EDITORIAL | City of Joburg needs to wake up and solve the issue of problem buildings

Access to equitable housing in the City of Johannesburg appears to be a complex matter as attaining the balance between lawfulness, human rights and available land for accommodation continues to be a struggle.

On Monday, a property developer gave an alarming testimony at the Usindiso Commission on how for 10 years they had accumulated debt as a result of struggling to evict illegal occupants from a building they had acquired for the purpose of establishing student accommodation.

The witness apportioned the blame on the City’s inability and incompetence in finding alternative accommodation for the occupants who at a later stage started a battle for ownership with the investment group — while inviting other illegal occupants who further encroached on the building and damaged it.

Often, the city's officials meant to enforce bylaws on illegal occupants blame the legal frameworks by courts that bar them from ejecting unlawful occupants from unsafe buildings without alternative accommodation. However, it is not enough for the city to hide behind the excuse that the courts, in the protection of the people, have on many occasions ordered that before occupants — legal or otherwise — are evicted, they should be provided with alternative accommodation.

In the 2008 monumental Constitutional Court judgment on the Olivia Road vs City of Johannesburg case brought by the city, an emphasis was made that in the cases, an approach that should take precedence is that “people must be treated as human beings”, thus rubber-stamping that occupants should not be denied a dignified existence or rendered homeless in the process of eviction.

This legal approach, however, though correct and sound in terms of guarding the rights of dwellers, has brought about a complication because as things stand, the city has little desirable and available land that is close enough for commuting and accessing the level of services a city life provides.

It does not help that Johannesburg is faced with an influx of people from across the country and foreign nationals, who too seek a place to call home. Dilapidated buildings remain a risk as the provision of accommodation is not on par with the demand, thus leading poor home seekers to opt for them.

Whatever the rationale for the stalling, the problem is not going to solve itself, as the blame keeps shifting. What is urgent is answering how best safe and conducive housing can be achieved and considering the potential impact of the continuation of the poor land and property tenure access on the city’s development and its people. What other strategies and mechanisms can be implemented to ensure low-income earners also have access to housing? What other legal framework can be introduced to prevent the problem of illegal occupants from putting their lives in danger?

In the Olivia Road case, the eviction application of the 400 occupants was brought by the city motivated by having identified that the building was unsafe and unhealthy. It remains their responsibility to eliminate “bad buildings” and protect people from potential harm, and it cannot be standard procedure that they leave the occupants to their own devices until such time when it becomes an emergency.

The courts are correct in considering what the repercussions of evictions are on those ejected, emphasising the role of the city in finding an amicable solution and putting human rights at the forefront. However, this stance is also prone to abuse as people might continue to occupy buildings that are death traps with the knowledge that they would not be easily removed.

Blaming court judgments and not finding solutions to the inner city housing problem is unacceptable. It was appalling that during the first part of the commission last year, city officials testified that they could not enter the Usindiso building as it was too unsafe when intending to enforce the many bylaws that were breached. Being intimidated by occupants is not reason enough to not properly manage a city and its people.

In light of last year’s findings of the Khampepe inquiry that the city should shoulder the responsibility for the loss of lives, that processes were flouted in converting the building into a residential building and that they should have taken more proactive steps, it remains questionable that the city is nowhere near solving the problem of the slum conditions people live in.

It keeps coming to light that they are not adhering to their mandates and responsibilities. The time to dilly-dally around the issue has passed, and serious undertakings should be made to keep people safe. The city should be accountable.