The proposed Amendment Bill for the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act must strike an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of occupiers and safeguarding public housing assets funded by taxpayers, says industry organisation the National Association of Social Housing Organisations (Nasho).

Nasho has called for the PIE Amendment Bill to provide stronger protections for publicly funded rental housing assets.

Among other proposals in its submission on the Amendment Bill, it has recommended that accredited social housing landlords be formally recognised within the legislation as key custodians of public housing assets.

In its submission, Nasho warned that building hijacking and organised rental boycotts pose a growing threat to the sustainability of publicly funded rental housing programmes.

It cites as an example the liquidation of Capital City Housing, which is the social housing institution responsible for the Aloe Ridge social housing development, in Pietermaritzburg.

The liquidation and collapse of the Aloe Ridge social housing project represents not only the failure of a single institution, but highlights growing risks facing South Africa’s Social Housing Programme.

The liquidation raises urgent questions about the country’s ability to protect publicly funded rental housing assets from unlawful occupation and organised nonpayment, Nasho says.

The liquidation of the institution follows years of challenges arising from the unlawful occupation of the Aloe Ridge social housing project – a 952-unit project built through public investment exceeding R220-million in 2014, of which 261 units were allegedly unlawfully occupied.

“This project was intended to provide affordable rental housing to qualifying low and moderate-income households. Instead, Aloe Ridge has become a stark example of how publicly funded housing assets can be rendered financially unsustainable when unlawful occupation becomes entrenched and lawful eviction orders cannot be effectively enforced,” says Nasho.

The collapse of Capital City Housing resulted in the loss of a social housing institution, the deterioration of a major public housing asset, and a reduction in the supply of affordable rental housing for current and future beneficiaries.

“Aloe Ridge demonstrates that building affordable housing is only one part of the solution. Public housing assets must also be protected and managed within a legal and enforcement framework that allows them to remain sustainable over the long term,” says Nasho GM Karabelo Pooe.

“Particularly concerning in the Aloe Ridge case is that an eviction order was obtained, but the unlawful occupation persisted. The case illustrates that legal remedies alone are insufficient, if there are no practical mechanisms to ensure that court orders can be implemented effectively and safely.”

There are several examples where social housing developers have experienced severe financial distress owing to prolonged unlawful occupation and organised non-payment campaigns, he says.

The Yeast City Housing, in the City of Tshwane, which developed the 733 residential unit Thembelihle Village social housing project using R150-million in government grants and loans in 2017, is another example, he says.

“South Africa cannot afford to lose publicly funded housing assets at a time when demand for affordable rental housing continues to grow. Every project that becomes financially unsustainable represents a loss, not only to the institution involved, but to the thousands of households who depend on these developments for safe, affordable accommodation.

“Nasho supports the objectives of the PIE Land Act Amendment Bill, but urges lawmakers to ensure that the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of occupiers and safeguarding public housing assets funded by taxpayers,” says Pooe.