Latest news with #CityOfCapeTown
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Cutting mobility: Cape Town's Dial-a-Ride ‘realignment' false economy
The City of Cape Town's changes to its Dial-a-Ride service means people with disabilities won't have transport to any other place than work during peak hours. Photo: File At the beginning of September, the City of Cape Town will 'realign' its Dial-a-Ride service so that only eligible wheelchair users and people with severe walking impairments are transported, primarily between home and work, during peak hours. Thousands who relied on Dial-a-Ride, a service for people with disabilities who are unable to access mainstream public transport services, for education, healthcare, civic life and basic errands will be stranded. This is framed as fiscal prudence. It is social disinvestment with long-term costs that the city will pay many times over. We are told Dial-a-Ride is 'oversubscribed' and too expensive — an annual budget of R28.2 million against operating costs of R40 million, hence the cutback to 'core' users and trips. But budgets are moral documents that reveal priorities. What does it say about a city when the 'first' line item trimmed is the one service that enables people with disabilities to move, to work, to learn, to live with dignity? South Africa's workplaces remain largely inaccessible — only about 1.2% of reported employees are persons with disabilities, stuck far below even the modest 'prescribed' target of 2%. Transport is a well-documented barrier. When you can't get to an interview, a learnership or the job site, you're excluded before merit has a chance. I make this point for those who like to talk about meritocracy without considering the lived realities of others. Cutting Dial-a-Ride trips will depress labourforce participation and retention, not just for those excluded by the new criteria, but also for those whose routes and hours no longer align with peak-only commuting. That reduces household income today and tax revenue tomorrow. Surely, the leadership must connect these dots? Or is all the accounting leaders do on paper instead of to the people? For learners and students with disabilities, transport is the bridge to inclusion. When that bridge narrows to 'work-only' trips, it effectively blocks school attendance, college classes, skills programmes and medical or therapeutic appointments that underpin study success. The Western Cape hosts a significant share of special-needs schooling nationally. Reducing accessible transport capacity in this province will be felt in attendance, completion and progression. The research is clear — transport barriers derail participation and completion in training for students with disabilities. Tell a blind commuter to 'just use e-hailing' and you outsource risk. Women and persons with disabilities face elevated safety concerns on mainstream public transport and in some e-hailing environments, particularly off-peak and in poorly lit areas. Any 'replacement' for Dial-a-Ride must be at least as safe, affordable and predictable or it is not a replacement at all. We cannot, with a straight face, cut a safeguarded, kerb-to-kerb service and route people into modes we know many experience as unsafe and not universally accessible. South Africa ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which binds the government, national and local, to enable the right to work (article 27) and inclusive education (article 24). The convention's committee's General Comment No 8 clarifies the duty to remove barriers to employment, including transport barriers. Closer to home, the city's own Universal Access Policy for Accessible Transport, approved on 28 May 2025, sets a vision that 'all people, regardless of ability, will be able to travel independently, safely and in a dignified manner' across an integrated system. Realigning Dial-a-Ride in ways that shrink access collides with both the city's policy ambition and the country's international obligations. Yes, Dial-a-Ride has a gap between its budget and operating costs but the real question is what the full cost of not moving people will be. When workers with disabilities are forced to resign or are dismissed for 'attendance' issues that are, in truth, transport failures, the city loses wages and enterprise productivity. Missed medical or therapeutic appointments lead to higher health and social welfare costs as disability-related conditions worsen or isolation deepens mental-health struggles. Learners and students who cannot attend classes reliably see their education disrupted, resulting in foregone qualifications, diminished future earnings and lost opportunities for social mobility. These are not abstract concerns but predictable consequences created by a narrow and shortsighted view of 'savings'. If Dial-a-Ride is oversubscribed, that is evidence of unmet need, not a justification to ration dignity. A serious and caring city would: Stabilise Dial-a-Ride while expanding mainstream accessibility. Ringfence bridging funds to maintain current users through 2025-26 and accelerate universal access upgrades on the MyCiTi bus service and at interchanges, as per the city's new policy. Every accessible bus, stop and pathway today reduces pressure on Dial-a-Ride tomorrow. Take a look out your window — there's plenty still to be done. Target funding creatively. Combine municipal allocations, conditional grants and corporate social investment tied to disability employment targets to co-finance Dial-a-Ride for education, healthcare and civic trips, not only work commutes. (Employers stuck at 1% to 2% disability representation should be queuing to help fix the transport bottleneck that blocks their own pipelines. It's time for business to step up.) Protect safety and predictability. Where e-hailing is proposed as a supplement, require vetted drivers, disability-awareness training, auditable pick-up zones and agreed pricing, then publish performance dashboards. Anything less is offloading risk onto the very people Dial-a-Ride exists to protect. Co-design, don't decree. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities guidance is explicit — decisions must be taken with organisations of persons with disabilities, not simply communicated to them. Reverse-engineer the service from lived reality, school hours, clinic days, night classes, religious and community life, not just peak-hour spreadsheets. What kind of city are we building if people with disabilities can only move when it's profitable for the timetable or only to the places able-bodied planners deem 'essential'? Mobility is not a luxury add-on. It is the precondition for work, learning, safety and citizenship. A budget can show discipline without disciplining the already marginalised. Revisit the Dial-a-Ride decision. Keep people moving now, while you build the accessible system you've promised. That is not generosity. That is governance. That is leadership. Professor Armand Bam is the head of social impact at Stellenbosch Business School.
News24
5 days ago
- Business
- News24
Cape Town mayor warns scrapping fixed tariffs will cause R4.2bn loss as battle heads to court
City of Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis has warned that should the court scrap three fixed tariffs in the City's budget it would result in a R4.2 billion deficit in the current financial year. Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Start your FREE trial now
Mail & Guardian
6 days ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
‘Inclusive' housing a start but we need deeper affordability in Cape Town
The City of Cape Town has announced housing development that is 'moving towards inclusion' – but inclusion for whom? Photo: File Sometime during July, I was scrolling through a property site, perusing accommodation options while trying to plan my future. I found a flat — two bedroom, bathroom, 115m² in Cape Town. 'That could work,' I think — until I see the price. R35 000 a month. I scroll further. Nothing under R19 000. I know I'm not the only Western Cape local who has had that gut-punch moment while trying to find a place to live. So, when the province's infrastructure MEC Tertuis Simmers announced on 25 July that new 'affordable' and 'social' housing development plans would soon be made available in Cape Town's inner city, I was intrigued. Sceptical, yes, but curious to hear the full story. But after reading The new developments — including the Leeuloop Precinct, the Founders Garden and the Prestwich Precinct — promise about 1 766 social housing units, 120 affordable housing units, and a total of 1 892 residential units. But these homes won't be offered on a first come, first served basis. Access depends on eligibility, which raises key questions about who qualifies and which income brackets will be prioritised. Simmers frames these developments as part of a broader effort to 'redress past spatial injustices'. But they also arrive in the shadow of the protracted The case centred on the province's 2015 decision to sell the Tafelberg property in Sea Point — one of the last well-located pieces of public land on the Atlantic Seaboard — to a private school, rather than using it for affordable housing. Activists argued that the sale entrenched apartheid-era spatial exclusion and that the city had also failed to use its powers to make inner-city land available for lower-income residents. Although the initial In his letter, Simmers draws a distinction between social housing and what used to be called RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) housing (now Breaking New Ground or BNG). Social housing refers to state-subsidised rental units for households earning R1 850 to R22 000 a month, regulated under the Social Housing Act and managed by accredited institutions. These units are exclusively to be rented and cannot be sold. In contrast, affordable housing, as defined by the Western Cape government, targets households earning R3 500 to R30 000 a month. This can include both rental and ownership options, often supported through indirect subsidies like cross-subsidisation (where market-rate units fund affordable ones) or discounted public land. Unlike social housing, affordable housing does not require oversight by the To fund all of this, the Western Cape government is pioneering alternative and blended finance approaches — combining public grants, private investment and land value strategies. One such strategy involves selling high-end units to subsidise affordable ones, as seen in Leeuloop and Founders Garden. This cross-subsidisation model is clever, but it carries risks, especially when 'public good' is tied to private market success. Who gets included? So, what exactly counts as 'affordable'? The income bracket defined — R3 500 to R30 000 a month (with 'primary targeting' of R3 500 to R27 200) — is both broad and politically charged. At the lower end are precariously employed workers, informal traders and grant-reliant households. For them, 'affordable' can only mean deep subsidies and permanent rent caps — the kind Simmers promises will be delivered. At the upper end are upwardly mobile professionals earning R25 000 or more, many of whom already have access to credit and housing finance. Yet they too fall under the 'affordable' banner, allowing developers to meet policy thresholds while catering to a far less precarious demographic. This raises some hard questions — will developments cater more to the R25 000+ income band than the R3 500 one? Will rent controls or purchase subsidies reflect this disparity or flatten it? And if they flatten it, who benefits most from this? By flattening such a wide spectrum into a single category, the policy risks hiding the very inequalities it claims to address. Developers can technically 'tick the box' for affordability while still targeting higher-income tenants who pose less financial risk. This matters. Back home, Johannesburg's inclusionary zoning policy — while progressive on paper — has struggled with To avoid repeating these failures, Cape Town's inclusionary housing policy needs more than ambition, it needs enforceable protections. At minimum, the city ??? must: Mandate permanent affordability clauses in all publicly subsidized housing contracts; Ringfence units for lower-income households (for example, R3 500 to R7 500 a month), with clear rent ceilings and oversight; and Publicly disclose allocations and affordability terms, to ensure transparency and accountability. Without these safeguards, affordability risks becoming a short-lived marketing tool, especially when it depends on market-rate units to cross-subsidise the rest. Proximity to wealth tends to redefine affordability over time, reshaping who belongs in a neighbourhood and who gets priced out. What inclusion should look like What bothered me most about Simmers' letter was both his opening — which I've referenced in this piece — and his end. I start with his opening in full: 'These projects are not just about building homes, they are about redressing spatial injustice, unlocking economic potential, and creating inclusive, dignified communities in the heart of Cape Town.' It's a powerful promise. And, to be clear, these projects aren't nothing. They mark a step up from elite-only development and signal an overdue acknowledgement of spatial exclusion. But it also risks becoming a symbolic gesture if we don't ask what meaningful inclusion actually looks like, beyond performance metrics and market-friendly strategies. Inclusionary housing is a promising start, but it cannot be the end goal of urban housing policy. A truly 'inclusive' housing policy would admit that the crisis isn't just about housing shortages. It's about land ownership, racialised inequality, labour precarity and historical exclusion. If inclusion is the goal, then it must be systemic, not symbolic. We need more than mixed-income buildings. We need a city that treats housing not as an asset class, but as a right. True inclusion means long-term affordability that doesn't depend on market success. While Simmers emphasised rental caps, what happens 10 or 20 years from now when land speculation returns? Who gets to stay then? We need models that prioritise stability over profit: community land trusts, cooperative housing and public land reserved for non-profit development. And we need those models to be protected from financialisation and resale. A few 'affordable' units scattered among luxury towers won't undo a century of exclusion. Inclusion must mean redistributing access to land, to services and to opportunity. That means building deep affordability in central areas, not just moderate affordability for professionals priced out of the suburbs. Simmers ends his letter by saying: 'Social and affordable housing in the inner city is no longer a dream …' and I wonder whether he realises what's actually keeping that dream out of reach — and for whom. The truth is, we can debate 'inclusion' until our faces turn blue. But unless we challenge the structural drivers of exclusion — runaway private rentals, the spread of Airbnb, the encroachment of 'digital nomad urbanism' — the dream of inner-city housing will remain just that: a dream. Even the most well-intentioned affordable housing projects will be drowned out by speculative forces unless they're accompanied by serious rental control, strong protections against commodification and a commitment to housing as a public good. To make this vision real, the city must legislate deep affordability, enforce it and ensure that inclusion means lasting access — not just temporary proximity. Nicola van der Westhuizen is a PhD candidate in social anthropology in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University.
News24
12-08-2025
- Business
- News24
Dial-a-Ride budget crisis: Cape Town slashes access to service
The City of Cape Town's Dial-a-Ride service is facing severe budget constraints. Duncan Alfreds/News24 Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Start your FREE trial now
News24
07-08-2025
- Politics
- News24
Protesters in Cape Town bring R300 to a standstill, causing major peak-hour disruptions
Protesters are causing widespread traffic disruptions in Cape Town on Thursday morning by using burning tyres to close off sections of the R300 in Mitchells Plain. Traffic is being diverted due to the protest action on the R300 between Jakes Gerwel and AZ Berman Drives, according to City of Cape Town Traffic spokesperson Maxine Bezuidenhout. 'Approximately 100 protestors on the R300 at Loyiso Village and Magwaza are currently blocking the roadway. There is currently no entrance to the informal settlement.' The R300 is closed in both directions at Jakes Gerwel Drive. No traffic is being allowed in the direction of the N2.
