Charlene Houston argues the land and money planned for the Olympics could be put to better use
THE Development Action Group monitors the Olympic Bid because we work with poor people in Cape Town to address their housing needs and we are worried about the impact of the bid on the availability of well-located land for housing.
We are concerned particularly that the state will sell prime land at less than its market value for Olympic venues because it believes it is a good project.
We have asked the Bid company to explain why two large venues planned for construction if the bid is successful have been earmarked for private use after the Games. The Metro Entertainment Centre will be built on land currently owned by the central substructure and the Cape Town Exhibition Centre will be built on land owned by the South African Rail Commuter Corporation.
At least half of the funding for the construction of the exhibition centre will come from local government but will be in private hands after the Games. That site had been earmarked a few years ago for high- density housing close to the CBD. That struggle has been lost, but there is a possibility that land could still generate funds for low-cost housing.
We are also uncomfortable with the R86- million in government funds which will be spent on priority projects for the bid, money which will be used to build or upgrade sports facilities within the next few months. Can this spending be justified in the light of other priorities in the city?
There are still a substantial number of households in the city which do not have access to water and other basic facilities.
There are some facilities which are earmarked for upgrading. I have asked the Bid company to explain what is meant by upgrading. Does it mean an existing facility will be razed to the ground to make way for a facility earmarked for another sports code? Or does it mean the facility will be improved?
Who will foot the bill for the maintenance of facilities? Will rates increase? Will the government subsidise local authorities? These are all questions which remain unanswered and raise fears that there are hidden costs in the bid the public is not aware of.
Building begins in early 1997 and the Bid company has only been able to provide a guesstimate of construction costs and the value of the rand up until 2004.
It is difficult for us to monitor the bid effectively because we are unsure whether there is finality on where all the Olympic venues will be. All we know are the sites of the priority projects. We cannot measure impacts if we do not know where the venue will be. For instance, if there is a squatter settlement directly across the road from a proposed site, we would like to know what will happen to those people. Will pressure be put on the Department of Housing to upgrade their homes? Will they be relocated?
When we asked the Bid company for answers, we were told it was difficult to respond because they were working on getting the bid book completed on time. Then we were told they were under pressure to get the priority projects off the ground. Now we are told they are under pressure to prepare for the IOC’s visit.
We then sent our questions to the Cape Town city council’s bid team. We asked for the names of the streets where venues are to be erected. The answer was take a handful of confetti and throw it over a map. Wherever it lands, it is possible there will be an Olympic site.
We also cannot understand why there is so little transparency from the government on why they decided to support the bid. The Development Bank of South Africa reported to Cabinet on its assessment of the economic benefits of hosting the Games and Cabinet’s decision seems to be based entirely on its report. But when we asked for a copy of the report, we were told it was a confidential Cabinet document.
The prospect of South Africa hosting the Olympic Games in 2004 presents Cape Town with an exciting challenge and a unique opportunity to accelerate reconstruction and development. The Development Action Group is concerned that these challenges are confronted in as transparent a manner as possible and with as much consultation with residents of the city as possible. We are not yet convinced this is being done.
— Charlene Houston is a researcher at the Development Action Group