N2 Case Study Isandla

Open Society Foundation For South Africa

monograph* 11

*


monograph


Isandla Institute Open Society Foundation for South AfricaPO Box 12263 PO Box 23161Mill Street, Gardens 8010 Claremont 7735South Africa South AfricaEmail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]: www.isandla.org.za Website: www.osf.org.za

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

THE N2 GATEWAY PROJECT:FIASCO OR MODEL FOR FUTURE SOUTH AFRICAN CITIES?

ISANDLA INSTITUTE / OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION

About Development DialoguesDevelopment Dialogues is a joint initiative of Isandla Institute and the Open Society Foundation for

South Africa. The aim of the public dialogue series is to create a space for critical reflection and dialogueamong key development stakeholders in South Africa. In doing so, the organisers seek to make a (rathermodest) contribution to enhancing the quality of debate in the development sector. Through Develop-ment Dialogues, Isandla Institute and the Open Society Foundation intend to bring about creative and

constructive multi-stakeholder meeting opportunities that push stakeholders to think beyond the confinesof their immediate interests and theoretical paradigms.

This monograph captures the speakers’ inputs and discussions at the Development Dialogue on‘The N2 Gateway Project: Fiasco or Model for Future South African Cities?’, which took place on

19 July 2007 at the Centre for the Book in Cape Town.

Published in 2007

11

REFLECTIONS BYMXHANTI SIGCAWU

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

01

What we are doing in theN2 Gateway Project is to pilot anintegrated settlement where youwill not have areas designatedfor ‘blacks’, ‘coloureds’ or whites.

toilets for whites or toilets for blacks. Toilets arefor everyone. Each and everyone is free to walkwherever he wants to. This is the new South Africa.

While we are doing this, we have had attackson radio, in the newspapers, in the media wherepeople are challenging the expense of it. I canassure you, as the implementing agent of thisproject, that there is nothing wrong with theproject. Where you would have a problem is wherepolitics play a role in this project – that is whereyou start to have challenges.

Again, we are not developing a greenfieldssettlement on the N2. We are developing in areas,for example Joe Slovo, where people have torelocate because you cannot build on top ofinformal settlements and shacks. To do this, youhave to call a meeting, you have to negotiate, youhave to communicate, explain what is the benefitof this project to their lives. There are challengeswith people who are resisting to relocate, becausesome politicians would say to them “This is nottrue; it is not going to happen, so resist reloca-tion.” Those are the challenges that are reallyfacing this project. It is politics and not the police.

We are operating in the following areas onthe N2: Joe Slovo, Langa, New Rest and Boystownand Delft. Presently, the biggest challenge we have

ince March 2006 Thubelisha Homes is theimplementing agent of the N2 GatewayProject. Before that, this project was inthe hands of the City of Cape Town as

the implementing agent. It was structured with aMemorandum of Understanding signed by thepolitical heads of the three spheres of government:the Minister of Housing, the MEC for LocalGovernment and Housing and the then Mayor ofCape Town, Nomaindia Mfeketo. These three agreedthat each sphere would have a role to play in theN2 Gateway.

In 2004 our President indicated that themanner in which the state was building RDP houseswas totally unstructured. RDP units were being builtwhere you would not have areas reserved for kidsto play, for business to take place, for schools tobe located. The houses built for housing benefici-aries were 16 square metres. Then in 2004 therewas a decision to move towards integratedhuman settlements – the Breaking New Ground(BNG) policy, which seeks to improve the lives ofbeneficiaries. This also included the need toimprove on housing and build quality houses forour beneficiaries. The BNG house we are talkingabout presently is a 40sq metre house with twobedrooms, an open lounge, a flushing toilet with abathroom or at times a shower. You are also givenan opportunity to install a geyser. It has electricity,water and so forth.

So basically what we are doing in the N2Gateway Project is to pilot an integrated settle-ment where you will not have areas designatedfor the so-called blacks, or so-called coloureds orwhites. We are putting everyone together andmerging the differences of the past. There are no

S


Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

Open Society Foundation For South Africa02

is that there is not enough land. When this projectwas initiated, the idea was to put up high risebuildings. But it became clear that to go up is tooexpensive. Therefore because of those financialimplications the plan was changed.

Beneficiaries are given two options: rental stockor bonded houses, also called ‘gap houses’, whichtarget households earning between R2 500 andR7 000 a month. Then there are also giveawayhouses for people earning from zero to R3 500 permonth.

Now, to come to Phase 1 of the project, wherewe are seriously always under attack: when weinherited the project Phase 1 in Joe Slovo wasbetween 80% and 90% complete. The contractorwas busy with the final touches – the windows,the floors – the structure was already completewhen we took this project. To our surprise, westarted to hear complaints from our tenants. Theywould say: “Look, there is a serious crack in myroom.” “When I open the tap I get hot waterinstead of cold water.” “When I flush the pipeburst.” You know all those challenges. We did notdispute those challenges. Instead, what we did wasto quickly inform our contractor to say “Come backmy brother; fix the mess because our people are

paying rent here and you do not want to see themleaving in a pigsty environment.” And as I amstanding here I can confidently say that all thathas been brought to our attention has beenattended to.

To report a problem related to Phase 1 youwould have to go to our caretakers. Our caretakersare on site. You refer to your case and say, “Look,this is the difficulty I have.” There is a 24-hour con-tractor who deals with issues and our contractorsdealing with structural defects are there on sitealso. So these problems arise almost every day.Tomorrow someone else will report something else.These are the day-to-day kind of defects that arenormally reported to us.

When our residents decided to take theirconcerns onto the street and to submit a memo-randum to the Minister, Thubelisha Homes as theimplementing agent was really shocked andsurprised because we do have the residents com-mittee and we strive to find out what is it that weare not doing to satisfy their needs and interests.

There are challenges withpeople who are resisting to

relocate, because somepoliticians would say to them

“It is not going to happen,so resist relocation.”

If you are not comfortablewith the rent that you arepaying, give us the space sothat we can move in thosewho can afford to pay.

What has come up is the question of rent. They aresaying the rent is too high. Before tenants movedinto the units, they were all interviewed. They wouldthen agree that “I am taking this unit, because Iwill be in a position to afford to pay” and that

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

person would then sign a contract with ThubelishaHomes. Now it is surprising when people now saythat they cannot the rent. The backlog that wehave for people who are still waiting to be housedin these areas is close to 8 000. What we are say-ing is that if you are not comfortable with the rentthat you are paying, give us the space so that wecan move in those who can afford to pay. It is assimple as that. We want to assist them. If they donot qualify or if they feel the rent is too much,

they must just leave. Again, some are in default. Ithink approximately 150 are in arrears. But if theycome to our offices to negotiate, they can makearrangements to pay. We are responsible and weunderstand.

But it has come to a situation where we willhave to take drastic measures against those whodo not meet the conditions agreed to. I think intime they will see the light.

03


Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

0806 Open Society Foundation For South Africa04

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

REFLECTIONS BYLIVINGSTONE HLAWULA

(with Luthando Ndabambi)

regard as stakeholders. The main thing was to sitdown and discuss, with the main objective to tryand get to a resolution regarding the problems thatwe are experiencing there. The speaker that hasjust left the platform, Mr Sigcawu, has alreadymentioned that there were meetings held betweenthe government officials, the tenants and also theagents, being Thubelisha Homes.

From the onset, people signed contracts –which most of them are saying they were not evengiven an opportunity to go through or to read –out of sheer desperation, because people wantedhouses. At the third workshop people were askedto sign the document, and the people signed thosedocuments. When they were signing the documentsthere were people who raised questions as to manyaspects that were appearing there. It was notThubelisha Homes that was there preparingpeople to get into those houses. It was anothercompany known as BKS. Then BKS would say“I have nothing to do with this; you betterapproach the company that will be taking overthe N2 Gateway which is Thubelisha Homes.”In other words, all those tenants at the N2Gateway, they had never met Thubelisha Homesat the crucial time of signing the contracts.

am from the N2 Gateway Residents Associa-tion. I am sure that this platform that I amstanding on today is not meant to be aboutpoint scoring for political gain. My understand-

ing is that all of us who are here are here becausewe need to reflect on the lessons learnt from theN2 Gateway Project. The N2 Gateway is said to bea pilot project, meaning that we need to deal withit with an open mind. We need to deal with it aspeople who are free to think and reason.

People out there probably think that thepeople of the N2 Gateway are unthankful peoplewho do not appreciate what the governmenthas done for them. But the truth is, we are veryappreciative of the fact that the government hascome up with something like the N2 Gateway.Otherwise most people, or those that are alreadythere, would not be having anything above theirheads or something to call a home. We know thesituation countrywide – that the people are reallydesperate for houses. It would be a miracle to thinkthat a project of this magnitude would be withoutteething problems. Definitely there ought to be some,but what is more important is how we addressthem if they crop up.

The teething problems that we have experiencedas tenants have been addressed to the necessaryorganisations or channels that are said to beresponsible for the N2 Gateway. We have engagedas many people as possible, those whom we

I

It would be a miracle tothink that a project of this

magnitude would be withoutteething problems.

People probably think thatthe people of the N2 Gatewayare unthankful people whodo not appreciate what thegovernment has donefor them.

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

05

Another company was there to see to the processof the signing of the contracts. We only heard ofThubelisha Homes when we had a problem withregard to the defects that were reportedly raisedtime and again.

The first problem that arose was that thepeople at the N2 Gateway had the same keys foreach and every house. That is problem number one.And when people said, “No, it cannot work outlike this; we need to call Thubelisha Homes – I meanthe people that are responsible – to come around”,the man that was tasked there to oversee theproject would not even answer the telephone callsfrom people asking him please come let us sit downand address this issue. The first time the man wasseen was when the committee decided to get ahigher authority involved in this – when they wentto the tribunal.

start looking for the members of the committee tosee if they cannot sort out this problem. And theypromised that they are going to meet the peopleat the N2 Gateway to sort out the problem or todiscuss the problems. We welcomed that. We askedthem: “Are you coming here because of what themedia is saying about you, or are you justgenuinely coming to address the issues that wereraised with you?” They could not answer thatquestion.

Now again, we told them these are theproblems that we are having. In that very sameweek or month the Provincial Minister of Housingcame with a high-powered delegation to investi-gate the problems that we had in the N2Gateway. He had some engineers with him. Weall walked around the buildings. He was shockedto see the cracks in some of the units, to see theleaks from the roofs in other ones. And he went onto a meeting and he admitted that there are prob-lems here, which need to be addressed. Wesuggested as a committee and the community thatwe have a committee composed of governmentoff ic ials, the N2 Gateway Committee andThubelisha Homes, so that we can jointly addressthese problems. We are aware the problems needto be addressed. It is not a matter of saying thatwe can wish them away. They will remain there.

Now instead of Thubelisha Homes honouringthose or agreeing to those, they agreed verballybut they did not make a follow up. They promisedthat every Monday Thubelisha Homes and thelocal committee would meet to discuss these things.And we had a list. The gentleman there, he had alist of all the problems that we voiced to him. Thenhe noted them down. He gave himself the time

People signed contractsout of sheer desperation,

because people wantedhouses.

At the tribunal it was the first time we saw thepeople from Thubelisha Homes coming in. And therethey admitted the defects that were reported.They said: “Yes, there are defects, there areproblems, but we are going to address them.” Itwas then that they started negotiating with thecommittee.

Mr Sigcawu is right when he says he tried tomeet the committee. But they only react – they arenot proactive. They only react when they hear thatthere is a problem through the press. They will then


Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

06

frames saying that all the problems that you havementioned here, they will be dealt with by 22 April,they will all be done. To date we are still talkingabout the problems. The problem of the keys asmentioned earlier is still there; the locks were neverchanged. We would not be here if those problemswere addressed.

There was a time when the media went downthere, SABC2 and other news media. They cameup with a story saying that there were defects.

actually asked Thubelisha Homes to come downand sit and discuss with us.

Also, the issue of rent came up. We are saying,with such defective houses, can you not reducethe rentals for now. And can you take into consid-eration the people that are staying here and lookat their financial background and status. Can younot just reduce the rent a little bit, because peopleare willing to pay rent. Everybody is prepared andwilling. But unfortunately, all this was just fallingon deaf ears. Instead, what we hear is the threatthat we will be evicted and that there are about8 000 people who are waiting outside. And thereis no future for our children. There are no schools,no pre-schools. There is no parking for cars. Thereis just nothing.

We are saying, with suchdefective houses, can you notreduce the rentals for now.

People at the N2 Gatewayhad the same keys for each

and every house … the lockswere never changed.

Some engineers who did not want to be namedconfirmed that it was true and that they havenoticed that there are defects. These defects areserious, to the extent that those houses will notstay up for the next five years. So those are theproblems that we face. And this is what we

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

07

REFLECTIONS BYMARK SWILLING

It is important to understand the N2 Gatewayin the context of the Western Cape housingcrisis, which was captured in the WesternCape’s Sustainable Human Settlement Strategy

released by the MEC for Local Government andHousing. The core thrust of this particular docu-ment is that the housing policy adopted after 1994,which provided essentially for a capital subsidy –a project linked capital subsidy for a fixed anddefined unit – suffered from a fundamental prob-lem: it underestimated the land crisis. This effec-tively meant that housing for the poor wasperipheralised, because that is where land wascheap – on the urban peripheries.

into the city using state land, formalisation ofbackyard shack dwellers, mixed housing develop-ment, social housing, rental housing, green fieldsdevelopment, and so on. This is all well and good.

Breaking New Ground also recognises thatl imited funds are avai lable to provincialgovernment in particular. With R800 000 to onebillion rand a year in housing subsidies available,is it possible to solve the problem with highquality services and housing units, costinganything between R35 000 and R75 000 a unit atdifferent levels? How are you going to be ableto solve the housing crisis? Or do you go widewith support infrastructure for incrementallyhousing people over time and build the capacityof families to take advantage of this capitalinvestment? Strategy veers to the latter. But it canonly work on one fundamental condition, namelythat there is a social process to build the capacityof households to respond, and take advantageof the inventions taken by the state. And thatin turn cannot happen by the state acting on itsown.

Housing policy adoptedafter 1994 suffered from a

fundamental problem: itunderestimated the land crisis.

Ten years of housing policy has had an extremelynegative effect, not just in maintaining theapartheid spatial framework, but also infundamentally undermining the householdeconomies of poor people, particularly in theCity of Cape Town. That was confirmed almostincontrovert ibly by research done by theDevelopment Action Group into the innerdynamics of household economies. When you thenask what the solutions are, one of the keysolutions according to Breaking New Ground is toget away from the one size fits all policy andrecognise a multiplicity of interventions in thehousing crisis: to upgrade, bringing the poor back

Ten years of housing policyhas maintained the apartheidspatial framework andfundamentally undermined thehousehold economies ofpoor people.


Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

Hence the strategy refers to the necessity for acompact with organised civil society such as theFederation of the Urban Poor and other widernetworks that have begun to evolve the socialtechnologies necessary to organise householdsaround savings, around negotiation and engage-ment to take advantage of the state interventionsthat create the framework for addressing thesechallenges. But that cannot happen if we continueto peripheralise housing and it cannot happen ifwe continue to treat people as things – as thingsto be relocated, or evicted, or instructed to inhabitfixed structures.

My comment in the light of this really difficultchallenge is that if you want to maximisebeneficiaries by going wide – and therefore thereis the necessity for coupling that to socialprocesses of organisation and mobilisation toempower civil society to take advantage of whatthe state is intervening to do – then the way to doit in my view is not to do it like the N2 Gatewayhas done it.

I think the N2 Gateway is a very good exampleof the two worlds of housing delivery that do notmeet. On the one hand, you have the world of thetechnocrats, which talks about space, land,planning, infrastructure, hard stuff, buildings thatcrack or cost certain amounts to rent and have tobe in certain places and if certain people are inthe wrong place, they have to be relocated. In theprocess, when people do not do what they aresupposed to do, then you blame politicians formanipulating them, as if people do not have theirown ability to read their own context and identifytheir own interests.

On the other hand, you have the world of the

small nitty-gritty everyday life of inhabiting a newsettlement, where doors do not lock or unlock,where water does not runs the way it is supposedto or walls are not correctly built or, more impor-tantly, when you simply want somebody to phoneand talk to in order to have an engagement aboutthe problems that you may have. If that does notwork out, when the small requests for smallengagements are not met, they turn into muchlarger interpretations of mala fides, or bad faith,or an almost conscious attempt to undermine,when in actual fact what is at stake is a processof accumulating inefficiencies.

There has to be a socialprocess to build the capacity ofhouseholds to respond and takeadvantage of the interventionstaken by the state. But thatcannot happen if we continueto treat people as things – asthings to be relocated, orevicted, or instructed to inhabitfixed structures.You then get into a situation that underminesthe most critical condition for implementinga strategy of going wide coupled to social mobili-sation, which is trust. Without trust, there isabsolutely no way that you can maximise theinterventions the state makes to facil itatesocial mobilisation and the mobilisation ofsocial resources to take advantage of what the

08

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

1109

The most criticalcondition for implementing

the housing strategy is trust.

In my view, the stories you hear today reflectthe two worlds that are going to make it extremelydifficult in the Cape Town context to build therelations of trust that are necessary to implementthe new housing vision. So what do you do aboutit? What you do is you create the table fornegotiation. And the only way you can createthe table for negotiation that works, is that youhave people who commit not to leave the tableuntil the problem is solved.

developmental state is doing. Without trust, yousimply reinforce preconceived assumption aboutthe mala fides and the supposed conspiracies outthere. Whether it is politicians telling people not torelocate, or whether it is people who simply donot understand, or housing officials who do notanswer their telephones.


Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

DISCUSSION

AFTER THE INPUTS, THE FLOOR WAS OPENFOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. ISSUESTHAT WERE RAISED INCLUDED:

• The discussion focuses on operational matters,rather than policy. We need to bear in mindthat the N2 Gateway is a national pilot projectand as such is an ongoing process of reflectionand learning.

• What is the nature of customer service offeredby Thubelisha Homes, and does it include acustomer service hotline?

• On the issue of rent, people pay differentamounts for rent for identical units and the renthad been increased after the workshops withpotential residents.

• The N2 Gateway Project has not taken heed ofthe lessons about social housing that manycountries have already learnt.

• The experimental nature of the developmentis inappropriate and impacts negatively onhousing recipients.

• There is a need to identify well-located land,particularly in the inner city of Cape Town, thatcould be transformed into social housing.

IN RESPONSE THE SPEAKERS MADE SOMECONCLUDING COMMENTS:

Xhanti SigcawuWe seem to be reducing this interesting topic bysimply focussing on what is happening in Joe Slovo,Phase 1. I wish that we had said: ‘Is Joe SlovoPhase 1 the right way to go or is it a fiasco?’Because if we are going to see the rental stock ofJoe Slovo Phase 1 as the N2 Gateway we are noton the right track.

At times it is surprising that people whom you

sit with to discuss issues that are facing both ofyou use other platforms as if one has said “I willno longer open the doors for negotiations.” Weare not here to point fingers at the tenants and Iwould really want to leave that and attend to otherissues, because it is not going to help us. But I canassure you that our doors are still open. We dohave contractors on site. We do have a managerresponsible for the rental stock. Al l theconcerns that our tenants have, have a place tobe discussed at, but not here. Because there willnot be any solutions here to the problems. Ourdoors are open. I am being honest. We still haveroom to discuss. We have never closed the roomfor discussion.

For people to say “I was desperate for a house”,means that they mislead government. They misleadpeople who were deployed to do government work.They are all desperate. Would you say: “I want todrive a limo, but now I cannot afford it.” That is noexcuse. Let us be honest and be realistic. If this ishow thing are going to be done, then it meansthat social housing will never be the way to gothroughout the world, not if people are going tosay “Yes, I will manage to pay rent” and at theend of the day they say “No, I did not read thecontract and things were not clear to me”.

When Thubelisha Homes inherited Phase 1, thatis Joe Slovo, the City of Cape Town structuralengineer gave a report to say these structures areintact. After the reported issues of defects, wedecided to appoint an independent consultant orstructural engineer who has come up with areport, which is there for public consumption. Weare not hiding anything. The structural engineer’sreport says that these structures do not have anyproblems. These are not the kind of structural

0806 Open Society Foundation For South Africa10

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

11

defects that mean we would have to demolishthose buildings. That is not the case. What we do,when you have reported a matter to our caretak-ers, is that we will go and fix your unit. After hav-ing fixed the unit a tenant is given a paper, whichI call a ‘happy letter’, to say that he is happy thedefects have been fixed in the unit.

We have found that other tenants who arepaying rent, who are about 80% of our tenantsthere, are comfortable with what is going on.We had hoped that the rental stock for the cheap-est unit was going to be R179. At the time of in-ception of the N2 Gateway, they had thought thateach unit would cost R80 000, or around that.But because of the monies that had to be spenton rehabilitation and so forth (bear in mind thatthat site was an informal settlement), expenses toput up structures escalated from what wasexpected. So before we could move in the tenantsit was clear that we could not go on with R179for the lowest and R600 for the most expensiveunit. Prices had to be revisited and the cheapestwas then R500 and the most expensive R1 050.And that is what people agreed to. Because youwould be interviewed, you would bring yourpayslip, questions would be asked and you wouldsay “these are the accounts that I pay”. Then atthe end of the day they would say you qualify forthis. Now, there are five people that are payingless. Those five are the people who were the first tomove in. Before we could take over from BKS, BKShad already signed contracts with them for therental of R179. We are rectifying that problem. Wehave never lied, even in our meetings. We knowabout and we are addressing it.

So all in all, I don’t want us to be trying tolook for fathers or mothers, who are people to talk

for us. We have our platform. These issues are notbeyond our control. Everything that has been raisedby our tenants is not beyond our control.

Lastly, when the learned professor there sayshis view is that as a solution to this we need tohave constant interactions with communities, wemust open a platform for negotiations and no oneleaves that platform until resolutions have beenreached, that is what we are doing. We negotiate,we sit and we talk. My colleagues here, especiallyfrom the Joe Slovo Phase 1, should come and sitwith us and they should raise their concerns sothat we discuss issues at home. You are Thubelishatenants and you have a contract with ThubelishaHomes, so my advice is, let’s go back home. Let’ssort out our internal problems ourselves and whenthey are beyond us, we can take them elsewhere.At this point in time I am not convinced that thoseissues are not attended to. And secondly, I wouldappreciate it if you would be honest and say thatyou have raised these issues and that these de-fects are attended to. So that people do not leavehere thinking that nothing has ever been attendedto. I am not saying when a defect has been fixed itmight not resurface. When that happens, bring itforward so that it is attended to – period.These are our tenants and the duty that I have asThubelisha Homes is to see to it that each andevery tenant pays rent.

Livingstone HlawulaI want to direct my comment to the speaker whosuggested that the government was misled by thetenants. That is not a true statement. I would rathersay that the Minister of Housing in the WesternCape misled the people. He said in the last meet-ing that we had with him that government is not


Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

12

in the business of doing business, and that the origi-nal rental prices would be between R168 and R590per month. When that was changed it was nevercommunicated with us.

Mr Sigcawu mentioned they are really surprised.We have been trying to hand over a memorandumto Minister Sisulu time and again, but there is noresponse. So it is not surprising to me that she isnot here. It is also not surprising that her seniorofficer is marching out of a meeting like this. Therewas a meeting where we asked her to come andmeet the tenants. I believe Mr Sigcawu was chair-ing that meeting. We gave them a memorandumand then the response from Thubelisha’s seniormanagement was simple and straightforward, say-ing that the Minister will never come here, and ifyou do not pay rent you will be out. That is whywe went public with our concerns, because wewanted to get her attention. If she thinks this is asolution, she can kick us out.

Mark SwillingJames Scott wrote a useful book called ‘Seeing likea state’. I think it is instructive in this discussion.Because what we have here is a typical exampleof what creates and destroys fast. Where an offi-cial would have a preconceived conception of whatcan and cannot be discussed in certain forums –whether these are operational matters that shouldnot be spoken about, or policy matters that shouldbe spoken about. So somebody outside of the con-text of the people living in the problem is nowdefining what is legitimate to be spoken about andwhat is illegitimate to be spoken about, which doesnot connect to the lived experience of people onthe ground. When you just replicate that day after

day on a bigger and bigger scale, you arrive at anexplanation for what I am hearing today – a break-down of trust.

If it was correct that ‘there is nothing wrongwith the project and we are negotiating and do-ing what we are supposed to be doing’, asThubelisha Homes is saying, there would not bethis breakdown of trust. So I cannot accept thatthere is a negotiating process that is workingeffectively here. Because then you would not havethis continuous kind of low intensity civil warbetween the community and state officials. So myargument would be that we as officials have tostop seeing like a state and start seeing thedynamics of the development process from thepoint of view of the community. And that meansactually taking the risk of not neatly demarcatingcertain forums where you can and cannot say cer-tain things. It also means getting into a culture oflistening rather than defensiveness, which alwaysdepends on a set of rules.

For example, there is a fascinating discussionabout the contract. The contract is signed and thenit is disputed by reference to context. On the onehand, Thubelisha Homes will talk about thecontext of the three workshops, and thereforedue process was followed. On the other hand, thepeople refer to desperation and the fact that theyrather take their chances of signing something thanrisk losing out by not signing at all. These are twocontexts, which reflect two completely differentrealities. In this particular case I would appeal tothe officials of Thubelisha Homes in particular tolisten, to actually get off the arrogance of the cer-tainty of rules and into the humility of the livedexperience of everyday life.

Dev

elop

men

t dia

logu

es: m

onog

raph

11

110707


19 JULY 2007

CENTRE FOR THE BOOK, CAPE TOWN

ABOUT THE PANEL:

Prince Xhanti Sigcawu is the Managing Director: N2 Gateway with Thubelisha Homes.

Livingstone Hlawula lives in Joe Slovo, the first area to be developed as part of the N2 GatewayProject. He is a committee member of the N2 Gateway Residents Association.

Mark Swilling is Professor in Sustainable Development Planning and Management, School ofPublic Management and Planning at the University of Stellenbosch. He also holds the position ofAcademic Director at the Sustainability Institute.


www.isandla.org.za

www.osf.org.za


Documents

N2 Case Study Isandla