Red Hill residents protested over the City’s demolition of shacks belonging to beneficiaries of the Dido Valley housing project.
Unfinished houses, unfair demolitions, and a lack of compassion for the moving process are just some of the gripes of a group of Red Hill residents following the relocation of 10 families to their new homes in Dido Valley earlier this month.
The Dido Valley housing project in Simon’s Town is a flagship restitution project and will benefit 600 beneficiaries and their families.
The majority of beneficiaries are from the Red Hill informal settlement and 500 of the Breaking New Ground (BNG) state-subsidised houses have been allocated to them while 100 of the 600 houses form part of land-restitution claims from Luyolo, a former Simon’s Town settlement, (“Beneficiaries get keys to Dido Valley houses,” Echo May 25).
A small group of residents gathered in protest on Wednesday May 24 demanding that the City stop demolishing the shacks of the beneficiaries who move to Dido Valley.
In a letter to the City, which was also sent to the Echo, residents claimed that the demolitions were leading to a “humanitarian disaster”.
They claimed that they had an agreement with the City that the main owner of a shack would move into their new house at Dido Valley while the shacks that continued to be used by any of that beneficiary’s tenants would remain on the property until suitable housing was found for them.
However, they say following the relocation of 10 families to Dido Valley, the City changed its agreement without any written notification.
The letter states that the City informed them verbally that the shacks of boarders would be demolished at the same time as the main structure as soon as the beneficiary moved out and that the boarders were expected to relocate to Dido Valley with the owner of the main house.
The residents say that many of the boarders were not relatives of the beneficiaries and therefore should not have to move with them.
“This will result in many families being left homeless in Red Hill. The residents of Red Hill refuse to allow access to their shacks until a resolution has been found to the humanitarian issues and the human rights violations,” the letter stated.
They also expressed their dissatisfaction with what they claimed were “unfinished houses” that had no carpets, kitchen units, or electricity when residents moved in.
In a statement, the City said it was understandable that beneficiaries might feel distressed when they saw the demolition of their old homes, but those shacks had been replaced by new, high-quality brick houses that were connected, free of charge, to full water and sanitation, and electricity services.
“The demolition of structures is not a simple task, as structures often share roofs or supporting walls, and demolition of one part may lead to the rest collapsing. Where structures have been found to be attached, relocations have been delayed until issues around boarders can be resolved,” the statement said.
The City said it was accelerating subsidy housing applications for the boarders of beneficiaries to determine if they qualified for subsidy housing, but the boarders were ultimately the responsibility of the owners of the primary structures and that message had been communicated to the community over the course of the project.
The City said one of the aims of the Dido Valley housing project is to clear the Red Hill settlement and shacks were only demolished when households had a formal house in Dido Valley ready for occupation.
The City said electricity could not be connected on May 17 for the first relocations due to a technical glitch but it had been connected two days later.
It said the houses all complied with minimum standards, and with the requirements of the national subsidy allocation.
“Dido Valley is a subsidised housing project, and the programme intends to provide a basic but quality formal housing opportunity to qualifying beneficiaries and minimum standards do not include geysers, flooring, or kitchen units (other than a basin cupboard). These standards are set by national government policy and are not determined by the City or the project team.”