Interventions

4.3.4.1 Interventions planned by the housing department

Officials explained that the housing department has three broad interventions when it comes to the provision of low income housing along the CoF. The first intervention is its mixed income housing approach which informs the conceptualisation of Greenfield developments.

The second intervention is the infill developments approach though only still being done on properties that the cities own. The third intervention is the development of transitional housing within the corridors.

65 The first approach is the mixed income housing programme approach which was described as an approach which “forms the basis of conceptualisation of most Greenfields projects, within the corridors”. In this approach the housing department works with ratios when providing housing, for instance 50% of the housing in the development would go to BNG/RDP, 25% goes to social housing/Rental units and 25% to bonded/FLISP housing.

These ratios are not set in stone they can change but what remains constant is that “the financial model has to work” and “as long as our product which is the BNG or subsidised housing is not a minority” (housing department interviewee, 2016).

The interviewed key official explained that the housing department‟s greenfield developments are packaged in the following way: The City puts in all the services in the site, does all the leg work by composing all the studies needed to make a site developable i.e.

Hydrology, toxicology, geotechnical etc. The city develops a conceptual design of how they would like to integrate the housing (ratios, how they relate to one another). They put out a call for proposals to formal private developers. The money the developers save from the services and studies already being done gets put back into the project in order to improve the RDP product (making it better & greater value) so the RDP product can be placed next to market housing and the developers are still able to sell them. This has happened at the housing department‟s South hills development which falls within the Turffontein corridor.

When the department does not own the land they get into partnerships. Similar process happens as the one mentioned above using similar ratios. Again, the department puts in services and does a lot of leg work so that the costs that the private developers save will be inserted back into the project augmenting the RDP product.

The second way in which the department is thinking about providing low income housing is to develop infill development in places where they own the property and the property allows like in Westbury. The department will be trying this for the first time as a trial case in a property it owns in Westbury. They will “look at the cost and look at how it works” so they can gauge how much this kind of development costs and what it takes to do this kind of development going forward into the future. For the official the aim of this approach is to intensify usage and increase densities on properties they already own in well located areas (i.e. the CoF). The departments anticipates that in the future they will be able to secure pieces of land along the CoF; seed them to developers for them to develop rental units which will have a percentage of housing department‟s products; and then transfer the products (RDP, social housing, etc.) that were developed by the developer to people who have been living in those areas for a long time (extended benefits programme).

66 The department‟s third approach to packaging housing development within the corridors is the provision of transitional housing. The City is looking at a containerised solution in providing this transitional housing. And they want these typologies to be along the CoF. The target market is for dissolute people with nowhere to go but they can only stay a maximum of a year. Official quoted as saying the reason for wanting to develop transitional housing is because:

“So, we would want to have a number of transitional type housing to be developed within the corridors to help us release buildings within the inner city” (Housing department Interviewee, 2016).

4.3.4.2 JOSHCO interventions

Besides committing 50%-70% of all their new development within the CoF area, JOSHCO plans to acquire buildings and land portions allocated along the CoF. The interviewed JOSHCO official said that existing buildings acquired are converted into residential units and rented out. Land portions are developed as Greenfield projects

4.3.4.3 Interventions by the Development planning department

Like the two other departments the development planning department is planning several interventions to compel the private sector to provide affordable housing along the CoF. Of the ways in which they plan to compel the private sector to provide affordable housing in all their future housing developments is by developing an inclusionary housing bill. Basically, the inclusionary housing bill is:

“a housing programme that requires developers to dedicate a certain percentage of new housing developments to low income and low middle income households at affordable housing cost” (COJ, 2016).

The currently proposed percentage in the SDF is 10%-30% (COJ, 2016) and this housing must be targeted to people earning R3500-R7500 per month (COJ, 2016)

To date there has not been much uptake from the private sector. Officials say this is because the current inclusionary housing policy was legislatively weak and thus provided ways for developers to get around having to provide inclusionary housing. Officials see this new bill which is currently being developed as a way to force developers to put in inclusionary housing because now the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) has legislated inclusionary housing.

67 Officials state that the proposed inclusionary housing bill has the potential to actually create inclusive environments where lower income residents can live in affluent areas. Though this expected benefit can only be realised if the bill works as its being currently envisioned in the SDF. The problem which I foresee with the inclusionary housing bill is that when the bill gets consulted with the private sector and amendments are made it will be a shell of how its currently being envisioned now thus only slightly benefiting the urban poor.

The second intervention is the intervention which the planning department is currently using to ensure low income housing in the CoF; the Land acquisition strategy. This strategy works, by the planning department identifying strategic land within the corridors; strategic is determined by whether these parcels of land are close to a BRT station or something functional like transit nodes, social infrastructure, major pedestrian movements or economic opportunities (planning department interviewee, 2016). After these pieces of strategic land are identified this information is sent to the Johannesburg Property Company (JPC), which acquires the land for them. They have capex (capital expenditure) put aside in the budget that is meant to make sure the City has the funds to acquire this land. So once this land is acquired using a willing buyer and willing seller basis it is then passed on to JOSCHO for them to develop social housing. Officials are of the view that if they own the land they have full control over the types of housing stock that gets developed on the land in this case affordable housing

When asked about problems they expecting with this strategy, officials mentioned that these pieces of land could be in more affluent areas or perceived affluent areas and thus the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) effect can affect the amount of housing stock they eventually put into the area. Also another challenge is that because they are working on a willing buyer and willing seller and they do not expropriate land, no matter how much value they place on a piece of land they will not be able to utilise it if the seller does not want to sell it. Though the city can expropriate land this is only done in exceptional occasions.