KEY POINTS
- Activists challenge the sale of the Tafelberg site for social housing.
- The government argues financial constraints limit affordable housing projects.
- The Constitutional Court’s decision could reshape urban housing policies.
A long-standing legal battle over the Tafelberg site in Cape Town has once again taken center stage, with activists calling for affordable housing in the city’s center while the Western Cape government insists on using the land for educational purposes.
The case, brought before the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, saw housing advocacy groups Ndifuna Ukwazi (NU) and Reclaim the City (RTC) challenging the provincial government’s decision to sell the site to the Phyllis Jowell Jewish Day School for R135 million ($7.3 million).
The activists claim that the current sale maintains spatial separation because the state does not allocate valuable urban real estate for affordable housing opportunities.
They claim that the government has not built any affordable housing in central Cape Town since 1994. As a result, low-income residents have been forced out of the city.
Government defends decision to sell the property
Eduard Fagan, representing the Western Cape government, argued that officials thoroughly considered housing possibilities before selling the Tafelberg site. However, they ultimately found it financially unfeasible due to land-use limitations.
“The decision to dispose of the property was not taken lightly,” Fagan stated. “We examined all options, including social housing, before concluding that it would be more viable for educational use.”
According to IOL, the City of Cape Town also defended the sale, citing budget constraints and the challenges of purchasing land at market-related prices.
City lawyer Nazreen Bawa acknowledged the need to address spatial apartheid. However, she questioned whether the government should prioritize affordable housing in central Cape Town over other expanding areas.
Activists argue for social justice and fair land distribution
The activists strengthen their position, as they believe the government strategy violates constitutional principles and fails to fulfill the state’s responsibility to resolve past injustices.
The spokesperson for NU and RTC Coriaan De Villiers expressed concern about the provincial pattern of selling state-owned land which hinders the development of equal housing opportunities.
The Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (Seri) joined the case as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to support the activists’ stance. They argued that state land sales in choice locations produce more problems than solutions for South Africa’s housing emergency.
Brett Herron of the GOOD Party also supported the call for social housing. He stated that the government’s failure to develop affordable housing in well-located areas reinforces apartheid-era segregation policies.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment on the case, leaving the future of the Tafelberg site uncertain.
The ruling will set a precedent for future housing disputes and determine whether central Cape Town remains accessible for all.
