Ukulethwa kweZidingo seZindlu: a critical investigation of the challenges facing the Rapid Land Release Programme in the City of Johannesburg

Abstract

In the Global South, a myriad of challenges impedes the political and socio-economic viability of cities. These challenges affect significantly the competitive edge, spatial trends, and citizen’s ability to access cities. The need for effective urban management and housing delivery in South Africa is unequivocal. South Africa’s current housing sector, with its stalling delivery and deteriorating affordability for low-income groups, is trapped within a complex and nuanced interplay of demand and supply. Generally, it is recognised that the government cannot deliver low-income housing on the required scale and sustainable rate to address the housing backlog in South African cities (Urban land Mark, 2010). In 2018, the Gauteng Province launched the Rapid Land Release Programme (RLRP) as a housing delivery scheme which was adopted by City of Johannesburg as the sites and services programme. The land release programme aims to prioritise urban land distribution in the form serviced parcels of land and give people to build houses for themselves. This study investigates what institutional and operational challenges confront the City of Johannesburg in translating the implementation of the Rapid Land Release Programme (sites and services). Employing a qualitative research design, the research findings established that the city is faced with a host of challenges. The CoJ is confronted by institutional and capacity challenges in the form of political influence, shrinking budgets, limited availability of land, limited intergovernmental relations and support from the provincial government, localised visioning and conceptualisation of urban management impacting on the management of the city’s functions and low-income housing delivery, lack of commitment in implementing pro-poor policies (housing and service delivery) with the city’s drive for global economic and competitive appeal. The housing delivery processes for low-income groups suffer from severe capacity challenges and cannot draw from the traditional housing and property market resources (Urban land Mark, 2010). However, the process of sites and services serves as a catalyst and focal point for a discussion on land and housing policies, institutional capabilities, and roles, the outcome of which may stimulate reform beyond the project boundaries