Kevin Allan and Karen Heese

AS WITH any tragedy, the grim news of inner-city residents being killed by a fire in an illegally occupied workshop in Johannesburg poses the obvious question — who should have been responsible for the safety of the victims? Many would argue that the state (in this case the City of Johannesburg) should protect people working or living in such hazardous buildings.

But how should the City of Johannesburg have reacted in such a situation and, given the risk the building posed to the unfortunate residents, should the city not have acted to evict the occupants?

While many inner-city residents and human rights campaigners celebrated the recent ruling, by the High Court Judge Mahomed Jajbhay, that the city should find adequate alternative accommodation before evicting residents of "bad" inner-city buildings, the consequences of this ruling may be that similar incidents and losses will occur in future.

In mitigation of this risk, advocates for letting people live in "bad" buildings argue that the risks on the street, or even in informal settlements, outweigh those arising from the unsafe, even unacceptable, conditions of "bad" buildings.

The ideal long-term solution to unsafe housing lies in the provision of adequate housing stock and, even better, the popular local government goal of "sustainable human settlements" that support the development of prosperous communities. But there needs to be serious consideration as to the practical constraints to these aspirations, both on the demand and supply side.

A number of South African cities, including Johannesburg, in fact have an acceptable, even good, recent record in the delivery of housing. But their projects are rolled out in the face of almost unceasing demand — a consequence of the pull effect of economic hubs offering jobs and better lives, or just the perception thereof, for poorer neighbours in rural areas in SA and in the region. This is a phenomenon typical of any developing country.

Further, this demand should be understood as being specifically for the inner city — the centre of accessible economic opportunity for many migrants, with new housing projects typically being built some distance from the inner-city activity. Where new housing stock has been developed in cities, for instance in Newtown, Johannesburg, it is typically targeted at lower middle-class households, although some subsidies have been provided for poor households.

A second category of challenges surrounds the ability of local government to deliver housing — a supply-side issue. Strictly speaking, local government has not been mandated with housing as a constitu-tional competency — it is the responsibility of provincial government and even at this level, housing has generally proven to be one of the more difficult portfolios to manage.

Housing projects have typically proven difficult to implement — particularly, securing land and affordable, quality contractors for low-cost housing — issues the current property boom will exacerbate.

Notwithstanding the scale of these challenges, all South African cities have recognised the pivotal role of housing in upgrading, developing and sustaining their local economies, as well as increasing access to economic opportunities on an equitable basis. The strategic response has been to target slums in inner cities, create rental stock and roll out formal housing. At a practical level, this requires a complex series of sequenced projects which have not necessarily coincided.

In Johannesburg, in the context of much-needed inner-city regeneration, inner-city rental stock has arguably fallen short of the popular concept of "inclusionary housing" — providing housing for a range of income groups — with a focus on restoring the city’s inherent eco-nomic value, anchored by the emergence of middle class communities.

Judge Jajbhay’s ruling suggests that the impact of inner-city regeneration on the city’s housing policy is unconstitutional in not catering for the needs of the inner-city poor, but if this results in residents staying in unsafe buildings, is the city neglecting basic human rights to a safe environment? Where does this leave the city?

Judge Jajbhay ordered the implementation of a plan to deal with inner-city residents needing housing but can the inner city house all residents who wish to live in it? The very basis on which citizens are drawn to the inner city — its concentration and access to economic opportunities — gives rise to the harmful effect of slums on economic prospects, as well as the scale of potential negative consequences, especially with regard to health and safety.

For other residents, what are the costs of finding a solution, if at all possible, to inclusive inner-city housing needs in terms of basic service delivery to other areas of the city?

While the city is considering its legal options, the development dilemmas are profound and not easily negotiated — they require pragmatism, constitutional considerations and, most of all, humanity.

Kevin Allan is a local government consultant and was previously special adviser to the provincial and local government minister. Karen Heese is a freelance economist.