Tshwane 2055 and the (im)possibility of spatial justice

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Date: 01 January 2014
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC166194
• Pages: 202-217
• Published By: University of Pretoria
• Author: Isolde De Villiers

202

Tshwane 2055

and the (im)possibility of

spatial justice

Isolde de Villiers

LLB LLM

Lecturer, Department of Jurisprudence, University of Pretoria

OPSOMMING

Tshwane 2055

en die (On)moontlikheid van Ruimtelike Geregtigheid

Die Tshwane 2055 beleidsdokument bevat verskeie verwysings na

ruimtelike geregtigheid. Deur te steun op die werk van Henri Lefebvre en

Doreen Massey verskaf die artikel ’n inhoud aan die konsep van ruimtelike

geregtigheid en reageer daardeur op Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos se

kritiek dat ruimtelike geregtigheid onvoldoende teoretiese grondslag het

en nie bloot kan dui op geregtigheid binne ruimtes nie. Teen die

agtergrond van hierdie teorieë, tesame met die uitkoms en nadraai van

die Schubart Park beslissing, is die sentrale argument dat Tswhane 2055

beide die moontlikheid en onmoontlikheid van ruimtelike geregtigheid

inhou. Die UN-HABITAT verslag van die verenigde nasies en Joburg 2030

dien as voorbeelde van die spanning tussen stedelike opknapping-

oogmerke en geregtigheid.

1Introduction

In October 2012 the Constitutional Court ordered the Tshwane

Metropolitan Council (“the City”) to meaningfully engage with the

residents of Schubart Park regarding their interim relocation and the

restoration of the housing complex. This interfered with the City’s plans

to demolish the apartment blocks and the Tshwane 2055 plan now

includes the rejuvenation of the Schubart Park housing complex in phase

1 of the West Capital Project, at an estimated cost of R1.25 billion. In this

article I critically consider the definition of, and references to, spatial

justice in the Tshwane 2055 plan. The central question is whether these

references present the possibility of spatial justice as envisaged by

Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos. Spatial justice, understood from a radical

geographical perspective, acknowledges that space produces and is

produced by unequal social relationships and insists on inhabitance as

opposed to habitat. Against the backdrop of spatial justice and with

reference to the aftermath of the Schubart Park case I explore the

relationship between law, space and justice. I take up in turn the history,

present and future of the Schubart Park apartment complex and the

Tshwane 2055 plan. Thereafter, I look at what the concept of spatial

justice could and should entail by referring to the work of Andreas

Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Doreen Massey and Henri Lefebvre and

lastly, I compare the Tshwane 2055 plan with Joburg 2030 and the United

Nation’s UN-HABITAT policy, in order to illustrate a discord between the

aims of gentrification and spatial justice.

Tshwane 2005 and (im)possibility of spatial justice203

2Schubart Park and Meaningful Consultation

During September 2011 approximately 700 families were forcibly

removed from the Schubart Park housing complex by the City of

Tshwane Metro Police.1 After a year of litigation, the Constitutional Court

found in favour of the Schubart Park residents and against the City of

Tshwane metropolitan municipality. The Constitutional Court ruled that

the City’s alleged evacuation of the residents actually constituted an

eviction from their homes and, because the City had failed to enter into

meaningful engagement prior to the removal, the evictions were

unlawful. Another year after the judgment of the Constitutional Court, in

2013, Frank Chikane, facilitator of the negotiations between the City and

the former residents, reported that 388 families were furnished with

alternative accommodation and that 69 of the families that have been

“verified as genuine former residents” were still awaiting

accommodation.2 While the more immediate relief of alternative

accommodation is still pending, the City of Tshwane has published a

longer-term vision for the Schubart Park housing complex in the Tshwane

2055 policy. I read the rest of the references to spatial justice in the

Tshwane 2055 against the backdrop of the events that transpired around

Schubart Park and the new plans for the rejuvenation thereof. The words

of City of Tshwane Mayor Kgosientso Ramakgopa, “[e]fforts to clean up

Pretoria city centre will be a painful process that must be tackled”, aptly

capture the tension between world-class city status and spatial justice

within these so-called world-class cities.3

In terms of the order of the Constitutional Court, the former residents

of Schubart Park were entitled to the occupation of their homes as “soon

as [was] reasonably possible”.4 This order was based on the finding that

the order of the North Gauteng High Court (the court a quo that heard the

urgent application for an interdict to prevent the evacuation of the

residents from Schubart Park) did not constitute an order for the eviction

of the residents, as required by section 26(3) of the Constitution. In order

for the residents to occupy their homes again, the Constitutional Court

ordered the parties to enter into meaningful engagements and stipulated

a number of aspects on which the parties should reach agreement.5

These aspects included the identification of residents who occupied the

apartment complex just prior to the evictions, the date when the

occupants who were identified would be granted occupation of Schubart

Park again, the way in which the City would restore occupation, how

1Schubart Park Residents’ Association and others v City of Tshwane

Metropolitan 2013 (1) SA 323 (CC) par 2.

2“Former Schubart Park residents unhappy with rehousing schedule” Mail

and Guardian 21 October 2013 available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-10-

21-first-388-schubart-residents-rehoused (accessed 2014-02-25).

3“Cleaning up Pretoria ‘painful’” Independent Newspaper (16 June 2012)

available at http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/cleaning-up-

pretoria-painful [accessed 26 Feb 2014].

4Schubart Park v City of Tshwane point 4 of the order.

5Schubart Park v City of Tshwane points 5.1 – 5.6 of the order.