The Social Housing Act is a relative newcomer to the government’s suite of interventions, which also seeks to integrate neighbours, something we strongly support and are trying to implement. Here again, the price of property in Cape Town makes affordability a major challenge.

It is a complex system, worked out on the basis of different income categories, for various forms of housing assistance (including rental and purchase). The highest available direct subsidy is R160,000 (which includes a house and services for indigent families).

Despite the billions of Rand allocated to these subsidies, demand outstrips supply by a considerable margin, which is why we have to maintain a database, ordered by date and area, to manage access to scarce housing resources equitably. We refer to this as the “waiting list” and we try to allocate opportunities transparently and fairly, otherwise the process generates terrible conflict, as we have often experienced in the past.

We also have to work within tight budget constraints. State subsidies are not enough (by a wide margin) to make housing in well-located suburbs affordable for working people. So we have to find models that will enable the private sector to cross-subsidise housing. To make this work we need a large site, on which we can build apartments for the open market that can cross subsidise the more affordable units. Providing space for business investment also helps to cross-subsidise housing units. This means the larger the site, the more affordable we can make some of the units. Even then, the margins are very tight.

The Conradie site is 22 hectares in size. The portion of the Tafelberg site in Sea Point that would be available for housing development is just 1.1- hectares in size. According to our assessment of the financial modelling, it does not adequately meet the criteria necessary for sustainable affordability.
For this and other reasons which have been well covered in the media, we decided to sell that site on the open market in order to retain its use as an independent school, for which there is demand in the area.

The money from this sale has been earmarked to relocate the education department head office in its own building, to save tens of millions of Rand a year that we spend on our current unsuitable rented premises.

These are the kind of decisions governments have to take – how to use their resources optimally to achieve the best results on the basis of a huge demand for services.

There are other very well located (and much bigger) sites than Tafelberg in the central city, such as the Somerset Hospital Site and the Woodstock Hospital site, that we plan to use in exactly the same way as Conradie, and we have begun work on this. It takes time, because of all the legal processes we have to go through. But I am driving it from my office.

Now that I have given you the broader picture, let me address your personal circumstances. I asked you whether you had placed your name on a housing waiting list, and you said yes, – as far back as 1999. I tracked your name to the housing database in Worcester, which records that you registered your name for a house there, in that year. I was puzzled as to why you put your name on the Worcester database, and not the Cape Town database, since you have been here since 1987.
The Breede Valley (Worcester) council informs me that they had tried to contact you, but the phone number you gave no longer worked, and you had not updated your details. They asked me to get your updated details urgently for a new project allocation. I presume you would, however, not be interested in a house there. Please let me know urgently if I am wrong.

You have not registered at all on the Cape Town database, so you could not be considered for state-subsidised accommodation in the City, because there are so many people ahead of you in the queue. I’m sure you understand that this is the only way we can run a fair system.

You are now occupying a room in the Helen Bowden nurses home on the Somerset Hospital site – which is one of the properties we want to develop on the cross subsidisation model so that some of the units are affordable to working people, without going beyond what the state subsidy allows.
You have told me you do not necessarily want the flat you are living in to be redeveloped. All you would like is some routine maintenance and the reconnection of services, for you to continue living there. Yet that would still be unfair because even without re-development, those units are worth millions of Rands each in that prime location, between the stadium and the Waterfront. This means that if we allocated the unit to you, and even if you paid a modest rental, you would be getting a huge state-subsidised benefit that hundreds of thousands of other applicants would want to claim too, when the opportunity becomes available. What we cannot do is allow people to claim a massive state subsidy by illegal occupation, all the more so if they are not even on the waiting list.

I am sure you realise that allocating that flat to you would never pass the constitutional test of equity or rationality, and would create tremendous conflict. It would start a scramble across the City to occupy property wherever people wish to do so, which would create massive conflict, and be disastrous for the economy and for jobs – which is the main reason most people come to Cape Town in the first place.

You live with your three daughters (who attend/ed school in Sea Point) and one grandchild. I am very pleased they received (or are receiving or will receive) good education and health care. I trust that their fathers are contributing to the costs of raising them. You will appreciate that it is impossible for the state (with a limited and shrinking tax base) to routinely pick up responsibilities that must be shared by individuals.

The Provincial government has a duty to make education and health care for your family available and affordable, and the City does the same for basic services. But the state cannot provide affordable housing to everyone who wants it in the location of their choice. As hard as that may be to hear, it is the truth. And anyone who promises you anything else, is misleading you.

We nevertheless regard the provision of more affordable housing on well-located land as a top priority for our government, and we are forging ahead with our 3,600 unit pilot project in Conradie to test the limits of affordability. When people illegally occupy the sites where we want to extend this model, they delay the roll-out of the project and undermine the rights of people who have patiently been waiting, sometimes for decades, on the database for the allocation of a housing opportunity.

You have said you are taking your stand in order to help others. I accept that. The best way of doing so is to facilitate, rather than block, the project that seeks to achieve this.
Helen Zille is the Premier of the Western Cape Province. 


Published originally on GroundUp .

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Apostle, prophet… says who?

Pastors I understand; Reverend’s I also get – both these are religious occupations that takes years of study before they are deemed capable to minister. I also wholly acknowledge that there are only a very few legitimate apostles, evangelists and prophets worldwide that really do have a calling and gift from God.

What does concern me are the multitude of so-called ‘holy’ men and women who decide to call themselves apostles, prophets and evangelists… These are the dangerous ones as it’s all about their own fame, personal wealth and ‘ignorant’ followers than actually building a church of God. Yes they talk the talk and supposedly put on a perfectly believable act in front of their congregation, but behind the scenes they are anything but holy! And all they want is more of your money!

Prophetic ministry should bring positive change and hope – not cans of Doom insect killer! How desperate can people really become? How delusional must you be to believe being sprayed with insect poison in your face will heal your woes?

How many ‘holy’ men and women have been caught stealing millions from their congregation! Having affairs, caught with drugs, mixing it up with prostitutes, and selling so-called ‘healing’ gimmicks to millions that fall for their scams!

I believe it’s time to start changing the law so these ‘false prophets’ can no longer do business. And do not even get me started on traditional ‘healers’ and witchdoctors! The newspapers on online media are full of their scams, hoaxes and fake spells that involve millions of Rands!
Source
 

Land audits to determine who owns SA

Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti says there is a need to conduct a land audit in terms of race, gender and nationality to determine who owns land in South Africa.
The Minister said this when debating on the department’s Budget Vote at the National Assembly on Friday.

He said land ownership was one of the reasons that stood in the way of radical socio-economic transformation.

“Our biggest challenge remains the answer to the question – who owns South Africa?
“In terms of phase one of our land audit, it became clear that we still needed to conduct an audit in terms of land ownership by race, gender and nationality.

“We have just concluded the latter process,” the Minister said.
Minister Nkwinti said despite this, challenges remained because of gaps that are caused by absence of information in respect of institutions such as trusts, private and public organisations and companies, including sectional title holdings.

The information gap is caused by, among others, the absence of dynamic, interactive relationship between the National Geomatics Management System and the Deeds Registration system, the Minister said.

“We have projectised the land claims process. This was a strategic error, which did not take into account fiscal constraints, complexities associated with the verification or validation of claims, court challenges and internal capacity constraints.

“In terms of moving forward, we are working on transforming the Land Claims Commission into a Chapter 9 institution.

The National Geomatics Management System, Deeds Registries and Office of the Valuer-General will be listed as Schedule 2 entities in terms of the Public Finance Management Act,” he said.

Cabinet considering land audit Phase Two report to address challenges
Meanwhile, the Minister said a further challenge to land reform relates to water rights being allocated to individuals and not the land.

This means that when an individual sells the land, he or she leaves with the water rights, leaving the new owner with structural challenges.

“An audit needs to be conducted in respect of both these issues because they negatively impact on land reform farms.

“Although regulated by laws, compliance with an enforcement of such legislation needs to be strengthened.

“A lot is happening in these functions with minimal accountability,” he said.
The Minister said the second institutional challenge was that unless an owner expresses a need to change and submit information voluntarily, the current legal system is unable to compel them.
This leads to the owners deliberately withholding information about the changes of land.

“Cabinet is considering the report of Phase Two of the Land Audit and we are expecting strong decisions to address all these institutional challenges and the Land Commission provided for in the Regulation of Agricultural Land Bill will enforce disclosure of ownership of land and landed property,” the Minister said. – SAnews.gov.za

Inequality is getting worse, but fewer people than ever are aware of it



File 20170429 12994 16v4e2m

A snapshot of inequality in South Africa.



Inequality in America is on the rise. Income gains since the 1980s have been concentrated at the top. The top 10 percent today take home 30 percent of all income, and control over three-quarters of all wealth. We have returned to the level of income inequality that marked the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s. The Conversation

Who gets what in America continues to be impacted by a person’s race, gender and family resources. What’s striking, however, is how little people seem to notice.

Evidence from the International Social Survey Programme suggests that people increasingly think their society is a meritocracy – that success in school and business simply reflects hard work and talent. This belief is held most dearly by Americans, but citizens across the world are growing more convinced.



The data show a surprising pattern: The more unequal a society, the less likely its citizens are to notice. Paradoxically, citizens in some of the most unequal countries think theirs is the paragon of meritocracy. How can we explain this phenomenon?

Origins of inequality beliefs


In my dissertation research, I explored the idea that people’s beliefs originate in their childhood experiences.

My research suggests that people in more socioeconomically and racially diverse environments are more likely to appreciate how life outcomes are shaped by structural factors such as race and wealth – that is, the ways in which a person’s family wealth, gender or skin color may impact their chances of getting into college or finding employment.

However, increasing levels of income inequality and segregation mean that modern-day Americans are growing up in less economically diverse environments than in the 1970s. Consequently, people on either side of the income divide cannot see the breadth of the gap that separates their lives from those of others. As the gap grows wider, other people’s lives are harder to view. Rising inequality prevents people from seeing its full extent.



I asked 300 respondents in an online survey to explain why a person graduates from college or drops out; what makes for success at work; what keeps a person out of trouble; and what may land a person in jail.

People typically explained these outcomes in terms of meritocratic factors: Being smart gets you into college, working hard earns you a promotion and being polite to the police may save you from a speeding ticket. In the words of one respondent, “I think people are mostly capable of getting what they want out of life. If they don’t, they either didn’t try hard enough or are too lazy, unmotivated or whatever.”

But respondents were not blind to how structural factors can shape life outcomes. They recognized that some schools better prepare their students for college; that family contacts can help you get that good job or promotion; and that living in a poor neighborhood means you’re on the police radar. As one person put it, “I think that in a lot of cases, outcomes are determined by privilege and race… or a lack thereof.”

When I looked at respondents’ explanations in light of their own background, I discovered a telling relationship: People who grew up in more socioeconomically or racially diverse environments were more likely, by about 20 percent, to explain life outcomes in terms of structural factors. Conversely, people who grew up in homogeneously rich or white neighborhoods saw success in meritocratic terms.

Learning about inequality


To look more closely at how people learn about inequality, I studied a nationally representative sample of 14,000 students across 99 U.S. colleges. I asked students about racial inequality and meritocracy as freshmen, and then again in senior year. Would students grow more convinced about meritocracy over their college years, or did they come to understand inequality in structural terms?

About half of students held on to their original beliefs about inequality. Some 30 percent developed a structural understanding of inequality, while 20 percent came to see things more meritocratic. Their beliefs were shaped by three key factors: college setting, interactions with peers from different backgrounds, and their roommate in the dorms.

In racially homogeneous and exclusive college settings, students developed a more meritocratic view of inequality in the U.S.

Conversely, those who frequently interacted with students from another racial group became more concerned about racial and income inequality, and more critical of meritocracy. Students paired with a roommate of a different race also developed a better understanding of the structural sources of inequality.



Meritocracy, empathy and solidarity


My research suggests that how we see and explain inequality drives our empathy and solidarity with others. We feel for people who we understand are facing hardship by no fault of their own. We have less sympathy for those whose situation, we think, is caused by poor choices or a lack of effort.

As such, our beliefs about inequality are the starting point for our politics and our policy views on criminal justice, the welfare state and income redistribution.

If we want our young citizens to develop a better understanding of the world they live in, we need to create conditions for more interaction across socioeconomic and racial lines, at school, in college and in the neighborhoods where they grow up. We can do this by ensuring access to preschool for all income groups; stepping up the effort to desegregate public schools; and considering roommate assignment and other cost-free measures to increase diversity in college life.

It would take a major intervention to bring actual opportunities in line with the American Dream of social mobility. The next generation’s choices will shape tomorrow’s America. It is up to us, however, to decide what world this generation grows up in, and through what prism they come to see their society.

Jonathan J.B. Mijs, Assistant Professorial Research Fellow at London School of Economics and Fellow in Sociology, Harvard University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Friday, May 19, 2017

South African protesters echo a global cry: democracy isn't making people's lives better



File 20170516 11966 ti6qia

Recent violent protests in South Africa have refocused attention on the growing number of demonstrations over government failure to provide basic services, such as water and electricity. The country is known as the “protest capital of the world”. The Conversation

Research by the Centre for Social Change, University of Johannesburg seems to bear this out. Based on estimates from South African Police Service data, we found that between 1997 and 2013 there were an average of 900 community protests a year. In recent years the number has climbed to as high as 2,000 protests a year.

The situation in South Africa is not unique. Protests have been increasing globally, particularly since the 2008 global economic crisis.

In a new book, my colleagues from the Centre for Social Change and I attempt to understand South Africa as part of the global protest wave.

On the face of it, protests in South Africa look quite different. They tend to be fragmented and happen mostly in black townships and informal settlements. The occupation of central public spaces in towns and cities, as we are seeing in Venezuela, happens seldom.

While there are important differences there are also commonalities. Whether protests focus around the “1%” as they did during the Occupy movement or around the lack of service provision in townships, protesters around the world are critiquing the failure of a representative democracy to provide socio-economic equality.

Broken promises


South Africa’s governing ANC came into power in 1994 on the promise of a “better life for all”. There have been important gains, such as increasing access to electricity from 51% of the population in 1994 to 85% in 2012, but inequality remains endemic. Recent data from the World Bank confirms that South Africa remains one of the most unequal countries in the world.

As part of research by the Centre for Social Change we spoke to protesters all over the country. A new book from the centre highlights the extent to which protesters are raising not just concerns about the quality of service delivery but also about the quality of post-apartheid democracy. As Shirley Zwane, from Khayelitsha, near Cape Town, explains:

We don’t have democracy!… We [are] still struggling… you see if we are in democracy there’s no more shacks here… No more bucket system… we supposed to have roads, everything! A better education… There is a democracy?…. No, this is not a democracy! They have, these people in Constantia, Tableview, Parklands, they have a democracy, not for us!

For Shirley the quality of post-apartheid democracy is linked to the provision of basic services. She is not alone in this view.

Research by Afrobarometer has found that compared to other countries in the region South Africans are much more likely to emphasise the realisation of socio-economic outcomes as crucial to democracy. That South Africans should view housing and services as central to post-apartheid democracy is unsurprising given that apartheid systemically denied the majority of people these rights.

Crisis of affordability


Community protests are fundamentally about the exclusion from democracy experienced by many black working class citizens since the end of apartheid in 1994.

Although the provision of services to the previously marginalised black majority has increased substantially, black working class households face an increasing crisis of affordability.

In sectors covered by a minimum wage, the real median wage increased by 7.5% between 2011 and 2015. But last year inflation on an average working class food basket was 15% and certain staple foods, such as maize meal, increased by as much as 32%. This has put a real squeeze on working class households especially when, due to high levels unemployment, each black South African wage earner supports four people.

Structural challenges


The crisis of affordability facing black working class households also compounds the structural crisis within local government.

In South Africa local governments are responsible for delivering services. Over the past 15 years local municipalities have increasingly had to find ways to fund these services through their own tax base. Many have resorted to cost recovery measures, for example by introducing prepaid meters. Their introduction has been behind many protests.

The financial difficulties for local and provincial governments looks set to get worse. In the country’s latest budget the National Treasury cut their funding as part of R25 billion budget cuts. In the case of Gauteng, the scene of the most recent protests, this amounted to a R2.9 billion rand cut over three years.

To fill the gap, municipalities and provinces are going to have to look increasingly to their own tax base to fund service provision. A difficult prospect when slightly more than half the population survives on R779 or less a person a month.

A global crisis


As Professor Michael Burawoy argues in our new book, the nature of the crisis varies from country to country. In South Africa the crisis represents the forcible exclusion of many black working class households from democratic institutions, largely because of their inability to afford socio-economic goods. For instance, while access to electricity has increased, access is increasingly mediated by prepaid meters, therefore the ability to access service is inextricably linked to the ability to afford them.

It’s this exclusion that leads many to say that democracy is only for the rich. Globally, people are beginning to search for new solutions to these problems with many being drawn to left-wing movements and political parties, such as Podemos in Spain. Whether such a comparable movement can emerge in South Africa remains to be seen.

Carin Runciman, Senior Reseacher, Centre for Social Change, University of Johannesburg

This article was originally published on The Conversation.