Financial Model Required to Test Tafelberg Housing Viability, Cabinet Resolves
The Western Cape Cabinet has resolved that financial modelling is required to test the viability of social housing on the Tafelberg properties in Seapoint.
The Department of Transport and Public Works has been mandated by Cabinet to produce this modelling, in order for Cabinet to take a decision. The Department of Human Settlements are mandated to provide input to the model.
A total of 8583 comments were received during public consultations on the potential sale of the Tafelberg property. The extent of the public submissions could not have been anticipated prior to the public consultation process, rendering the initial agreed one-month period for consideration inadequate.
The comments have been tabulated by officials as follows:
- 4486 comments in favour of upholding the sale of the erven to an independent school;
- 4085 in favour of resiling from the sale to pursue a social housing option; and
- 12 in favour of a mixed-use approach.
Financial modelling on the viability of housing on the property was not included in any of the submissions. Past modelling that has been done or provided to the provincial government, is also now out of date, both in terms of legislative and policy amendments, as well as comprehensiveness.
Cabinet is required to take a comprehensive and rational decision based on all public comments received. It is simply not possible for Cabinet to fulfil this obligation without testing the viability of housing on the erven, which would provide a yardstick against which to evaluate the proposals.
Premier Helen Zille said: “In taking a decision, Cabinet is required to balance the various competing priorities in society, in line with our Constitutional mandates. We must also take into account the myriad legislative obligations with which we must comply. We look forward to testing the viability of social housing on the Tafelberg properties, based on sound financial modelling. The modelling will look at all available social housing options, based on the prevailing subsidy options, so that a fair and rational decision can be taken.”