Cape Town - In a David and Goliath battle, a Woodstock family have launched a constitutional challenge against the City for wanting to issue them with emergency housing kits as they face eviction from premises they have called home for 25 years.
The family are being represented by Urban Land Justice and advocacy NPO Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre (NU), which said the building was sold to a private developer.
In the application, the family are asking the court to declare the policy of issuing emergency housing materials without access to land unconstitutional and to direct the City, in collaboration with national and provincial governments, to investigate using vacant publicly owned buildings and land for emergency housing.
According to the NPO, since 1998 the family’s now deceased father had been the caretaker of the building, where he oversaw maintenance and security, and in exchange for his work he did not receive a salary but was granted permission by the previous owners to live on the property with his family.
NU said: “Because all the family members have low incomes and have no other housing alternatives, the City is constitutionally obliged to provide emergency accommodation in terms of the Emergency Housing Programme. The City is notoriously known for creating relocation camps in places like Wolwerivier, Blikkiesdorp and Kampies for evictees.
“The City has, however, revealed that all emergency accommodation is full and the only emergency support it can offer is building material, whereby the family have to find a willing landowner who will allow them to construct a shelter.”
Asked about the litigation, the City said: “The matter is currently pending before the Western Cape High Court, and as such the City of Cape Town will comment in more detail at a later stage. To note, the City’s offer of an emergency housing kit was followed by an offer from the owner of the unlawfully occupied building of either R100 000 or six months alternative accommodation in a different building in Woodstock. These offers have been rejected by the occupants.”
The family’s attorney, Jonty Cogger, said it was the state’s duty to prevent homelessness.
“We find the notion that evictees should fend for themselves in an emergency, by finding alternative private accommodation, the very antithesis of the state’s housing obligations. The essence of the state’s role in eviction crises is to step in and prevent homelessness. The fact that the City has shifted the onus back on to evictees truly shows that it is out of touch with the housing crisis and the impact of gentrification on the working poor,” said Cogger.
NU political organiser Buhle Booi said: “Shifting the burden of alternative accommodation back on to evictees perpetuates the notion that the state does not have land to accommodate the poor. Through our research we have ascertained that the state has a vast property portfolio of vacant and underutilised land. Land ultimately should be for the people – it should be utilised for its social value.”
Cape Times