For thirty years, the South African state has attempted to solve the housing crisis by building houses. It has spent billions of rands and delivered millions of units – and yet, year after year, the backlog continues to grow.
Informal settlements have expanded, with over 300 illegal settlements in Johannesburg now lacking basic services such as water, sewage and electricity. Meanwhile, the inner city has deteriorated to the point of becoming a slum. Poor families still live far from jobs, and sadly, workers spend a large portion of their income on dangerous and unreliable transportation.
It remains a persistent myth that the housing crisis is primarily caused by an inadequate supply of homes. that is not correct. The problem is not lack of effort. This is a flawed model that makes it impossible to provide housing.
At the heart of that failure is a simple reality: the City of Johannesburg cannot control where people want to live, and it cannot build housing fast or cheaply enough to meet demand. But more importantly, legal reforms implemented in the 1990s effectively destroyed the system that could meet that demand – the low-income rental market.
The reason is legal.
In 1998, Parliament enacted the Illegal Evictions Prevention Act. According to this law, no one can be evicted without a court order, and courts must consider whether alternative housing is available. In practice, this has been interpreted by the courts to mean that an eviction cannot proceed unless the tenant has alternative accommodation – and essentially the onus falls on the state to provide this accommodation.
This has had the predicted impact:
- Property owners cannot reliably remove non-paying or illegal occupants
- Developers face legal and financial uncertainty
- Investors avoid low-income rental housing
- Buildings are abandoned or gutted rather than renovated
This has resulted in a decline in the supply of formal, affordable rentals.
Why does the current approach fail?
The state's response has been to build more and more houses. This approach fails for four reasons:
- First of all, it is very slow. Large-scale housing projects take years to plan and complete. The backlog grows faster than the state's capacity.
- Secondly, housing projects are very expensive. Formal housing delivery absorbs large amounts of public money while reaching relatively few people.
- Third, housing is in poor condition. New housing is typically built on cheap land away from economic opportunities, reinforcing spatial inequality.
- Ultimately, it doesn't scale. The state cannot meet the demand of a large, mobile urban population through fixed housing alone.
Most importantly, this approach ignores the role that private rental housing plays in every successful city in the world.
Main obstacle: alternative accommodation
The housing crisis in Johannesburg is not primarily a question of land, building capacity or even money. This is a legal hurdle. Courts will not order eviction if doing so would result in homelessness and no alternative housing is available.
This is a legitimate and important security. But in practice, it has created a system in which:
- The State is expected to provide alternative accommodation
- The state cannot do this on a large scale
- eviction halted
- The rental market collapsed
The result is a system that protects businesses in the short term, but reduces access to housing in the long term. If this hurdle can be solved, the whole system will change.
In short, there is no shortage of housing in Johannesburg. There is a failure of legislation, incentives and implementation. The real problem facing Johannesburg and the rest of urban South Africa is a broken rental market. If Johannesburg is serious about solving the housing crisis, it should stop trying to fight its way out of the problem and start enabling the market to house people.
This requires a major shift: giving people the means to rent housing in the private sector, and making it legally possible for that sector to work.
There are thousands of underdeveloped or abandoned buildings in Johannesburg, especially in the inner city. It has large tracts of well situated land. It has a manufacturing sector capable of delivering units on a large scale. And there are millions of people willing to pay for housing.
It does not have a functioning low-income rental market.
Also, poor households are not able to access the limited formal rental stock. They are forced to live in overcrowded, unsafe and often illegal housing or in informal settlements on the urban periphery.
This is the root of the crisis.
Solution: Rental Housing Voucher
The City of Johannesburg cannot repeal the Prevention of Illegal Evictions Act which is national law. It cannot remove the need for alternative accommodation. But it can meet that need in a better way.
The solution is simple: provide eligible households with a monthly rental housing voucher – for example, R1,000 – which can be used to secure housing in the private sector.
Beneficiaries will receive a physical voucher every month that looks something like this:
The beneficiary will be free to redeem this voucher from the landlord of his choice. The landlord will then submit the voucher to the City of Johannesburg to get reimbursed in cash.
Landlords – known as “accredited accommodation suppliers” – must be registered on the city's database and meet certain standards to maintain their accreditation status. City officials will be entitled to inspect the premises of an accredited housing supplier to prevent fraud and abuse, among other controls.
This changes the system in three fundamental ways.
- This creates a legally recognized alternative accommodation
A rental voucher is not a house. But it's something more powerful: it's access to housing.
If a family has the means to secure housing in the private market, eviction does not leave them without options. Courts may regard this as satisfying the need for alternative accommodation.
This unlocks the legal system. Eviction has become possible again – not arbitrarily, but legally, and with a viable alternative.
- It restores confidence in the rental market
Once the risk of eviction becomes predictable and manageable:
- Property owners ready to re-rent
- Developers keen to renovate buildings
- Investors returned to the market
Inner city buildings that are currently abandoned or derelict have become economically viable.
The effect is not theoretical. It is immediate.
- This triggers a huge increase in supply
Additionally, vouchers increase demand in a targeted manner:
- Low-income households can now participate in the formal rental market
- Small landlords can rent out rooms and backyard units
- informal supply becomes formal
This is the important point: the city does not need to build the housing itself. To do this requires enabling thousands of private actors.
The result is a rapid expansion of available housing, especially in well-located urban areas.
addressing obvious concerns
Any serious proposal must confront its weaknesses.
Is R1,000 enough?
In many cases, this will not completely cover the rent. But that is not the purpose. The voucher bridges the gap, allowing families to supplement it with their income. As supply increases, prices will adjust downwards, especially in the low-cost segment. Ultimately, the value of the vouchers should be as much as is needed to move people into housing, but not more, so that as many people as possible can be helped using the available budget.
Will people become homeless?
No, vouchers are definitely intended to prevent this. It provides a portable, immediate means of accessing housing. Where necessary, the City can supplement this with short-term emergency housing.
Will landlords exploit tenants?
Only in a limited market. The solution to exploitation is supply. When tenants have choices, landlords must compete. And any unlawful abuse can be countered by revoking the landlord's Accredited Housing Supplier status.
is it fair?
More fair than the current system. Today, a small number of beneficiaries get heavily subsidized houses, while millions get nothing. Vouchers spread support across a much larger population.
What does it open up for Johannesburg
This policy is not just about housing. This enables comprehensive transformation of the city.
- Inner city regeneration: Derelict and abandoned buildings can be reclaimed and redeveloped.
- Better urban integration: People can live closer to jobs, reducing transportation costs and improving quality of life.
- Economic development: Construction, renovation and small-scale rental activities generate employment and income.
- Better governance: The city has shifted from being a direct provider of housing to an enabler of functioning.
A different model for the city
The current model treats residents as passive recipients of state housing. This proposal treats them as active participants in the housing market.
It recognizes that:
- People value location, mobility and opportunity
- Rental housing is not a failure, but a feature of successful cities
- A properly capable private sector can operate on a large scale
Most importantly, it replaces a system that tries to deliver everything to the few with a system that delivers something meaningful to the many.
conclusion
Johannesburg's housing crisis won't be solved by simply building more houses. This requires a change in thinking. The point is not to remove legal protections, but to make them practical.
By providing and administering rental housing vouchers, the City can meet the need for alternative housing, unlock legal evictions, restore the rental market, and dramatically increase the supply of housing. This is not a theoretical solution. It is a practical, scalable and legally based approach.
In short, it's a smart and serious way to fix the housing crisis.