Cape Town - Residents occupying the Prasa Central Line are demanding answers from the three spheres of government over the delays that have befallen the relocation of more than 1200 residents to the Philippi Horticultural area.
Hundreds of residents marched to the City on Thursday calling for an end to the blame game which they said has marred the planned relocation.
The City declined the Housing Development Agency Section 68 for Emergency Housing application as it was not compliant with Section 68, while HDA blames the City for delays saying it took four months before it was told that its application was unsuccessful.
The residents were scheduled to be relocated on November 30 after the three spheres of government and the affected communities of Langa, Philippi and Khayelitsha living on the rail network in September entered into a social compact which provided a framework to govern the relationship between the parties.
However, more than a week after the expected relocation the Langa community leader Xolisa Silimela said they were left with more questions as the residents were demanding answers.
Speaking on behalf of the communities Loyiso Nkohla said a response received from HDA suggested that the City was the obstacle.
Following mayoral committee member for human settlements Malusi Booi’s allegations that the national government didn’t have the money for the site and relocation, the residents want the agency to produce evidence of the land they bought.
They also want the City to apply for UISP/USDG grant funding while also suggesting that HDA must identify “virgin land” to avoid objections from surrounding communities and receiving communities.
Among the demands the residents want the president to declare the project a Cabinet project, involve National Treasury to finance it, and for the City to consider and include the project as part of its business plan/IDP for 2023/2024 for basic services.
The HDA failed to answer whether it had submitted an improved application to the City and whether it planned to approach the court for a new date as the set date had lapsed.
It also failed to clarify whether there were contingency plans to house the residents after the 180 days had lapsed, as Section 68 (1) envisages the relocation of persons temporarily only, up to a maximum of 180 days.
The City said HDA’s proposal did not indicate that the relocation was temporary. It further said there was no indication of how the provision of ongoing basic services would be financed on the relocation site.
The City said nothing prevented Prasa or the HDA from submitting a normal planning application for the City’s consideration under the Municipal Planning By-law.