Cape Town - The Hangberg community is concerned over the temporary housing
site offered by the City because it is
claimed to already belong to a resident
who has been waiting for building
materials.
The owner of the demolished informal structure was offered a piece of land. However, there seem to be factors that may prevent the City from delivering the site successfully.
Advocate Vernon Seymour, who is representing Hangberg residents, said: “We have sent a response to the City and have raised our concerns in the correspondence. Our clients are concerned about the competing claims to the property and do not want to create unnecessary tensions within the community.”
Seymour said: “The City may have overlooked the fact that certain factors which may prevent them from delivering on their offer regarding this particular site is that our clients have been informed that other two families had been promised the land and intend to enforce the agreement they concluded with the City.
“Our clients hold the view that settlement of the matter cannot be at the expense of other families. We have thus been instructed to put forward an alternative to the City, which we have done.”
City of Cape Town spokesperson Luthando Tyhalibongo said: “What has happened between the parties thus far has been done on a “without prejudice” basis and only if settlement negotiations fail - which include the humanitarian offer - then will the matter proceed to court.
“The City has made a genuine and reasonable attempt to settle this matter on humanitarian grounds and it can be confirmed that the offer made is capable of fulfilment if it's accepted. The City, therefore, believes that there is enough space available in what the City has offered for all those who are concerned.”
Hangberg community activist Roscoe Jacobs said: “There is nothing humanitarian about the City's
offer. It's divisive (and) threatens to violate the human rights of the affected families.”
He said the identified site had major sanitation deficiencies, which the Human Rights commissioner viewed as a violation of human rights.
Seymour said the City was, however, correct in engaging in the negotiations to seek an amicable resolution. If an agreement was not achieved, the matter would have to go back to court.
@Sukainaish