Proposal for ARP – Linbro Park Spatial Development Framework
compiled in consultation with various Linbro Park residents, 26 March 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(summary of points from 5-page document attached)
Broader framework for discussion: National Housing Policy & Constitution of SA
-
Government Policy: obligates DoH (Dept of Housing) and ARP to consult with residents, not to present a plan unilaterally
-
Constitutional right: Participatory community consultation
-
LP residents have right to express interests, engage in plans impacting their future
-
ARP and Dept. of Housing engaged external professional planners who are obliged to work with all stakeholders to incorporate their perspectives into a working plan
Proposed Plan of Action: We need a two-track process:
-
Delay and change the process: Submit that current deadline of 30 April 2007 does not give enough time for this due process. The deadline should be extended by six months, and changed to incorporate a series of opportunities for residents to contribute to the plan.
-
Submit unified proposal from LP: While we try to delay and improve the consultation process, we can’t assume this will succeed. We must also submit, by 30 April, a unified proposal that takes into account different perspectives within LP. This should address a common core of interests and opportunities, while minimizing conflict and fears. Get copies of current ARP plan and identify impacts (for own property, for family, for LP). Try to achieve 80% support for submission of plan.
Linbro is a divided community
-
conflicting
interests, viewpoints & opinions, such as:
maintain low-density equestrian character
willing to sell if land price increases
long-term value growth (Gautrain & ARP) may increase property values, opportunities
ARP is a reality; a culturally and economically diverse, denser settlement pattern offers benefits
-
need to identify a
common vision
-
fighting to prevent
change unlikely to succeed, and may rob us of opportunity to
meaningfully influence our future. Best if we engage pro-actively and
positively.
Change will happen
-
ARP and DOH may have political and financial clout to implement plans unilaterally
-
Linbro is located in a prime development node
-
Linbro is already densifying and diversifying its use of space informally
Flaws of current ARP process: ignores policy and good practise
-
inadequate
consultation / facilitation of dialogue, externally imposed, no
attention to particular interests
-
envisaged technical flaws e.g. grid-pattern main-road & cbd design fragments Linbro, exacerbates traffic problems, isolates pockets of higher-income bonded housing and reproduces colonial patterns
-
Fragmentation and polarisation of
social groups
-
Loss of natural environment &
rural character of LP
Unified plan must address risks and fears
-
Crime increase
-
Congestion
-
Overload of
amenities
-
Change in semi-rural
& natural environment & way of life
-
Loss of investment
(property values, time, money, infrastructure)
-
Loss of livelihoods
-
Disruption of
businesses (esp. bond-financed)
Unified plan should maximise opportunities
-
improved security
through better community integration and pro-active policing
-
property rentals
-
new business
opportunities to service needs of new residents
-
improvement of basic
infrastructure and amenities
-
creation of showcase
community, ecologically sound and socially integrated settlement
pattern
-
retention of
medium-density rural settlement character to accommodate high-density
urban agriculture and provide supplementary livelihoods to unemployed
residents
Scenarios for responding to ARP
-
LP community
refuses to participate
■ law suit => financial & emotional stress
■ “expropriation by stealth”
■ residents receive “fair value” vs. “market value”
-
LP divided –
some sell
■ No engagement with ARP
■ Linbro densifies gradually, without coherent design or direction outside of ARP intentions
■ Settlement pattern disorganised and fragmented
■ Inadequate infrastructure rapidly overloaded
-
LP shapes
future proactively
■ fully integrated community begins blurring apartheid-era divides
■ settlement design reflects needs and inputs of community
■ LP retains its semi-rural character
■ diverse business opportunities develop
■ residents engage in open dialogue over relevant issues
Current ARP plan affects Linbro residents in different ways
Develop strategies based on intended land-use: high, medium, and low-density zones
-
High-Density:
■ Identify services that could be provided here as business opportunities.
■ Advocate for mixed land-use.
■ Sell to ARP as last resource; preferential access to properties elsewhere in LP
-
Mid-Density:
■ retain a portion of land for private residential/business purposes
■ agree to development of portions of property to accommodate ARP needs
■ Sell preferentially to displaced LP residents; sell to ARP as last resource; preferential access to properties
elsewhere in LP
-
High-Density:
■ retain a portion of land for private residential/business purposes
■ agree to development of portions of property to accommodate ARP needs
■ Sell preferentially to displaced LP residents; sell to ARP as last resource; preferential access to properties
elsewhere in LP
Conclusion
If we engage this process pro-actively, we can shape the future of Linbro Park for the better. Let us find a broad vision and a shared path towards our common goals.
Proposal for ARP – Linbro Park Spatial Development Framework
Framework of discussion: the national housing policy
All discussions about the future of Linbro Park and Alexandra must be guided by the national housing policy, “Breaking New Ground” and the Constitution of South Africa, which put in place principles for good governance. One of the key features of this is the central role of community consultation in developing plans for integrated communities. Three major implications of these are:
-
Linbro Park residents have a right to make their interests and needs known, and to be involved in the process of developing plans that will influence their future. However, Linbro Park is a divided community, whose residents have multiple, at times conflicting, viewpoints. It is therefore not easy to identify a single common vision.
-
The Alexandra Renewal Project and the Department of Housing have engaged professional planners. They have an obligation to work with the residents of Linbro Park and Alexandra to identify various perspectives, fears, and desires, and to incorporate these into the final plan. This is standard good practice in community development.
-
The ARP presentation does not seem to make any significant departure from typical colonial city planning; e.g. grid-pattern main-road & cbd design fragments Linbro, exacerbates traffic problems, isolates pockets of higher-income bonded housing and reproduces colonial patterns In contrast to the concept of breaking new ground, this plan seems to merely duplicate some of the planning errors of the previous regime. It seems likely to perpetuate the history of displacement, localised polarisation and disempowerment
So far, however, the process has not provided a supportive process for airing views and building them into a common vision. While Linbro residents have an obligation to work towards a solution, so do the managers of the ARP and the DoH. We would like to see a joint process of shaping a plan.
We want to submit that the current deadline of 30 April 2007 does not give enough time for this due process and therefore should be extended by six months. Failure to get an extension will lead to Linbro Park residents lodging a complaint with the Public Protector.
We need a two-track process. Linbro residents must understand that the ARP and DoH have the authority to enforce change in the community, and we must come together to help formulate an acceptable plan. At the same time, we should push ARP and DoH to engage with us in this process, and to provide their professional support and ideas. This may get us past the current ‘exchange’ of plans that have been developed in isolation.
Diverse perspectives
There is no single “Linbro Park” way of life, nor a single reaction to the ARP. There are very different perspectives within Linbro Park. Community consultation needs to actively facilitate the incorporation of these various perspectives
We note at least 4 different perspectives among current residents
-
keep Linbro as horse-lovers’ green space, low density
-
if land price increases, we’ll happily sell and move
-
longer term outlook, Gautrain and even ARP may increase some property values and offer business opportunities
-
ARP is a reality; in any case, a mixed community could bring benefits
We need to have a single submission to the Department of Housing, which should be based on an understanding of key aspects of these (and possibly additional) perspectives raised in the March 28th Linbro Park Meeting. The Linbro Park submission in response to ARP should address a common core of interests, while minimizing conflict and fears. We need to focus on the ‘integrated’ aspects of integrated communities, and rally around a core. Multiple conflicting submissions from various Linbro residents to the Department of Housing have created problems for Linbro in the past, and will undermine our ability to influence the current ARP plan.
Starting point: ARP is a reality
The political and economic forces behind the drive for mixed income and socially diverse communities are huge. This is politically sensitive and hence actively supported by national, provincial and local governments, with a large budget. Densification of Linbro is already happening informally (eg in new cluster housing), and further densification to include low and middle income residents, along with development of commercial properties (shops, etc) and of community services (school, clinic, etc) is going to happen in the coming 5 years or more. How it happens, and what final shape it takes is up to us.
“Country living in the city” as currently experienced will change. How can we retain some of the most important aspects of Linbro, while adapting to and guiding change?
It is best if we engage proactively and positively; a rear-guard fight to prevent this won’t succeed, and will mean we can’t really have any meaningful influence.
Different sections of Linbro (based on location of property) will be affected differently
1. High density belt– social housing, community services and service orientated businesses
2. Medium density belt - bonded housing
3. Low density – a chance for some sections to remain as Linbro is?
Therefore any submission should address these different needs/concerns.
Addressing Fears
Opportunities
-
Improved access to amenities and infrastructure (sewerage, lighting, water mainly).
-
Rental, new business opportunity, income would become available
-
Property values will go up for developed areas
-
Creation of a showcase that embodies the values, ethics, principles and economic benefits of an integrated and sustainable society
-
Make area more secure (community based and innovative policing)
Possible Scenarios
Scenario 1
Where we all refuse to participate in the ARP densification process.
Law suit ensues. Government uses all its powers within the constitution to get our land, most likely not at market value but at “fair value” (which the court will determine) and expropriate our land. We depart, mostly after a lot of emotional strain and monetary loss (due to court case which we cannot win). Vacant land and owned government target will be the initial target.
Estimated time frame: 5-10 years
Scenario 2
In a divided Linbro Park some owners decide to sell.
There are some property owners who have already started to sell to outside interests, bit by bit. There is no engagement with ARP, but in the process, Linbro does get densified, without real input from a divided Linbro Park owners base. Infrastructure is largely inadequate to cater for all the new ad hoc developments by individual owners as the City of Johannesburg has put a moratorium on any new developments. (Unofficially the municipality will not really be interested in improving infrastructure outside ARP process.)
Estimated time frame until expropriation: 5-15 years
Scenario 3
Proactively engaging in shaping our future.
Linbro Park joins Blythedale Estate (KZN North Coast) as an experiment of the first fully integrated housing development (launched in 2007). The KZN project will include 5000 units, with 1300 being extremely affordable and others reaching prices of R3 million. Its success will partly be measured by the blurring of boundaries set up during the apartheid era. Its failures can only be measured in time and indicators could be land values go up or they could be artificially brought down.
If change is inevitable over time, the best course of action is how best do we influence this change in a way that minimizes our losses?
Proposed plan of action
-
Propose an alternative to Plan and counter Plan. We must influence DoH and ARP to engage in a process of jointly developing an acceptable plan
-
Each family in Linbro Park needs to think about the current ARP plan and indeed any plan from various perspectives:
- implications for their own plot
- implications of densification in Linbro Park for their families
- implications for Linbro Park as a community
Proposed action by all Linbro Park community property owners as a lobby group:
-
All residents to get copies of ARP plan and map and identify how they are affected
-
The process so far contradicts “Breaking new ground” national housing policy and accepted good practice since Linbro residents and external stakeholders were not consulted in the development of the plan – the grid planning as presented by ARP presentation does not seem to have any departure from typical colonial cities
-
Lobby for the extension of the submission date, failing which we request for community participation process to be initiated at ARP’s cost and last resort is to lodge a complaint with the Public Protector.
-
Through ARP or Department of Housing – funds for community participation process to be included in their budget.
-
Agree to an “in-principle agreement” to act in concert for the greater good as a bigger community, this is more likely to help people achieve personal goals.
-
The core that the community rallies round is urban agriculture so advocate for more land than is currently put aside for low density ( have to decide on how much that would be)
-
Any Alex resident who is coming in becomes a part of Linbro Community Ass
-
Commit that at least 80% of current owners subscribe to submission plan.
Proposed action by those in the high density belt:
-
Identify which services will be needed in this belt / are they any service providers in Linbro who are able to currently meet these needs.
-
Advocate for a mixed land use ( residential, services to communities and
-
Can Linbro owners be able to service this community by:
-
Last alternative sell property to ARP and move elsewhere, potentially getting preferential access to open land elsewhere in Linbro Park in the designated middle or low density areas available in Linbro Park.
Proposed action by those in the middle density belt:
Proposed action by those in the low density belt:
Joyce Mpofu
Linbro Park 26 March 2007