Joburg, please expropriate these properties

Expropriation without compensation is the best solution for a special class of problem property in Johannesburg: owner-abandoned, overcrowded cesspits.

The worst example in my ward featured in the latest Sunday Times. Driving along Bompas Road, Dunkeld West, you’d probably be unaware of what goes on at number 21, where about 55 people live in unsanitary conditions.

Noise, illegal brewing and drinking are alleged, as are connections to crime in the area. In 2017, a woman’s body was found there. The SAPS are frequently called, as are the Joburg Metro Police Department (JMPD). Property prices have plummeted.

We must not forget people living there have rights. I was reminded of that when one of the occupants complained the city had not provided them with sanitiser during lockdown.

Bloody cheek, said a neighbour. A city environmental health official later reacted: “We are not responsible to supply sanitisers or any Covid-19 PPE to members of the public.”

The Sunday Times quotes a city spokesperson as saying the Bompas property is “being investigated”.

In fact, it’s been investigated for many years. I’ve been there with successive regional directors and members of mayoral committees, JMPD officers and senior people from Development Planning, Group Forensic Investigations Services (GFIS) and others.

There is an expectation the city must “do something”. Yet the onus is on the owner. This one is overseas, in poor health.

The Sunday Times quotes GFIS spokesperson Lucky Sindane as saying: “It is the constitutional obligation of the applicant who wants to evict any occupants to provide alternative accommodation.”

In a 2017 article, attorney Chantelle Gladwin clarified “squatter rights”. “Many people think squatters have a legal right to occupy a property indefinitely,” she wrote.

“This is a misconception. Although it can in some situations be difficult to evict squatters, no person or organisation has any right in terms of our law to occupy property against the permission of the owner, unless this is sanctioned by a court.

“However, squatters have the right not to be forcibly removed from a property … without an order of court. This is to ensure the constitutional rights of the squatter, to dignity, equality and the right to a home and to property, are not violated.”

The city’s interpretation is that whoever seeks an eviction order must provide accommodation. Which is probably why the city manager did not accede to my 28 August written request to consider a forced sale to recoup rates arrears. The city doesn’t want the burden of having to find accommodation for people living illegally there.

Lawyers for the owner are at last reportedly proceeding with an eviction application. This could take forever, bogged down over alternative accommodation.

The city could redeem its reputation by proactively intervening – “doing something”. In the interests of the occupants and the surrounding community, the city should expropriate. Proceeds of the sale could be used to help find accommodation and to clean up the place.

There are hundreds of such properties across the city. 21 Bompas is a cautionary tale.

Prompt action can save heartache. Delay invites deterioration.

Martin Williams, DA councillor and former editor of The Citizen.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.