- Access to housing is a constitutional right.
- High fixed monthly charges make owning a house—or even renting—unaffordable for many.
- This policy may lead to further homelessness.
- Negotiations with local authorities are urgently required to provide relief.
If you buy a bicycle, it is yours to do with as you please. You may choose to spend money on accessories and improvements such as speedometers, special handlebars, tyres, and clip-in pedals. You can modify it by painting it or fitting a more comfortable saddle. You can also choose to spend no money on it at all and ride it until it disintegrates, or simply leave it to gather dust in the shed. The decision of whether to use it or invest in it remains entirely with the owner, who acts according to their financial circumstances and personal preference.
If you buy a house—or even just a plot of land—it is a completely different situation. From the moment you take ownership, you become liable for ongoing municipal rates and taxes, regardless of whether you use the property or any of the services provided. While a home is something every individual or family requires, it has become increasingly unaffordable for many. Rather than being an investment, it often becomes a liability, with the very real potential to push owners into significant debt if monthly accounts are not paid on time.
Improving your home can also become a quick way to increase your financial burden. Not only do you need the funds for the improvements themselves, but you may also need to pay a qualified architect and engineer to approve your plans. While there are many highly skilled
artisans in the Overstrand, undertaking building work yourself is often discouraged and may be unlawful unless a range of regulatory requirements is met.
Concerns have also been raised about the consistency of enforcement. In some areas, building regulations appear to be applied strictly, while in others similar infringements may receive little attention. Whether this perception is justified or not, it contributes to a growing sense of frustration among residents.
In addition, property owners must comply with a range of municipal building regulations, some of which critics regard as inappropriate for a developing country such as South Africa and capable of adding significantly to construction costs. Fenestration requirements are one example often cited. Ironically, the practical effect of some of these regulations may be to reduce rather than improve quality of life, as residents are forced to postpone or abandon improvements that would otherwise make their homes more comfortable, functional, or valuable.
Once improvements are completed, another permanent cost may follow: the value of the property increases, and with it the amount of rates payable.
Interestingly, the Constitution of South Africa places a legal obligation on the state to take reasonable measures to progressively improve access to adequate housing. Yet, from the perspective of many property owners, the current system appears to be moving in the opposite direction by making housing increasingly expensive to acquire, improve, and retain. Nor does this affect only property owners. These costs are ultimately passed on to tenants through higher rentals, making housing less affordable across the board.
A significant portion of municipal revenue is used to fund the general operating costs of local government, including salaries, overtime, bonuses, pensions, medical aid contributions, housing benefits, and transport allowances. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with compensating public servants fairly for the work they perform. However, it is important to recognise the stark difference between the financial circumstances of those who make and administer the rules and those of many of the residents who ultimately fund these costs through rates and service charges.
Municipal employees and politicians generally enjoy a predictable monthly income regardless of economic conditions, seasonal fluctuations, weather events, or the success of a particular industry. By contrast, many Overstrand residents—including the unemployed, freelance workers, waiters, tourism workers, small business owners, and entrepreneurs—depend on income that is uncertain, seasonal, weather-dependent, and often beyond their control.
The fishing industry, on which a substantial number of Overstrand residents depend, provides a good example. Catches—and therefore income—are highly uncertain. Fishers must contend with closed seasons during which no fishing is permitted, as well as stormy winter months when the seas are often too rough to fish, resulting in periods of little or no income. Many do not enjoy employer-funded pensions, medical aid, insurance, paid leave, or other financial safety nets.
Nevertheless, municipal accounts continue to arrive every month, regardless of whether income has been earned.
These concerns are not merely theoretical. They are reflected in current municipal policies that continue to increase the fixed costs of owning and occupying a home. The fixed portion of municipal tariffs has increased significantly over recent years and is set to rise even further through the implementation of the current Electricity Cost of Supply Study. Based on information currently available, fixed electricity charges could eventually exceed R1,000 per month before a single unit of electricity has been consumed.
In the past, households could reduce costs by limiting their electricity consumption. Under a system dominated by high fixed charges, however, even doing nothing may still result in a growing debt burden.
A similar situation exists with water and sewerage services, where unavoidable availability charges add to the financial pressure faced by households.
Also concerning is the questionable public participation process that has accompanied these changes. Objections and requests for clarification have been submitted, yet many residents remain unconvinced that their concerns have been properly considered.
In the current economic climate, the continued implementation of these policies has the potential to push many Overstrand ratepayers to the point where they risk losing their homes. Considering that significant public resources are directed towards providing housing for the homeless, it is difficult to reconcile policies that increase housing insecurity and risk further increasing homelessness. Such an outcome would be entirely counterproductive and would place an even greater burden on the state.
OVAC has repeatedly requested meetings with the local administration to address these concerns and negotiate a better arrangement for ratepayers. Despite growing public concern about accountability and responsiveness, these requests have been ignored.
Times are hard and the economic climate remains challenging, with many people earning less or losing their income entirely. Ratepayers need relief and assistance, not increased taxation. Municipal spending must be reduced substantially.
At present, municipal taxes are effectively justified on the basis that a homeowner had, at some point in the past, sufficient means to purchase a house or plot. That does not mean the same financial circumstances still exist today. For many people, purchasing a home was a major life achievement. They worked hard, took responsibility for their own housing needs, and did not become a burden on the state. They deserve recognition for that effort.
It is unreasonable that they should now be subjected to ever-increasing financial obligations simply because they succeeded in acquiring a home. No one should face the prospect of losing their home because fixed municipal charges have become unaffordable.
Anton Kruger
OVAC
