Five key findings from the Constitutional Court's Tafelberg judgment

TheChamp said:
Looks like they were doing nothing and then they realised the courts were going to give them a smackdown and the scramble began, to pride yourself in the fact that you have done more in one term than you have for two terms simply means you were sleeping on the job during the past two terms.
Click to expand...
Or they ramped things up, can you show me where the benchmark is set elsewhere in SA ?
 
It seems there is a difference of opinion on what "low cost housing" is. Maybe we should clear that up first?
 
ghaye said:
Again, the ANC is very relevant in this thread. They are sitting on multiple options to relieve some of the burden on housing and their inaction has created a problem that local government now has to solve.
Click to expand...
You really cannot blame the ANC for everything. Especially not housing in Capetown when they aren't even involved.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Nah, not really an appeal type of material.

But this court judgement can and very likely will be used against the national government as well when it tries to offload valuable land.
Click to expand...
Well the judgement says that they need to present a comprehensive plan, this looks like a comprehensive plan.
 
rietrot said:
You really cannot blame the ANC for everything. Especially not housing in Capetown when they aren't even involved.
Click to expand...
You can still - when so much land in CT is being held by them (at a national government level.)

EDIT: And you can also look at the things that are still broken (rail, roads etc) and its easy to see who runs that and who is not fixing things.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
You really cannot blame the ANC for everything. Especially not housing in Capetown when they aren't even involved.
Click to expand...
Huh? They are and have been the National government since 1994. Their departments that should be doing this have done nothing, which part of that is confusing you?
 
Nerfherder said:
Well the judgement says that they need to present a comprehensive plan, this looks like a comprehensive plan.
Click to expand...

That part I would agree with...

But it would require proper co-ordination between spheres of government which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, so expect a consistent stalemate on this one and these empty properties to remain empty for decades to come.
 
ToxicBunny said:
That part I would agree with...

But it would require proper co-ordination between spheres of government which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, so expect a consistent stalemate on this one and these empty properties to remain empty for decades to come.
Click to expand...
Ya, looks like its heading that way. I doubt the Take Back The CIty bunch have a realistic plan so the property will just sit.
 
Nerfherder said:
Ya, looks like its heading that way. I doubt the Take Back The CIty bunch have a realistic plan so the property will just sit.
Click to expand...

Oh they'll have a plan that they think is realistic until the money is needed and then they'll be nowhere to be found and blame the city again anyway.
 
Nerfherder said:
WOW this is quite damning. If true then there must be an appeal on the way:

www.dailymaverick.co.za

Right of reply: Cape Town’s affordable housing progress is undeniable

Kevin Bloom’s report on the Constitutional Court judgment on the Tafelberg school sale distorts and omits essential context.…
www.dailymaverick.co.za www.dailymaverick.co.za




and
Click to expand...

This is part of an overall 12,000-unit pipeline, and is aside from projects already completed and tenanted, including the inner city’s Maitland Mews (204 units), Goodwood Station (more than 1,000 units) and Bothasig Gardens (more than 400 units).
Click to expand...

I'm just an economic refugee from the Eastern Cape, so could a true born Cape Town forum member please explain to me how Maitland, Goodwood and Bothasig or in the "inner city"?
 
Basic laws of economics' will prevail - you can fiddle with it in the short term but long term the market always win.

That housing will soon become prime housing and with it property tax that no one can afford on a workers wage, the schools in that area will be too expensive for ordinary people to send their children to.

Soon you will sell because you can make a lekker profit and move back to the suburbs / townships for affordability.
 
cr@zydude said:
I'm just an economic refugee from the Eastern Cape, so could a true born Cape Town forum member please explain to me how Maitland, Goodwood and Bothasig or in the "inner city"?
Click to expand...
I think its :

- Maitland mews, which is just outside the city, like Woodstock and Salt River, they call it Inner city and surrounds.
- Goodwood, which is not in the city but is on the railway lines so close with public transport
- Bothasig, also further out but also close to rail.

All where white areas in Apartheid.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Nah, not really an appeal type of material.

But this court judgement can and very likely will be used against the national government as well when it tries to offload valuable land.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to appeal, it was the constitutional court (then again, that didn't stop the Please Call Me guy).

It is a really stupid judgement because the court made up an entire new "right", which happens to be at 100% odds with economics.

[100] Spatial justice theory and the concept of “the right to the city” were introduced into section 26 jurisprudence by Thubakgale[129] and Commando.[130] As enunciated in the minority judgment in Thubakgale:

“The concept of the right to the city, first conceived by Lefebvre, is composed of claims to habitation (to live in the city), appropriation (to make use of the city) and participation (to help create the city), all of which are curtailed by spatial injustice. This is a useful lens through which the applicants’ housing needs may be viewed.”[131]

[101] The right to the city is a concept arising out of the intersection of a bundle of fundamental rights related to urban living. Most importantly, the concept shapes the right to adequate housing, moving it beyond merely access to shelter. It challenges traditional notions of urban development, calling for a transformative approach to spatial justice and a recognition of the lived experiences of marginalised communities.​
Click to expand...

Building social housing in a super rich area like sea point and maintaining it there, will require a colossal restriction of the individual rights of the people the housing is intended for. They can never have full ownership of it, because if they do, they will sell it. And there is no-way to ensure it doesn't just get sublet and turned into Airbnb anyway.
 
konfab said:
There is nothing to appeal, it was the constitutional court (then again, that didn't stop the Please Call Me guy).

It is a really stupid judgement because the court made up an entire new "right", which happens to be at 100% odds with economics.



Building social housing in a super rich area like sea point and maintaining it there, will require a colossal restriction of the individual rights of the people the housing is intended for. They can never have full ownership of it, because if they do, they will sell it. And there is no-way to ensure it doesn't just get sublet and turned into Airbnb anyway.
Click to expand...

Well you can ask for a recission of judgement which is kind of an "appeal", but yeah I know and I agree with you.

I'm not sure its an entirely new "right" per se, but its something that is being applied in way way too much of a narrow way in my opinion that as you say runs counter to economics, regardless of what the hippies would have everyone believe.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Well you can ask for a recission of judgement which is kind of an "appeal", but yeah I know and I agree with you.

I'm not sure its an entirely new "right" per se, but its something that is being applied in way way too much of a narrow way in my opinion that as you say runs counter to economics, regardless of what the hippies would have everyone believe.
Click to expand...
It is a new right.

1783427784175.png
That doesn't say: you have to have housing in a place that is close to work.
 
konfab said:
There is nothing to appeal, it was the constitutional court (then again, that didn't stop the Please Call Me guy).

It is a really stupid judgement because the court made up an entire new "right", which happens to be at 100% odds with economics.



Building social housing in a super rich area like sea point and maintaining it there, will require a colossal restriction of the individual rights of the people the housing is intended for. They can never have full ownership of it, because if they do, they will sell it. And there is no-way to ensure it doesn't just get sublet and turned into Airbnb anyway.
Click to expand...
Commie Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X