Reclaim the City activists seen outside the Western Cape High Court where the Tafelberg site case is being heard. Picture: Marvin Charles/Cape Argus Reclaim the City activists seen outside the Western Cape High Court where the Tafelberg site case is being heard. Picture: Marvin Charles/Cape Argus
Cape Town – The Western Cape government’s stance on affordable housing in the inner city was lambasted in the Western Cape High Court yesterday, with lawyers for social housing groups arguing that the controversial Tafelberg site sale was based on short-term capital injection.
The case sees housing activists from Reclaim the City and Ndifuna Ukwazi challenging the decision by the provincial government to sell the well-located property to Phyllis Jowell Jewish Day School for R135million.
The Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA) and Equal Education have entered the matter as friends of the court.
Advocate Ismail Jaime, for the national Department of Human Settlements, argued that all three spheres of government shared the responsibility to provide housing.
“The sale of Tafelberg could not be considered an ordinary sale. You don’t get over 4 000 public submissions on an ordinary sale.
“You don’t have two provincial Cabinet meetings to make the decision to sell land if it’s an ordinary sale,” argued Jamie.
He further charged that the province’s argument that it had exclusive executive powers to sell Tafelberg and that the Department of Human Settlements couldn’t interfere was wrong.
Jamie said the province’s decision was based on a short-term capital injection. SHRA advocate Emma Webber argued for the sale to be set aside.
Advocate Janice Bleazard for Equal Education submitted statements from principals of 13 public schools in central Cape Town confirming that between 60 and 95% of their pupils commuted from townships and the Cape Flats.
She argued that the City and province’s alleged failure to pursue spatial justice was a breach of their constitutional and statutory obligations, and also infringed on pupils’ rights.
Advocate Eduard Fagan SC, for the province, argued that the sale of Tafelberg was to raise funds for the Provincial Education Department to build a head office, as the department was leasing space at a cost of about R102m a year.
“There exists no constitutional or legal provision that requires it to provide social housing in central Cape Town, and no provision that requires it to provide social housing at a specific site, especially Tafelberg.
“The Western Cape government has a set budget in which it attempts to fulfil its other constitutional obligations and in order to provide social housing.
“Funds would need to be sourced from somewhere else, at the cost of fulfilling its other obligations,” he argued.
Fagan said the applicants’
argument that the Tafelberg site was suitable for social housing was incorrect as the land was suboptimal and half of the 1.7 hectares would be preserved for heritage purposes.
He argued that social housing should be developed where the most possible units could be provided within budget.