Cape Town's public land sales and proposed sales for affordable aka social housing in Lansdowne, Ottery, Rondebosch East, Mowbray, Woodstock (and elsewhere) is questionable. The city is discounting the price so developers can make the units affordable.
But neither they, developers nor media that enthusiastically report the city's announcements, define exactly what "affordable" is. And that's the problem.
First, is it legal under PFMA and MFMA for government entities to discount the value of assets to benefit essentially private sector interests? Sounds like something that happens at corrupt-ridden state enterprises.
As defined, affordable or social housing is for households earning up to R15,000 a month. Typically, land in Cape Town becomes available in middle class areas where it's relatively expensive. No-one, certainly not city or developers, are saying what the price of even the smallest units would be. A one-bed flat near the Lansdowne site is selling for R900,000, steep for the area that straddles the border of lower to middle middle class, but such is property in Cape Town.
The city will discount land prices (this benefits developers more than eventual unit owners) and stipulate developers ensure affordability, but it has no control over the cost of building - new build is more expensive than old stock - and capital and developers' required return on investment.
So I'm afraid the units shall not be cheap, or "affordable", for the claimed target low income market. I'd guess above R650,000 at the Lansdowne site based on a favourable interpretation of affordable, higher prices in Rondebosch East, Mowbray and other middle class areas. Parts of Ottery are like Lansdowne, others more modest.
The media are reporting Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis' and DA-run city's tendentious, mendacious promises as fact without interrogating the feasibility of such claims. The DA in the city are determinedly pro-development and every so often there's a row and court cases about inappropriate development. The Municipal Planning Tribunal rubber-stamps development decisions (I've seen examples) without investigating, or properly investigating, credible objections. River Club/Amazon and other sites were pushed through planning approval partly on the basis of purported affordable housing despite significant concerns.
Hill-Lewis et al might be well-meaning personally, but I suspect a bigger scam on the scale of River Club. What shall happen is once the development is complete, developers shall apply to the city for a waiver of the affordable housing condition claiming they could not meet it. And the unabashed pro-development city shall grant it. The development will be done, promises be damned. (Note there is no affordable housing at River Club.)
This is not even an original confidence bait-and-switch scam. It's literally been the plot of Hollywood movies. It's nothing more than populist promises like Gauteng's Panyaza Lesufi promising voters they they'd have access to private healthcare after the election if the ANC won.
Mayoral member for housing Carl Pophaim did not respond to my questions regarding the expected cost of such units. Since it's promised to be affordable ie cheap social housing, I'd like to buy one.
Comments
Post a Comment