Gavilon Dean Basson•1 month ago I acknowledge the City of Cape Town’s intention to develop a 130-bed Safe Space facility in Kuilsrivier on Erven 1211 and 1212. I support the principle that vulnerable residents should not be left to sleep in unsafe, undignified public spaces. People experiencing homelessness require dignity, protection, ablutions, food, healthcare access, social support, documentation assistance, substance-abuse support, mental-health pathways, family reintegration and employment opportunities.However, I respectfully submit that this proposal should not be approved on the basis of good intentions alone.The City must prove that this specific Safe Space is the best long-term use of public land and public money, especially in a city with a severe housing crisis, long housing waiting lists, unresolved temporary relocation areas, and a history of selling or releasing public land that could potentially have been used for housing or mixed public-benefit development.My position is therefore conditional support only. The City should not proceed unless it first publishes a clear cost, land-use, housing-feasibility, operational and reintegration plan.1. Safe Spaces are temporary; housing is permanentA Safe Space may be necessary as an emergency response, but it is not the same as housing. The City’s own rough-sleeping strategy describes Safe Spaces as temporary and transitional. The City’s strategy also confirms that Safe Spaces are financed from the City’s rates account and that, during the 2022/2023 financial year, the City spent approximately R55 million on Safe Spaces and Safe Space security, excluding some staff costs. This raises a serious public-finance question:Are ratepayers being asked to fund a permanent temporary system, instead of permanent housing solutions?A Safe Space can provide a bed tonight. But if the same person remains in temporary systems year after year, or returns to the street after short-term shelter, then the public money has not solved homelessness. It has only managed it.International evidence also supports the view that housing-led and Housing First approaches are essential to long-term homelessness reduction. A systematic review found that permanent supportive housing using a Housing First approach decreased homelessness, increased housing stability and improved quality of life for people experiencing homelessness. The OECD has also recognised housing-led and Housing First approaches as key long-term homelessness responses, although many countries have not yet scaled them adequately. I therefore submit that the Kuilsrivier Safe Space should be assessed against a housing-exit test:What permanent, transitional, social, affordable or family-reintegration outcome will each resident be moved towards?2. Cost to the taxpayer must be disclosed before approvalThe City should publish the full financial implications of this proposal before asking the community to support it.Based on previous City Safe Space information, this proposal could cost taxpayers several million rand per year. The SAHRC reported that the proposed 300-bed Green Point Safe Space had an estimated development cost of R8.25 million and an operating cost of R10 million. It also reported that the City planned to spend R230 million over three years on Safe Spaces. GroundUp similarly reported that the City planned to spend R77 million in one year and R230 million over three years on the Safe Space programme. Using those previous figures only as a rough guide:
A basic scaled estimate from a 300-bed model could place a 130-bed facility at around R3.5 million to R5 million in development/setup cost and around R4 million to R5 million per year in operating cost.
A more realistic estimate based on City-wide Safe Space/security expenditure could place the annual cost closer to R9 million to R12 million per year, especially once security, operations, utilities, cleaning, maintenance and support services are included.
If the facility is done properly, with adequate social workers, healthcare referral systems, substance-abuse support, mental-health pathways, employment support, perimeter management, reporting and community oversight, the cost could reasonably rise to approximately R12 million to R18 million per year, possibly more depending on the final operating model.
Over ten years, a properly run facility could therefore cost approximately R120 million to R180 million in operating expenditure, excluding major capital upgrades and excluding any additional City Law Enforcement cost carried by another budget.The City must therefore answer:
What is the capital cost of this Kuilsrivier Safe Space?
What is the annual operating cost?
What is the cost per bed per year?
What is the cost per resident assisted?
What is the cost per successful reintegration?
How much will be spent on security compared with social work, healthcare, skills and housing exits?
Will Law Enforcement patrols create additional hidden costs?
How long is the facility expected to operate?
What will taxpayers have after 10 years: permanent housing assets, or only repeated temporary accommodation?
Public money should not only fund beds, security and operations. It should fund measurable movement into stable accommodation and reintegration.3. No Safe Space without a housing-exit planThe City’s own Safe Space model includes more than a bed. The model is reported to include two meals per day, ablutions, on-site social workers, skills training, job-placement assistance, personal development planning, ID-document support, social-grant access and family reconnection. I support those services. But they must be measurable and enforceable.The City must publish a housing-exit and reintegration plan that states:
expected average length of stay;
maximum length of stay;
number of residents expected to exit into stable accommodation each year;
number expected to reunite with family;
number expected to access employment or EPWP opportunities;
number expected to receive ID-document support;
number expected to receive substance-abuse or mental-health referrals;
number expected to move into transitional housing, social housing, affordable rental, supported housing or other stable accommodation;
what happens where a resident cannot be reintegrated within a reasonable time.
Without this, the facility may become a managed holding space instead of a route out of homelessness.4. Older Safe Spaces show both value and riskThe City’s rough-sleeping strategy lists older Safe Spaces, including Culemborg Safe Space 1, Culemborg Parking Lot, Paint City in Bellville, Durbanville Safe Space and Ebenezer/Green Point. It records capacities of 230 people at Culemborg Safe Space 1, 280 at Culemborg Parking Lot, 250 at Paint City, 40 at Durbanville and 300 at Ebenezer/Green Point. It also records 789 reintegration-related outcomes from inception to June 2023 across earlier facilities. That shows the model can assist people.However, the same data also shows that Safe Spaces are large, recurring, managed facilities requiring ongoing public money. They must be judged by outcomes, not only by bed numbers.Civil society has welcomed Safe Spaces as a step away from simply displacing people from public spaces, but concerns have been raised that the model must be more than a night shelter. The SAHRC report records views that Safe Spaces must include proper reintegration, health-sector involvement, GBV support, connection to livelihoods, and meaningful engagement with people living on the streets. This is directly relevant to Kuilsrivier. The City must show how the Kuilsrivier facility will avoid becoming a limited shelter model.5. Site suitability must be provenThe City should publish a site suitability assessment for Erven 1211 and 1212, Kuilsrivier.The assessment should explain:
Why this site was selected.
What alternative sites were considered.
Whether the site is close to public transport, clinics, social services and work opportunities.
Whether the surrounding community, schools, businesses and residents will be affected.
Whether the site can safely accommodate 130 residents plus staff, visitors, vehicles and service providers.
Whether the site has sufficient water, sanitation, electricity, waste and stormwater capacity.
Whether the site is suitable for temporary shelter only, or whether it could support permanent or transitional housing.
Whether the Human Settlements Directorate assessed the site for housing before the Safe Space proposal was advanced.
The community should not be asked to accept a 130-bed facility without this information.6. The City must explain why housing is not being prioritised on public landCape Town has a serious housing need. A 2026 report stated that approximately 440,000 applicants were registered on the City’s Housing Needs Register, while the City proposed almost R2.8 billion for human settlements opportunities in 2026/27. Against that background, every significant use of City-owned land should be tested against housing need.The City has also recently released or sought to release major public land parcels. The City’s own investment platform stated that approximately 50 opportunities, zoned for residential, commercial, industrial, community and mixed-use purposes, were made available for sale and lease, involving about 282,000m² of land. The City said these properties were assessed as not required for municipal purposes and that revenue would be used for service delivery. A later City statement on the same land-release process referred to 50 City-owned properties, including the Good Hope Centre, and said the City had a pipeline of 12,000 affordable units. The same statement listed residential sites in areas including Kraaifontein, Westridge, Atlantis, Durbanville, Goodwood, Eerste River, Coniston Park, Bridgetown, Athlone, Maitland and Vredehoek, and industrial sites including Kuils River. This is important because the City cannot treat public land as a revenue asset in one process, a shelter asset in another process, and a housing asset only in selected processes. The public is entitled to a transparent land-use test.Before approving this Safe Space, the City should explain:
why Erven 1211 and 1212 are not being used for permanent housing, transitional housing, social housing, affordable rental, BNG housing or mixed-use housing;
whether any portion of the land could support housing;
whether nearby City-owned land can support housing;
whether the Safe Space is temporary or permanent;
whether the site could be designed as a combined Safe Space and transitional housing precinct;
whether the cost of the Safe Space could be better used for housing assets.
7. Public land must be treated as a constitutional asset, not only a programme siteThe Constitutional Court’s Tafelberg judgment is highly relevant to public land decisions in Cape Town. The PLAAS summary of the judgment states that the Court confirmed the state’s obligation to deliver spatial justice and that location must be placed at the centre of housing decisions. It also states that public land should not be sold off without meaningful consultation and consideration of its potential for social housing. Recent reporting on the Tafelberg ruling further states that the Court found that authorities had not developed a coherent plan for affordable housing in well-located, amenity-rich urban areas, and that relying on cheaper land at the city’s periphery perpetuates spatial inequalities. This principle should apply to the Kuilsrivier Safe Space as well.The question is not only whether a Safe Space is useful. The question is whether this public land and public money are being used in the best way to undo homelessness, housing insecurity and spatial injustice.8. Temporary relocation must not become permanent povertyThe City must also consider families who have been waiting for proper housing for many years, including residents of Temporary Relocation Areas such as Blikkiesdorp.GroundUp reported that Blikkiesdorp residents protested after years of waiting for houses, with residents saying structures were falling apart, stormwater drains were blocked, illegal dumping was present, and emergency services were reluctant to enter the settlement at night because of criminal activity. One resident said she was placed there in 2010 and told it would be for six months. Recent reporting also described Blikkiesdorp as a Temporary Relocation Area where residents say a temporary solution has stretched into many years of waiting for permanent homes. This matters because the City should not keep creating temporary systems while unresolved temporary communities remain in crisis.If land or funding is available, the City should explain why long-term TRA families, backyard dwellers, housing-list applicants and people in emergency housing are not being prioritised for permanent or transitional housing opportunities.Temporary shelter should not become permanent policy.9. Available and developable land must be auditedThe City should not assess this Safe Space proposal in isolation.A public land and housing audit should be published for Kuilsrivier and surrounding areas. This should include:
City-owned land;
provincial land;
national land;
underutilised municipal sites;
land released or proposed for sale/lease;
land suitable for BNG housing;
land suitable for social housing;
land suitable for affordable rental;
land suitable for transitional housing;
land suitable for mixed-use housing;
land unsuitable because of flood risk, wetlands, servitudes or environmental constraints.
There are examples of housing development being assessed in the broader Kuils River area. For example, a site verification report for Remainder Farm 1388, Kuils River describes a proposed mixed-use residential neighbourhood on approximately 12.15 hectares, with about 436 Single Residential 1 erven, general residential erven, a general business erf, public open space and stormwater-management areas. The same report states that the site is within the municipal urban edge and surrounded by residential suburbs including Belhar and Wesbank. I do not rely on that example to say that Erven 1211 and 1212 are identical or suitable for housing. My point is that land-use decisions in Kuilsrivier should be supported by proper technical assessment, not assumptions.If the City can assess housing on environmentally sensitive or well-serviced land elsewhere, it should also publish a clear housing-feasibility assessment for this Safe Space site and nearby public land.10. Community safety and operational controls are essentialIf the Safe Space proceeds, the City must protect both the residents of the facility and the surrounding community.The facility should include:
24-hour security.
Access control.
CCTV at entrances and perimeter areas.
Adequate lighting.
Clear perimeter management.
No unmanaged loitering outside the facility.
Cleaning and waste removal around the site.
A resident code of conduct.
Rules on weapons, drugs, alcohol, violence, noise, visitors and curfew.
Separate protection for women, elderly persons, disabled persons, LGBTQIA+ persons and other vulnerable residents.
On-site social work capacity.
Healthcare referral pathways.
Mental-health referral pathways.
Substance-abuse and intoxication protocols.
GBV support pathways.
ID-document and social-grant assistance.
Employment and skills-development links.
Family reunification programme.
A complaints process for surrounding residents and businesses.
A community oversight committee.
The proposal says the facility will include 24-hour security and that Law Enforcement patrol support will be requested. That is not enough. The City must publish the operational plan, service standards, patrol plan, response times, complaint process and accountability structure.11. Operator accountability must be publicThe City should disclose who will operate the facility, how they will be selected, and how performance will be measured.The operating agreement should include measurable targets for:
occupancy;
safety incidents;
complaints;
response times;
cleaning;
reintegration;
family reunification;
employment/EPWP placements;
healthcare referrals;
substance-abuse referrals;
exits into stable accommodation;
repeat homelessness;
community impact.
The City should publish monthly or quarterly performance reports.If the operator fails to meet standards, there must be consequences.12. The Safe Space should not be approved without a housing comparisonThe City should publish a comparison between:
spending money on a 130-bed Safe Space;
using the same funds for transitional housing;
using the same funds for social housing gap funding;
using the same funds for serviced sites;
using the same funds for upgrading temporary relocation areas;
using the same funds for rental support or family-reintegration support;
using the same funds to unlock public land for permanent housing.
This comparison should include a 5-year and 10-year cost projection.If the Safe Space costs R12 million to R18 million per year when properly operated, the 10-year cost could be R120 million to R180 million, excluding major capital costs. The public must know why that recurring expenditure is better than investing in housing assets or housing-exit pathways.13. My requested conditions before approvalI respectfully request that the City not approve or implement the Kuilsrivier Safe Space unless the following are published and considered:
Full capital cost.
Full annual operating cost.
Cost per bed per year.
Cost per successful reintegration.
Cost per resident exiting into stable accommodation.
Full operational plan.
Operator appointment process and performance standards.
Security and Law Enforcement plan.
Healthcare, mental-health and substance-abuse support plan.
Housing-exit plan.
Family reunification plan.
Skills and employment pathway.
Site suitability report.
Housing feasibility assessment for Erven 1211 and 1212.
Public land audit for Kuilsrivier and surrounding areas.
Alternative site assessment.
Community impact assessment.
Traffic, waste, sanitation and service-capacity assessment.
Community oversight committee.
Monthly or quarterly public reporting.
Six-month and 12-month independent review after opening.
Clear power to correct, reduce, pause or restructure operations if serious harm or failure occurs.
14. Proposed policy conditionI propose that the City apply the following condition:No Safe Space facility should be approved unless it is directly linked to a measurable housing-exit and reintegration pathway, supported by a published cost-benefit analysis comparing temporary shelter expenditure with permanent housing, transitional housing, social housing, affordable rental and family reintegration alternatives.I further propose:Where City-owned land is proposed for a Safe Space, the City must first publish a site-specific housing feasibility assessment showing whether the land can reasonably be used, in whole or in part, for permanent housing, transitional housing, social housing, affordable rental, BNG housing, mixed-use housing or other direct public-benefit uses.ConclusionI support dignified assistance for vulnerable residents. I do not support leaving people to sleep in unsafe public spaces. But I also do not support a system where ratepayers fund expensive temporary accommodation year after year while the deeper housing crisis remains unresolved.The Kuilsrivier Safe Space may assist people in the short term, but it must not become a substitute for housing.The City must show that this proposal is not merely a shelter project, but a genuine pathway from homelessness to stability. It must also show that public land and public money are being used in a way that advances housing justice, spatial justice, community safety and long-term reintegration.I therefore request that the City treat this submission as conditional support only, subject to full disclosure of cost, land-use justification, housing feasibility, operational controls, reintegration outcomes and community accountability.Public money should not only manage homelessness. It should help end it.
