Moses Qomoyi
Right to Reply
It is not at all clear what Ted Baumann and Diana Mitlin are attempting to prove in “The unpleasant truth of housing delivery” (Letters, May 21 to 27).
Although their article appears to be intended as a critique of housing delivery, it develops into a general attack on South Africa’s post-apartheid political system, which is castigated as a “snob democracy”, and contains the bizarre assertion that “hundreds of local civic organisations and their vibrant networks were intentionally dismantled and converted into party branches for the African National Congress”.
Is this letter a serious contribution to the housing debate, or simply an excuse to lambast the government on the eve of the election?
It was never the government’s policy to attempt to produce housing on the scale so urgently needed without the participation of commercial developers, nor could any sane person seriously expect this. However, that does not mean that the People’s Housing Process was either an “afterthought” or a “smokescreen” for the Department of Housing’s mainstream system of delivery.
The figures for the People’s Housing Process subsidy approvals in the Eastern Cape support my argument, as does the fact that government policy dictates that every MEC for housing must set aside a portion of the provincial housing allocation for supporting the process.
The government explicitly acknowledges “experience has proved that if beneficiaries are given the chance either to build houses themselves or to organise the building of houses themselves, they can build better houses for less money”.
It is mischievous to give the impression that commercial developers were given carte blanche to design their own delivery process, although they were obviously stakeholders and included in the consultation process.
Controls are in place to regulate and dictate minimum sizes of houses. I refer Baumann and Mitlin to the newly released policy document entitled Norms and Standards.
Unfortunately, many service sites were already in existence when this government came to power in 1994. They were located according to the previous government’s ideas on the appropriate location for black people’s housing.
Money had been spent on their construction, and I would welcome any bright suggestions as to what should be done with them. Resources are surely too limited to simply ignore them and start from scratch elsewhere.
The following figures on People’s Housing Process projects in the Eastern Cape demonstrate that the provincial government takes the process seriously:
l Ikhwezi Kwanobuhle: 273 subsidies approved
l Sakhisizwe: 500
l Kwagunguluza: 745
l Masangwanaville: 396
l Seymour: 232
l Queenstown: 754
The following subsidies are approved subject to the availability of funds:
l Umtata/Waterfall Park: 450
l Riverside: 500
l Umzimkulu Extensions 5, 6 and 7: 709
l Idutywa: 412
The Department of Housing and Local Government in the Eastern Cape is running a joint programme with the Department of Labour and the People’s Housing Partnership Trust to train beneficiaries in a range of building skills.
These people are able not only to build houses for themselves and their communities, but also to acquire skills which will help them in future employment.
Another point worth mentioning is that, although the government’s rural housing policy has not yet been announced, we have been able to use the People’s Housing Process in those areas affected by the recent tornadoes to reconstruct their houses with a budget of R3,5-million.
The South African Homeless People’s Federation, which works closely with People’s Dialogue – where Baumann and Mitlin are employed as consultants – has been a major beneficiary of People’s Housing Process funds in the Eastern Cape. It was given R4,5-million, the equivalent of 583 housing subsidies, by the end of April 1999. In May the federation also claimed R500 000 from our department in Port Elizabeth, which will be paid within two weeks. For this year’s budget, an additional R3,4-million has been budgeted for the federation.
The federation was closely involved in the formulation of the People’s Housing Process policy, and I get the impression that Baumann’s and Mitlin’s article reflects the federation’s views.
I fail to understand why the federation believes it holds a monopoly on the People’s Housing Process. My impression is it is run by a bunch of idealistic middle- class do-gooders who have little understanding of the needs and aspirations of most black people. What were such people doing during the darkest days of apartheid?
It is surprising that People’s Dialogue finds it necessary to employ consultants, in view of the kind of fees such people invariably command. How many houses could have been built with the salaries of two consultants?
Moses Thembile Qomoyi is the provincial co-ordinator of the People’s Housing Process and Rural Housing Development in the Eastern Cape’s Department of Housing and Local Government.