Activists Concerned That Cape Town's 'Affordable' Housing Will Not Be Affordable

• The Constitutional Court ruled in July that Cape Town and the Western Cape government must provide well-located affordable housing to redress apartheid spatial planning.
• The City of Cape Town plans to develop approximately 28,400 'affordable' homes on public land, primarily through private developers, none of which are currently in the inner city.
• Housing activists are concerned these non-subsidized units, targeting households earning up to R34,800 monthly, will not serve the most vulnerable populations.
• Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre attorney Zamuxolo Gulwa warns that the broad income ceiling could limit social integration and long-term affordability, unlike state-subsidized social housing.
• Activists are demanding greater transparency on developer contracts, income bands, and long-term rental caps to ensure genuine affordability and prevent homes from entering the private market.

The core concern centers on whether the City's proposed non-subsidized 'affordable' housing will genuinely address the needs of those most impacted by historical injustices, or if it risks becoming inaccessible to its intended beneficiaries.

A landmark Constitutional Court ruling in July mandated that the City of Cape Town and the Western Cape government fulfill a constitutional obligation to rectify historical apartheid spatial planning by providing well-located affordable housing. This significant judgment in the *Cape Town affordable housing Tafelberg case* followed a decade-long advocacy effort by organizations like Reclaim the City and the Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre, pushing for accessible housing within the inner city.

In response to the apex court's directive, the City and Province submitted reports to the High Court on October 2, outlining their strategies for delivering affordable housing. While nearly 6,700 affordable housing units have been constructed across the metropolitan area to date, none are situated in the inner city. However, the City has plans for approximately 28,400 additional affordable homes on land it owns, which is slated for sale to private developers. These proposals have immediately drawn scrutiny from housing activists, who express significant doubts about whether these planned units will truly be affordable for the city's most vulnerable residents.

A central point of contention revolves around the critical distinction between state-subsidized social housing and the City's proposed non-subsidized 'affordable' housing. Social housing is specifically designed for households earning between R1,850 and R22,000 per month, with rental costs capped at R7,326 monthly to ensure accessibility. In contrast, the vast majority of the City's planned developments fall under the non-subsidized 'affordable' housing category, targeting households with incomes below R34,800 per month.

These non-subsidized projects involve selling state-owned land to private developers at a substantial discount. The condition for these sales is that the developments must include affordable housing units, which are cross-subsidized by market-rate apartments and commercial spaces. The City attributes this 'pivot' away from state-subsidized social housing to a lack of funding from the Social Housing Regulatory Authority, noting that no payments have been made to developments on City-released land since 2021.

Zamuxolo Gulwa, an attorney with the Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre and an applicant in the *Tafelberg Constitutional Court ruling*, has voiced serious concerns in an affidavit. Gulwa warns that the broad income ceiling of R34,800 for the City's planned affordable housing could inadvertently prioritize families at the higher end of this range. This approach, he argues, risks significantly limiting the social and economic integration of the Central Business District, thereby undermining the core objective of *apartheid spatial planning redress*.

Unlike social housing, where units must be allocated across the full income spectrum (R1,850 to R22,000) and rentals remain affordable for the project's entire lifespan, it remains unclear if similar stipulations will apply to the non-subsidized projects. Gulwa has pressed the City and Province to clarify whether they will establish specific income bands and rental caps for these units, beyond the R34,800 ceiling. Furthermore, activists demand to know how developers will be held accountable for adhering to these affordability commitments, not just at initial occupancy but for many years into the future. The core concern centers on whether the City's proposed non-subsidized 'affordable' housing will genuinely address the needs of those most impacted by historical injustices, or if it risks becoming inaccessible to its intended beneficiaries.

Activists assert that 'affordable housing delivered by private developers on state land is not a simple substitute for social housing,' highlighting a real danger that the multiple objectives of social housing could be diluted if projects are reclassified. They are seeking comprehensive information from both the Province and the City regarding their housing plans, including full disclosure of developer contracts, details of any financial or operational incentives provided to developers, and how rental units will be managed. They also demand clarity on the systems in place to monitor compliance and address any non-adherence.

Specifically, the applicants have requested access to the City's Council minutes and its agreements with developers. They also want to know if the City's 'pivot' to affordable housing will include permanent discounts on rates and service charges. Gulwa emphasizes that without explicit restrictions written into these deals, there is a risk that these homes could eventually enter the private property market, rendering them inaccessible to the original target groups. Furthermore, a tendency for developers receiving incentives to construct smaller units could disadvantage larger households, negatively impacting families and children. Lawyers advising developers or the City of Cape Town on housing projects must scrutinize the distinction between 'affordable' and 'social' housing, particularly regarding income bands, rental caps, and long-term affordability commitments, given the ongoing legal challenges and activist scrutiny following the *Tafelberg Constitutional Court ruling*.

Lawyers advising developers or the City of Cape Town on housing projects must scrutinize the distinction between 'affordable' and 'social' housing, particularly regarding income bands, rental caps, and long-term affordability commitments, given the ongoing legal challenges and activist scrutiny following the Tafelberg ruling. Compliance officers should monitor developer contracts and implementation plans to ensure they align with the constitutional duty to redress apartheid spatial planning and avoid future litigation.

Source: Original reporting via GroundUp