Our response to the Cape Argus

In response to the Cape Argus, the LSDF does shows intent to build 10,000 housing-units between Ocean View and Fish Hoek.

Today, the Cape Argus published a piece titled City of Cape Town denies plans for 10,000 low-cost housing units in Fish Hoek. In the article, the newspaper reports that the City has dismissed claims that such a large-scale housing plan is under consideration. Here is a section of the article.

The City of Cape Town has refuted claims of plans for 10,000 low-cost housing units in Fish Hoek as “unfounded” and “misleading.” Officials clarified that the draft Masiphumelele Local Spatial Development Framework (LSDF) identifies preferred affordable housing land near Masiphumelele at Lochiel smallholdings, with no development rights yet granted.

In light of this, it is worth examining what the Masiphumelele and Environs Local Spatial Development Framework says about the number of housing units. In section 2 it says:

The current estimated need for additional housing is ±6000 (5972) units, and with expected still rapid growth it is estimated that a further ±5000 (4907) units will be required by 2035. That is a future housing need of over 10 000 units.

As the document shows, the LSDF identifies a development capacity of 10,000 housing units. To any ordinary reader, it is evident that the proposal contemplates a scale of development in that order.

In law, “intent” refers to what a person meant to do when they carried out an action, and it can be just as important as the action itself. Because intent is a state of mind, courts rely on intent as evidence. This can include a person’s words, behaviour, planning, or the surrounding circumstances. For example, preparing tools for a crime, making certain statements beforehand, or acting in a way that shows awareness of consequences can all be used as evidence of intent.

Not only has the DA-led City Council demonstrated its intent to build 10,000 housing units between Fish Hoek and Ocean View in the LSDF, but there is also the intent to expropriate the Lochiel Road smallholdings.

In 2018 the City sought to expropriate the Lochiel smallholdings directly, but failed. We see this in the Deep South LSDF progress report from May 2025.

In response to the push back, The City responded to concerns by revising its approach. Rather than acquiring all smallholding properties through expropriation, the City plans to purchase individual plots on a case-by-case basis. This iterative approach has already been applied in the eastern part of the smallholdings area.

The way this acquisition is now taking place is through a form of coercive land expritotiation. Or, “expropriation by stealth” as the group from Lochiel smallholdings describes it. The City plans to settle around 5,000 people in so-called temporary camps at the entrance to Lochiel road. These developments that, once established, tend to become permanent. Such densification will strain infrastructure, depress property values, and make ordinary living or business operations increasingly untenable.

As living conditions decline, property owners will face mounting pressure to sell. Though these sales may appear voluntary, they occur under duress, what could be called “forced voluntary” transactions. By engineering the circumstances that compel such sales, the City avoids the need for formal expropriation, sidestepping legal requirements for fair compensation and judicial oversight.

Under the Expropriation Act of 2021, authorities must demonstrate both public need and fair value before seizing property. Official documents acknowledge “process limitations”, a phrase that effectively concedes that direct expropriation would likely fail in court.

As you can see, there is clear intent by the DA-led City Council to build 10,000 housing units and coercively expropriate private land in the Deep South through the Local Spatial Development Framework (LSDF). This deserves serious attention given the long-term negative consequences it poses for everyone.

Regarding claims of “fear-mongering” and “misleading”, let me remind you of Thomas Sowell who describes a widely held vision embraced by many politicians, intellectuals, and media figures not only in the USA, but also in South Africa.

He refers to it as the ”anointed vision” because those who embrace this mindset see themselves as messianic figures. Consciously or unconsciously, they believe that they have a superior grasp of society’s problems and are uniquely equipped to fix them.

Thomas Sowell argues that the anointed advance their agenda through speech marked by crisis, manufacturing a sense of urgency, calling for government intervention through so-called “justice”, and discrediting others as misinformed. Such people ignore contrary evidence, discrediting others as “fear-mongering” and “misleading.”

Let this sink in…