April 3, 2006
By Neil Fraser
TWO Fridays ago the central city was again subjected to a security industry strike that, as in previous years, turned into a bloody battle with the city the major loser.
Surely, from past experience of gatherings of this particular industry, the powers that issue permission for the city to be used for demonstrations and marches would be justified in refusing further applications?
What are we trying to do? I wonder what the provincial government's attitude to such events will be if and when it creates its ill-conceived extended square for even bigger gatherings. The premier's claim that "such initiatives will restore the Johannesburg CBD's status as the preferred location for business" sounds like smoke and mirrors if the major activity the square will offer is near riots and irresponsible behaviour in the name of democracy.
The new mayoral committee was also announced just over a week ago - on Thursday, 23 March. It looks like the executive mayor has assembled a capable group around him. I am delighted that the urban planning and development aspect is clearly being beefed up but dismayed to see that there is no specific inner city appointee.
Inner city manager
I hear that the name of the new inner city manager will be announced next week - the person I understand to have been selected for this very strategic post is no stranger to the city and has a great deal of experience in aspects of city administration; and I think will prove to be a good manager, tough but fair. But it is the mayor's prerogative to announce names, not mine.
Tuesday's papers reported that, according to the latest edition of the Institute of Security Studies' SA Crime Quarterly "a mellowing society and better policing are bringing down rates of serious crimes" particularly in Johannesburg. A mellowing society?
Wednesday's edition of The Star newspaper covered the "new Europa" in an upbeat report on the transformation of this Hillbrow building from a hotel known for crime, drugs and prostitution to well-managed, spotless housing accommodation ranging from transitional housing to communal rooms and flats. Citichat provided a detailed overview of this project in December 2005, in "City must explore ways to house the poor".
The paper also covered the nomination of Sewafrica as a finalist in the Proudly South African Bridge Builder of the Year award for its unique development model. This has resulted in informal fashion designers being trained and entering the fashion industry with great success. I was at a meeting in Sewafrica on Friday and came away quite depressed at the appalling attitude of some property owners whose buildings are adjacent to the precinct.
While organisations such as Sewafrica and the City council show huge commitment in the upgrading of the precinct, including major investment, many owners allow their properties to deteriorate into disgusting slums because of a total lack of interest in upgrading the area, and nothing is done either to prevent this or to rectify it. They appear to wait for the inevitable rise in property values through everyone else's efforts on which they then capitalise.
It is ironic that just a few blocks from Sewafrica, an icon in the re-engineering of both the city and the fashion industry, we find a building owned by a neighbouring country which has stood vacant for years and has been allowed to degenerate into a totally unacceptable state. It is a total disgrace that we can allow an investment by a neighbouring country, many of whose citizens earn a living in our city, to deteriorate to this extent. I am sure that holdings by that country in their own cities are not neglected to the detriment of their environment.
Evictions
An article in
Business Day newspaper on Wednesday, 29 March confirmed that the City was to appeal the high court judgment preventing it from evicting residents of derelict buildings in the inner city without providing alternative accommodation within the inner city. I discussed the judgment earlier last month in
"Evictions - between a rock and a hard place".
The appeal challenges the court's judgment that basically overrides the requirements of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act and the Health Act to evict residents of a building when, in terms of these acts, the building is seen as a safety or health risk. The judge's comments were that no matter how "unsatisfactory their circumstances may be, the residents at least have secure shelter from the elements".
A bizarre and tragic twist was added to the evictions saga when it was learned that at about 1am that morning, a derelict building on the corner of Commissioner and Nugget streets had burnt down and 12 people had been killed. In addition, some 33 were hurt.
Executive Mayor Amos Masondo stated in regard to evictions that, "our aim is to improve the lives of our people, not allow them to live in indignity and danger" and that the court order made the work of the City very difficult. I am sure that all would agree with the mayor's sentiments in principle but must wonder how evicting people and leaving them on the city's streets is improving their lives.
This particular case complicates the issue further. According to media reports the building was not a residential building but illegally used for this purpose. It housed about 150 people who were mostly from Malawi and Zimbabwe. The exit was locked - illegally; the electricity had been disconnected, presumably by the owner of the building - illegally; and then a re-connection had been made by the residents - again illegally. The building had not been identified under the Better Buildings Programme. If it had been identified by the Inner City Task Force, as it should have been, why was action not taken previously against the owner or whoever may have been managing the building - legally or illegally?
The case is so full of illegalities and "should haves" that we will probably never get the full story, although one would hope that the South African Police Service will follow an appropriate charge against the owner or manager of the building. However, with previous police comments that illegal occupations of buildings are not its problem, even such a response is doubtful. It is interesting that in all the coverage in the media, no statements have been forthcoming from the police.
A rock and a hard place
So where does it leave us? Precisely where I suggested we were a few weeks ago - between a rock and a hard place. While many feel strongly that the solution lies in the provision of alternative accommodation, others point out that such a solution is impractical. The sheer numbers illegally and unsafely accommodated in the inner city make the provision of alternative accommodation problematic and unviable for the city.
This is further complicated by the fact that this city, probably more so than other South African cities, acts as a magnet because those seeking work view it as a mecca of employment opportunities - particularly in comparison to the areas they come from. And those areas are not only in South Africa, for the city is pulling literally millions of people from other African countries who enter the country and the city - legally and illegally.
Those who have been working at the forefront of the urban renewal programme recognise the need for ridding the city of its "sinkholes" for the damage they inflict on the city fabric and perceptions of it. However, there is also a growing concern that the City's policy of removal is not the correct path. The same concern is apparent in sections of the macro housing sector when the government talks of eliminating all squatter or informal settlements. Surely this, too, is impractical and we should rather be embarking on massive upgrading programmes in these areas.
I was talking to someone who has recently returned from a visit to Kenya and was particularly interested that he was forcibly struck by the fact that, notwithstanding many other problems, the rich and poor live cheek-by-jowl in their cities. If we were to plough money into improving the lives of those who are living in such terrible conditions in our cities, surely it would be a massive improvement not only to the quality of their accommodation but also to the quality of their lives, which, as the executive mayor points out, is one of the City's objectives? In addition, it would start to move us towards inclusionary housing, a target we fall far short of.
I certainly don't believe that I have the answers, but I believe that an honest, well-directed and facilitated workshop (not a talk shop) with some of our experts within and outside the City's administration as well as with those caught up in the struggle to survive, peppered with practical examples from other countries, would at least start moving us to a plan, which we actually lack. What about a donor agency or philanthropic society, or even our corporates, putting some money into financing just such a gathering?
Finally, for those who have been wondering about the status of the demolition of heritage buildings to make way for the provincial government precinct - I have just been advised that the appeal will be heard on Friday. I am also delighted to say that the City council has submitted a strong appeal against aspects of the provincial government's plans - one only wonders how the politics of this will be allowed to play out.
Ciao, Neil
Permission to use web site material
Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:
- Credit is given to either the "City of Johannesburg website
(www.joburg.org.za)" or to "Johannesburg News Agency
(www.joburg.org.za)";
- If the article is used online, a link is provided to the original
article on this website;
- The name of the article's author is acknowledged;
-
The webmaster is informed of how and where the material is used (fill
in this brief online form).
Johannesburg News Agency is operated by BIG Media at 011-484-1400 |
