DESIGN STUDIES

Project 1

Bommastandi Of Alexandra Township

by: Mariam Muhammad

Abstract

Africans were already participating in private property at the start of the 20th century, as evidenced by the advertising of freehold homes that first emerged in Alexandra Township in 1912. This municipality was broken up into 2,500 stands, each of which was sold to a different person. When the payment was finished, the people received title deeds. It thus suggests that Africans were purchasing private property outside of a „traditional community,“ where it is believed that access to land is shared. It becomes more and more obvious that, despite the titled deed‘s identification of a specific person, it was usual practice for family resources to be pooled during the purchase of the land; as a result, shared ownership among members of extended families would be understood.

The process of acquiring bommastandi properties challenges the idea of a clear split of property relationships into regimes like private and communal. Bommastandi is the plural of mmastandi, a property owner, and signifies a virtual identity (Jenkins, 1996) since it survived the position of bommastandi as owners of private property and persisted even after their family lost their ownership rights and moved in as government renters.

Introduction

The essay will explore the daily routines and customs of the bommastandi and their families and consider their evolving views on private property ownership. I want to show how the idea of mmastandi may be a helpful lens for analyzing the real and lived experience of being contemporary, African, and permanently residing in an urban place. The basic subject of the legality of space and the period during which such spatial laws happened is raised by the examination of this idea and how its history and significance are portrayed in the property life narratives of bommastandi.

1.1. Alexandra Township - An Exceptional Space

The proximity to South Africa‘s then-fastest-growing urban center, the uncommon ownership of land by black citizens, and the fact that the state would not directly assume responsibility for Alexandra Township‘s management until the late 1950s all contributed to its geographic position. The second proclamation of Alexandra‘s precise terms, issued in 1912, distinguished private property ownership and purchase in the municipality. It demonstrates how the „native“ property owners established a life for themselves in this legalized environment that was both within and without Johannesburg, as well as how their individual approaches to overcoming obstacles in Johannesburg‘s environs during the early 20th century affected their experience with private property ownership.

The establishment of Alexandra freehold was unique in that it addressed a „native“ problem in Johannesburg. In Johannesburg, there was a desire at the time for Natives and Colored people to own land (A letter of March 14, 1913, by the Alexandra Township Committee to the Minister of Native Affairs). The Alexandra Township Company (ATC), which first re-proclaimed a white township founded in 1905 as a „native and colored“ township in 1912, offered this remedy.

The mass of new immigrants who first purchased property in Alexandra, according to Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008:17), were historically rather rich sharecroppers and labor renters forced out of white South Africa‘s farms. This phase was a massive clearing of shelters, including slums, backyards, and shantytowns, in Johannesburg (Parnell 1993; Beavon 2004).

In addition, Alexandra was exceptional because it demonstrated that women might possess property not just by inheriting it from their husbands or parents but also by buying it for themselves. Such an incident refutes the idea that the African culture, which forbids women from accessing land without the consent of males, has permeated metropolitan areas. Later, the state forbade African women from independently purchasing property, nevertheless.

The uniqueness of Alexandra also stems from the fact that renting there was inexpensive and was available without being hindered by the onerous racial laws that restricted African access to metropolitan regions. Additionally, some Alexandra freeholders chose to stay in Alexandra whereas most Africans in other urban freehold townships were expropriated and sent elsewhere. Some of these freeholders continued to live in their former homes.

Additionally, Alexandra remained unwavering in its determination to be a black township in its existing location, despite several attempts to eradicate it or at least reimagine it.

1.2. The Notion of Mmastandi

The terms stand and mma combine to form the phrase mmastandi. Beavon (2004), who first identified „Stand,“ links it to Johannesburg‘s past as a mining city. Beavon (2004) asserts that it was first used for land sections defined on the declared ground under the „Gold Laws,“ citing Haswell (1979). Furthermore,

Mandy (1984) attributes mining to the term‘s beginnings even though it was adopted by non-mining industries such as residential projects that often took place in Johannesburg. Johannesburg grew differently even though the 19th-century urban type of South Africa was known as „Erf Township.“ „Not just housing sites but also common lands belonging to the municipality, on which townsfolk and visiting farmers would graze their cattle“ were included in an „erf township“ (Mandy 1984: 3).

The purchase of a stand, which represents the acquisition of private property, implies individual, named ownership (Bromley 2001; Mitchell 2002; Harris 1996; Widlok 2000). As it means more than simply a name qualifying „possessing a property,“ the notion of mmastandi rather than merely property owner is stressed especially.

1.3. Bommastandi Now

When the restitution path is taken, there will be greater uncertainty because multiple access methods were imprinted on the same piece of land at different eras. Was it feasible to distinguish bommastandi‘s group from any other inhabitants of Alexandra in the 1990s, even though it was obvious that they all shared a home during that time? All Alexandra households paid rent to the municipal council following the expropriation. The discount benefit system was not available to bommastandi when it was implemented in other townships (Royston and Ambert 2002: 265). Both Bommastandi and their tenants were taken in by the authorities. As a result, bommastandi in Alexandra in the 1990s found themselves becoming more assimilated.

Bommastandi families and other Alexandra inhabitants, both newcomers, and longtime residents, were living in these shacks. However, owing to financial issues the government was having, some property owners were left in shacks, and as a result, some of the families who were intended to be housed in successor townships were never transferred. Families like that of mama Zodwa and mme Mmapula are prime examples. Mama Zodwa has lived on the property of the Roman Catholic Church since 1988 when her parents‘ property was expropriated. She reveals that although the army had given her family temporary housing in the form of tents, the council had placed her there.

The same thing happened to Mme Mmapula. She had two homes from her father. She resided in one together with her husband and kids. That year before, her husband had passed away, and her children had left the house. She is independent and there is no guarantee that she will leave the small shack any time soon as she awaits the restitution procedure. These families were uprooted, and the land they owned was utilized to create a school and private developer residences, respectively.

The inflow of individuals from other regions of the country led to the appearance of many additional shacks. Shacks were not the only buildings that towered above the 1990s Alexandra, though. In Alexandra, further housing initiatives were also developed. Like the privately developed homes created in the 1980s, bommastandi families were not the only ones intended to live in such housing developments. Instead, they were designed to help everyone who lived in Alexandra and could meet the conditions for occupying these homes, which would alleviate the larger urban housing problem.

The passage of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No. 22 in 1994 was seen by the bommastandi as a chance to reclaim or reestablish their parental estates. In this manner, people were provided with an enabling legal tool to reclaim their land in the shape of this Act for the first time after many years of conflict and struggle for their urban and South African land.

1.4. The Past in the Present

There are traces of the past in the modern Alexandra that may be seen beyond only the city‘s physical surroundings. Women whose possessions were expropriated and who now reside in shacks, for instance, are living proof of expropriation. However, the original hostels that popularized the idea of the hostel city still exist. The lives of women who were left without houses and are now residing in office buildings bear witness to the violence of the early 1990s, as do the private developer residences built in the 1980s. Along with all these old buildings, there are also brand-new neighborhoods and housing projects, like River Park, Tsutsumani, and East Bank, among others. Alexandra‘s past may be followed in the present.

During conversations with the relatives of the bommastandi, it became clear that the reparation funds were insufficient and that neither the lives of the bommastandi nor the rectification of spatial imbalances were significantly changed (Ramutsindela, 2007; and Mngxitama ud). More significantly, the many encounters that bommastandi had while residing in Alexandra and their recollections of the possessions they lost as a result of expropriation and dispossession show that the loss of property extends beyond monetary loss. This implies that no amount of reparation or recompense, no matter how well-intended, can make up for the harm already done.

SECTION D: Conclusion

I‘ve argued in this essay that Alexandra is an important region to explore because of its remarkable history and geography. Families of property owners who resided in this extraordinary setting had experiences that significantly influenced how people understood private property ownership. It emphasizes how access to the property by „natives“ in Alexandra was simultaneously endangered, made possible, and redefined by spatial regulations. It also emphasizes how unique Alexandra‘s past is, even though it shares some characteristics with other urban freehold townships in South Africa. I also discuss the idea of mmastandi and how it might be seen through that lens to comprehend private property ownership. The idea is related to owning freehold property in Johannesburg Townships like Alexandra where Africans could own homes. But this part also addresses concerns about identification and bommastandi customs (property owners). The difficulties of belonging to an African group that possessed private property are shown when the present is used to examine history.

References

Nauright, J. (1992). “Black island in a white sea”

Black and White in the making of Alexandra Township, South Africa 1912 – 1948 A thesis submitted to the Department of History in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Queens University Ontario Canada.

Brubaker, R. & Cooper, F, (2000). Beyond identity. Theory and Society Renewal and Critique in Social Theory Vol. 29 (pp 1-47).

Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. London: Routledge

Bonner P & Nieftagoedin N. (2008). Alexandra: A History. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

Beavon, K. (2004). Johannesburg, the Making and Shaping of the City. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Parnell, S. (1994). The Construction of Johannesburg Slums as a “Native problem” in the 1910s.

Johannesburg: Institute for Advanced Social Research the University of the Witwatersrand.

Mandy, N. (1984). A City Divided, Johannesburg and Soweto. Johannesburg: MacMillan.

Blomley, N., Delaney, D. & Ford, RT. (Eds). (2001). The Legal Geographies Reader. Malden: Blackwell. Harris, JW. (1996). Property and Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno politics, Modernity. Berkely: University of California Press.

Widlok, T. (2000). Dealing with Institutional Changes in Property Regimes. An African Case Study. Halle: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.

Royston, L. & Ambert, C. (2002). Discount Benefit Scheme within the debates of housing subsidy options for secure tenure in Soweto, Gauteng, South Africa. Unpublished document produced by Development Worx Johannesburg.

Ramutsindela, MR. (2007). Transfrontier Conservation in Africa at the Confluence of Capital, Politics and Nature. Oxfordshire: CABI.

Mngxitama, A. (ud). Restitution Flat Rate Compensation: A Second Dispossession? By (Land Rights Coordinator).

Refuge Or Riches

The potential for the impacts of RDP housing to extend beyond purely shelter to a ladder for wealth creation.

by: Matthew Visser

Abstract

How can RDP houses cater for more than the human need for shelter and allow for the generation of economic prosperity for poverty-stricken individuals?

Within South Africa’s subsidised housing sphere, there is a concerning lack of wealth creation amongst RDP housing beneficiaries, as state-supplied homes are seen as a structure for shelter exclusively instead of the financial asset it can become.

This leads to RDP houses solving the shelter need of citizens but neglecting their economic needs, which leads to continued poverty and hardship, despite the roof over their heads.

This essay aims to examine the potential for RDP housing as an economic and financial asset and identify and provide possible solutions to the problems that are causing financial stagnation amongst subsidised housing beneficiaries.

Introduction

A catchy starter sentence shall replace this one when I am smart enough to think of one. The South African Government‘s Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) has been successful in many ways, as it has proved to positively impact the health, safety, and social standing of over 5 million South Africans since 1994.

However, home ownership can act not just as a sanctuary but as an engine for wealth generation. Thus, this essay aims to answer the question: How can RDP houses cater to more than the human need for shelter and allow for the creation of economic prosperity for poverty-stricken individuals?

This question is explored in three parts. Firstly, the possibilities of housing as a financial asset are investigated, including a critical analysis of Hernando De Soto‘s economic theories. Thereafter, the barriers to asset utilisation in the South African subsidized housing sphere are probed; this includes an investigation of government shortfalls, perception issues, and various social impacts. Finally, recommendations on how to begin to unlock the immense asset potential of RDP houses shall be proposed.

Housing As An Asset Possibilities Of Financial Assets

As a physical asset, a house unlocks many financial opportunities for its inhabitants. Spatially, homes allow income to be generated through renting outside rooms or using areas to run a small business. Additionally, houses can be used as collateral to gear loans which can be used to finance small businesses, purchase assets or improve education and job prospects. Finally, homes give their inhabitants access to the housing market, so they will be able to improve their financial position over decades or even create generational wealth.

However, not all these opportunities are equally represented in subsidised communities. In her case study of Klapmuts, Stellenbosch, Jackie Dugard (Professor of Law, Wits) discovered a low level of financial deployment amongst RDP house recipients (2020, p. 21). Amongst her 21 study participants, 29% rented out a portion of their home and 14% operated a business from their home, but none of the participants had used their homes to secure a loan, and all expressed no desire to sell their homes. These findings mirror nationwide statistics on subsidised housing sales, showing that only 6% of RDP houses are sold, and only 8% of mortgage loans offered to RDP beneficiaries were geared using their home as collateral (Rust, 2011).

HERNANDO DE SOTO‘S STAIRCASE

Peruvian Economist, Hernando De Soto insists that to allow the poorest citizens in a country to generate wealth, the state has to turn informal ownership systems into formal title deeds and records (2001). Formalising ownership allows inhabitants to see beyond the existing shelter to the security and capital that could be. He believes that this will allow citizens to unlock the potential capital trapped inside. Formalising informal ownership systems has several advantages. It allows for standardisation amongst financial systems while folding brand-new assets into the housing market. This makes real estate more accessible for people who own communal or traditional homes (Gordon, Bertoldi, & Nell, 2011).

SOUTH AFRICAN REBUTTALS TO DE SOTO‘S THEORIES

While De Soto‘s theories are insightful and have influenced South African economic policy in several ways, including the country‘s current housing policy statement Breaking New Ground (Royston, 2007, p.34). However, his thoughts have not been without criticism, including the fact that his theories regard Western economic policies and Capitalist growth as the only correct answer, invalidating any traditional forms of ownership and economy (Dugard, 2020). Additionally, Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen has criticised the ‚silverbullet‘ nature of his claims (2007, p. 81), as his theories are presented as the fix-all for poverty and split economies. It is argued that, while De Soto‘s theories are valuable, they should not form the core of the country‘s housing policy but should be among many theoretical perspectives.

Hurdles To Asset Utilisation Government Shortfalls

The government has made significant progress in providing housing for poverty-stricken citizens, but some efforts have created hurdles to financial asset deployment amongst beneficiaries. Chief amongst these hurdles is the 8-year sales ban that the government has imposed on RDP houses, which delays entry into the housing market (Department of Human Settlements, 2022). Furthermore, 1.4 million title deeds are yet to be transferred to their owners (Eglin, 2017), further complicating asset deployment, making it impossible to access mortgage finance, and leading to tenure insecurity (Finmark Trust, 2010).

Another unfortunate oversight from a state level is the lack of proper consultation behind the location of housing schemes. These locations make it difficult for people to properly make use of their homes for rent or business income, as they are too far from major hubs (Dugard, 2020, p. 206).

Perceptions Around Subsidised Housing

Public perceptions of RDP housing have a massive impact on the extent to which subsidised houses can be used for wealth creation. Firstly, many members of the public are misinformed about the rules of selling RDP houses, with most believing that it is entirely illegal to sell or buy a subsidised home, even after the 8-year sales ban has elapsed (Finmark Trust, 2010). Additionally, many people believe that they have very little value because RDP houses are received for free. This belief leads to homes that cost between R99 000 and R120 000 to build, selling for an average price of R54000 (Finmark Trust, 2010, p. 46)

Societal Impacts On Asset Deployment

Alongside the two hurdles discussed above are several peripheral societal hurdles to creating economic assets from RDP houses. Firstly, people are very grateful for their homes and value the security they provide. This sentiment means that many beneficiaries are unwilling to risk losing their homes by putting them up as collateral for loans, even if they would help ensure future income (Dugard, 2020). Also, many people want to leave their homes to family members and do not want to jeopardise their ownership. Interestingly, an interviewee from Dugard‘s study shed light on the stigma around selling an RDP house, which is seen as being ungrateful and greedy (2020)

POSSIBILITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT STATE-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS

There are a few actions that government can take to catalyse the creation of wealth amongst RDP beneficiaries. This can include revoking or revising the 8-year sales ban to allow for swifter entrance into the housing market without compromising the integrity of the allocation process. Tangential to this intervention, the government must work harder to reduce the title deed backlog on completed projects as well (Finmark Trust, 2010). Concomitantly, the government can investigate extending financial assistance to RDP beneficiaries who want to improve the value of their home through renovations which would increase the asset value of the houses.

Vitally, the state should also consider the location of new housing schemes more intensively to allow beneficiaries to unlock their total value. This could include infrastructure links and public transport overhauls if physically locating developments nearer to major hubs is not feasible.

Information And Education

Awareness campaigns should be central to all major government housing developments, but there are some gaps in the messaging that have allowed misconceptions about the RDP scheme to become widespread (Dugard, 2020). The government needs to reprioritise informing people about the legalities of RDP house ownership – specifically around the sales ban – as well as the opportunities of homes as financial assets for wealth creation and poverty alleviation.

Conclusion

This essay has explored the question of how RDP houses can cater to more than the human need for shelter and allow for the creation of economic prosperity for poverty-stricken individuals. It examined the value of a house as an asset that can grow wealth and prosperity and interrogated economist Hernando De Soto‘s theories on housing for the poor and split economies within the context of South Africa‘s subsidised housing sphere. This examination was followed by an analysis of the current hurdles responsible for the lack of substantial financial asset deployment in South Africa, including the government‘s political and bureaucratic shortfalls, poor perceptions around the value of RDP homes, and the legality of their sales. Following this analysis, several recommendations were provided that might aid in catalysing a more substantial utilisation of the latent assets within subsidised assets.

References

Department of Human Settlements. (2022, January 05). Retrieved from Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.dhs.gov.za/content/faq

Dugard, J. (2020). Staircase or safety net? Examining the meaning and functioning of RDP house ownership among beneficiaries: A case study of Klapmuts, Stellenbosch. Law, Democracy and Development, 24, 201-224.

Eglin, R. (2017, August 12). Creating Quility Environments: Managed Land Settlement.

Finmark Trust. (2010, June 11). RDP Housing Assets: Exploring the performance of government subsidised housing in South Africa. Terms of Reference.

Gordon, R., Bertoldi, A., & Nell, M. (2011). Housing Subsidy Assets. Johannesburg: FinMark Trust.

Hassen, E.-K. (2007). The Second Economy and ‚Dead Assets‘. Are Hernando de Soto‘s views appropriate to South Africa (pp. 80-90). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Royston, L. (2007). Snakes and Ladders. Are Hernando de Soto‘s views appropriate to South Africa? (pp. 32-43). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Rust, K. (2011, December 1). Launch of research into Government Subsidised Housing Asset Performance. Retrieved from Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa: https://housingfinanceafrica.org/documents/ launch-of-research-intogovernmentsubsidised-housing-asset-performance/

Soto, H. D. (2001, April 16). The Hidden Architecture of Capital. Retrieved from Institute for Liberty and Democracy: https://www.ild.org.pe/publications/articles/863the-hidden-architecture-ofcapital