Cape Town given green light to evict 'pavement dwellers'
The City of Cape Town has been given the green light to evict about 200 people living on the pavement at several inner-city sites, reports GroundUp.
But the ‘pavement dwellers’ will have more than a month to leave and find alternative accommodation.
The ruling on on Tuesday by Western Cape High Court Acting Judge Michael Bishop follows a lengthy court battle between the city and the homeless groups occupying spaces along Buitengracht Street, FW De Klerk Boulevard, Foregate Square, Helen Suzman Boulevard, Strand Street, Foreshore/N1, Virginia Avenue and Mill Street Bridge in the city centre.
The order was granted in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
Bishop ordered that the city must provide alternative accommodation at its ‘Safe Space’ in Culemborg, which is also in the city centre. He said the homeless groups have about 10 days to indicate whether they will move to this Safe Space. They should be allowed to live there for at least six months.
‘Those who take up the alternative accommodation at the Safe Spaces, who are in a partnership with another (homeless person), and who require accommodation with their partner, are provided with accommodation for couples,’ he ordered.
He also made orders to safeguard affected children, older people and disabled people living at these sites, and to ensure a just and lawful eviction process. Bishop said those who refused the offer of accommodation would be evicted and their structures demolished.
However, their possessions must be kept in safe custody for six months.
Bishop said he would ‘retain supervision’ over the implementation of the order and directed the city – and the occupiers if they so wished – to file further affidavits on progress.
‘This case concerns the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society – people living on the pavements in downtown Cape Town. The conditions in which they live are deplorable’, Bishop said in his ruling.
According to GroundUp, he said homeless people in Cape Town do not exist separately from other residents. He added that the city belonged to the homeless, the office workers and those who lived in mansions. The city had also committed to helping those who use the Safe Spaces to overcome addiction, find jobs and reconnect with their families.
He said the main gripe of the occupiers – represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA – is that the city had not meaningfully engaged them, and that the Safe Spaces were not suitable because they had rules which separated families and restricted their freedom.
On the issue of whether there had been meaningful engagement, the judge said while ‘not perfect’ the city had met its legal obligations, and during latter engagements agreed to relax some rules to accommodate legitimate concerns.
He refused to grant the city a broad interdict preventing named occupiers from re-occupying other properties.
However, the judge did interdict the respondents from re-occupying these properties. The city was ordered to pay 30% of the homeless group’s legal costs.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
