Social housing is essential, but should it be rental-only?
Housing: Leeuloop Precinct Development in Cape Town, along with two other proposed mixed-use projects, will provide much needed affordable rental accommodation in the innter city. Photo: Supplied
Protesting for social housing across South Africa has been a long-standing, contentious issue. I recently wrote about the first inner-city affordable housing development announced by the Western Cape government in Cape Town's city centre.
The Leeuloop Precinct Development will have about 840 residential units and consist of two towers on a 3 000m2 erf owned by the city. The towers will have 18 to 20 storeys with retail on the ground floor.
Tower One will consist of 490 open market units, while Tower Two will have about 350 social housing units.
Funding for this project is a mix between private and public. Completion of this project is expected to be in 2027-28.
As far as sustainability goes, the plan is to have a four star green building, and level one (construction waste) net zero carbon certification from the Green Building Council of South Africa.
Leeuloop is one of three mixed-use developments that will tackle the issue of affordable housing in Cape Town. The other two are Founders Garden and Prestwich Precinct.
With more than 7 000 apartments and 3 300 businesses in the inner city, these developments, with an almost 50/50 split of social housing units, should make quite an impact.
This got me thinking about a thought-provoking question I was recently asked: 'What's your opinion on the fact that social housing is rental only?'
It's a simple question on the surface, but the answer digs deep into issues of policy, economics, empowerment and our country's painful history of inequality. It brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between accessibility and opportunity, between preservation and progression.
First things first: social housing in South Africa is intentionally rental-based. It's part of the policy framework designed to address a huge and ongoing housing shortage for low- to middle-income households.
People who qualify for social housing subsidies live in households that earn R3 000 to R22 000 a month. They are too 'rich' to qualify for RDP housing but are not earning enough to qualify for bonds in the traditional property market. This group has long been squeezed out of ownership opportunities and quality rentals. Social housing aims to fill that gap, providing safe, dignified, well-located accommodation at below-market rentals.
And here's the key: if these units were made available for purchase, they'd probably be flipped. Imagine someone buys a unit at a subsidised rate, holds it for a short period and then sells it at market value. This is great for the seller, but it's not so for the next buyer, who now has to fork out more for what was meant to be an affordable unit. Especially in areas such as Cape Town's inner city, where property prices offer potential capital growth and promising yields that will soar far beyond the stipulated social housing rates.
This is what's known as the 'honeymoon period problem'. Ownership might be the dream, but without strong controls in place, it opens the door to speculation and profit-making. Before long, what was meant to serve the working class becomes unaffordable again.
We have also observed that when people receive their RDP houses, many choose not to move in. Instead, they live in more affordable accommodations and rent out the property.
I don't have an issue with this entrepreneurial approach to creating an income stream — the money is still circulating in the South African economy — but I do have concerns about this flaw in the RDP housing system.
So, yes, when it comes to social housing, rental-only keeps the asset in the social housing ecosystem. It ensures long-term affordability. It allows the units to cycle through tenants who need them, instead of disappearing into private hands.
But here's the catch.
Ownership equals empowerment. As much as I understand the logic behind rental-only housing, I can't ignore what ownership represents, especially in South Africa.
It is still one of the most powerful tools for wealth creation. It allows people to build equity, borrow against their assets, and leave something behind for the next generation. It's also psychological. Owning property gives people a sense of stability, control and dignity that renting doesn't always offer.
And, more importantly, it helps people move out of the social housing system. If we want social housing to be transitional and not permanent, we need to give people a pathway to progress. That path usually includes ownership.
So now we've got a problem: on one hand, we need to protect affordable stock. On the other, we need to create a system that doesn't just house people, but also uplifts them.
Is there a middle ground? Yes, this doesn't have to be an 'either-or' debate, but it's tricky. What we need is a tiered model — a more nuanced approach that accommodates both access and advancement.
Over the years, I have familiarised myself with a few ideas that have been floated in policy circles, and that I believe deserve more airtime.
Rent-to-buy schemes allow tenants to rent a unit for a fixed number of years, with the option to buy after that period, often at a discounted rate. This gives them time to build financial stability while creating a clear pathway to ownership.
Then there is the shared equity ownership model. This is when a housing institution retains part ownership of the property, while the resident buys a share. This limits resale profits and keeps the unit partially in the public domain, while still allowing residents to build some equity.
We could also look at the concept of capping resale prices. This solution is slightly more controversial, but worth exploring. Some developments internationally allow owners to sell — but only at a capped return (linked to inflation or a fixed formula). That way, people benefit from ownership, but can't exploit the system.
Last, maybe the core of social housing stock stays rental-only, but adjacent units or pilot schemes within a development are made available for sale under stricter rules. Essentially, this would be ownership of non-core units. This creates a dual system that caters to both short-term needs and long-term growth.
The goal with social housing should always be to give people the tools to move forward, not to keep them stuck in a system that only meets their basic needs.
We have to think long-term when it comes to social housing. We have to find ways to protect affordability and create opportunity, to keep the public good intact, and to support private growth. It's not easy, but it's not impossible either.
I understand why social housing is rental-only. It makes sense. But we also need to keep asking the tough questions: are we just housing people, or are we helping them build a future? If it's the latter, then ownership — even if limited, delayed or carefully managed — has to be part of the conversation.
Because real transformation isn't just about where people live, it's about what they can build from there.
Ask Ash examines South Africa's property, architecture and living spaces. Continue the conversation with her on email (
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
12 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
From groceries to bonds: How a 3% inflation target will affect you
A weaker dollar could lower South Africa's import costs, especially oil, which affects everything from fuel prices to transport tariffs. South Africa is on the cusp of a quiet, but profound, policy revolution, one that will probably not dominate headlines, but could change the cost of living, investment climate and policy credibility for years to come. The South African Reserve Bank is preparing to reset the country's inflation target, narrowing it from the traditional 3% to 6% band to a firm 3% anchor. In May 2025, inflation fell to 2.8%, its fourth consecutive month below the lower bound of the current target. With inflation subdued, the Reserve Bank has not only cut the repo rate to 7.25% but is also strongly signaling that a tighter target could offer greater stability, clarity and long-term growth prospects. This shift is not just academic. It would affect household budgets, food prices, interest rates, job creation, government debt and even South Africa's credibility in global markets. With inflation globally easing, and trading partners adjusting their own macroeconomic targets, the time is ripe for South Africa to follow suit. The current 3% to 6% target band was introduced in the early 2000s when South Africa was grappling with higher inflation volatility and external shocks. But, today, the inflation landscape has changed: Headline CPI has consistently remained below the 4.5% midpoint for the past year and recently fell under 3%. Core inflation, a better measure of persistent pressures, also dropped to 3.0%, suggesting deeper disinflation. With fuel and food prices stabilising, and the rand holding steady, the reserve bank has a rare opportunity to re-anchor inflation expectations at a lower and more credible level. A firmer inflation target provides clarity to markets, businesses and consumers. It helps reduce long-term borrowing costs, improves policy predictability and enhances investor confidence. South Africa's trade and investment flows are deeply influenced by the policies of its largest global partners, all of whom are recalibrating inflation expectations in a post-pandemic world. The US Federal Reserve is expected to begin cutting interest rates by Q3 2025, after inflation fell close to its 2% target. A weaker dollar could lower South Africa's import costs, especially oil, which affects everything from fuel prices to transport tariffs. The European Central Bank began its first rate cuts in June 2025, with inflation now hovering around 2.3%. As the EU is South Africa's top trading partner, stable prices in Europe support South African exports (cars, fruit, metals) and reduce price instability on imports. China faces an opposite problem: deflation. With consumer prices rising just 0.7%, its stimulus measures are designed to boost demand. This could temporarily reduce prices for South African imports, like electronics and machinery, but it could also dampen demand for key exports such as coal and iron ore. While inflation remains volatile in countries like Nigeria and Ghana, South Africa's ability to target and sustain a low rate would position it as a regional anchor of stability attracting investment and strengthening its voice in Africa's financial future. While discussions about inflation targets might seem removed from everyday realities, the effects of this policy will touch every household, small business and worker in South Africa. Here's how. When inflation is high, the prices of essentials like bread, maize meal, oil and meat often rise uncontrollably. A firm 3% anchor can slow these increases. This translates to more predictable household budgets and less pressure on working-class families. 'At 3% inflation, a typical R500 grocery basket would increase by just R15 a month, far less than the R40 to R50 jumps seen in high-inflation periods,' notes economist Reitumetse Mofokeng. Stable inflation contributes to a stronger rand and lower fuel price volatility. For taxi users, truckers and rural commuters, this means fewer fare hikes and transport cost spikes, a key driver of inflation for poor households. Lower inflation usually leads to lower interest rates. Over time, a 3% anchor could bring mortgage and car loan rates down. A R1 million home loan at 11.5% costs about R10 600 a month. At 9.5% (if inflation stabilises), that drops to R9 000 a month, a saving of R1 600 a month. That's money in the pocket for middle-income families struggling with high debt burdens. When inflation is under control, businesses can plan better, borrow more affordably and take investment risks. This spurs new hiring, especially in construction, retail and agriculture. Predictable prices are oxygen for township entrepreneurs,' says Khanyisa Nxumalo, a Sowet bakery owner. 'You can't hire if you don't know your costs next month.' Stable inflation helps workers negotiate real wage increases. In a high-inflation environment, a 6% raise barely covers the cost of living. At 3%, the same raise leaves workers with more take-home value. Despite its benefits, a 3% target isn't a cure-all. It must be managed carefully or it could backfire. If implemented too quickly, it could strengthen the rand too much, hurting export competitiveness. If productivity doesn't improve, South African goods might become too expensive globally. If fiscal discipline falters, inflation expectations could rise again, undermining the Reserve Bank's credibility. This is why the bank insists that it needs the treasury's backing for the shift and that the transition must be gradual, well-communicated and credible. Looking ahead: What South Africans should watch What to watch Why it matters July 2025 MPC Minutes Could signal formal move to 3% The treasury Finance minister must endorse the change Rand stability Key to keeping import prices and inflation down Repo rate forecasts Declining rates signal confidence in the anchor BER inflation expectations survey Shows if businesses and consumers are buying into the new framework For too long, high and volatile inflation has eaten into the incomes of poor and middle-class South Africans, discouraged savings and stifled investment. A firm 3% anchor is a bold policy pivot, one that aligns South Africa with global norms, encourages responsible governance and offers tangible relief for citizens. This is not just about economic theory. It's about bringing down the cost of living, unlocking credit, stabilising food and fuel prices and creating a more investable South Africa. And, if executed with the clarity and discipline that the Reserve Bank is known for, this could mark the beginning of a new macroeconomic era, one of price stability, public trust and economic inclusion. Anchoring at 3% won't fix everything. But it's one strong, steady hand on the wheel — exactly what this country needs right now. Nkosinathi Mtshali is a bachelor of laws student at University of the Free State.
The Citizen
17 hours ago
- The Citizen
Oh hash! Musk bans ‘aesthetic nightmare' hashtags from X
Musk made another bold move in his ongoing campaign to reinvent the the social media platform. If you are still using hashtags on X, formerly known as Twitter, be warned, billionaire Tesla CEO and owner of X, Elon Musk, is coming for what he called an 'aesthetic nightmare.' The South Africa-born Musk made another bold move in his ongoing campaign to reinvent the social media platform on Friday, banning hashtags in paid advertisements. Musk said the decision is part of a broader effort to promote cleaner, sleeker ad visuals on the platform. 'Starting tomorrow (Friday), the aesthetic nightmare that is hashtags will be banned from ads on X,' he wrote in a post. The move has left X users frustrated as they add relevant and specific hashtags that align with the ad's content and target audience. They also sometimes create a unique branded hashtag to build brand awareness and encourage user-generated content. ALSO READ: Elon Musk fires Twitter board, becomes sole director What does Grok think? Musk has long criticised the use of hashtags on his social media platform and urged users not to use them. However, Grok, X's AI assistant, deems hashtags still useful when asked by a user. 'Yes, hashtags are still useful for regular posts on X, despite the ad ban starting June 27, 2025. They boost visibility and engagement. Use 1-2 relevant hashtags per post to avoid looking spammy. Research trending, niche hashtags with tools like X's search. 'Engage with hashtag communities and post during peak times for maximum reach. Rotate hashtags to stay fresh and avoid filters. Place hashtags mid-tweet for better engagement or at the end for a cleaner look. While Elon Musk has criticised hashtags, data supports their effectiveness for regular posts,' Grok said. Twitter changes In 2023, Musk stripped the iconic bird logo from the Twitter headquarters, replacing it with a glaring X, then just as abruptly had it removed. Musk also removed verified blue ticks from users, replacing them with a subscription service. The world's richest man bought the social media company in 2022 for a whopping $44 billion through a combination of his own wealth, investment funds and bank loans. ALSO READ: New Twitter boss Elon Musk wants you to pay for your blue tick
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
Ireland to make education a focal point at G20 meet in SA
Irish Minister of State for International Development and Diaspora, Neale Richmond, visiting a school in Liberia, April. (Photo supplied) Ireland, invited by current G20 president South Africa as a guest at a series of meetings culminating in November's summit of heads of state, will make education a key point during its participation, its government officials said this week. The G20, a forum of developing and developed countries whose members account for 85% of the global GDP, primarily aims to foster international economic cooperation and address major global economic issues. South Africa's theme during its 2025 presidency is solidarity, equality and sustainability. Ireland is taking the invitation seriously and plans to attend every ministerial meeting held in the run-up to November, officials, including the Irish Minister of State for International Development and Diaspora Neale Richmond, indicated on the sidelines of the Africa Ireland Trade Horzions conference in Dublin. Richmond also confirmed that Ireland — the most educated nation in the world — will push the importance of education and how it can address major global and economic issues. Ireland holds the highest percentage for higher-level education attainment for people aged between 25 and 34 years old at 55.1%, according to data from By contrast, data from Statistics South Africa in 2024 showed that approximately 40% of learners who start grade one in the country drop out before completing their final year of high school. Richmond said having been a poor nation for much of its history, educating its people had contributed to boosting Ireland's economy. 'I don't want to give too much of a history lesson, but it cannot be understated how poor Ireland was. We were a developing country. There's no dispute about that. We had a massive famine, a civil war; we were a new independent state,' he said. 'Our focus on education started in 1967 when the then Irish minister of education made second-level education free. In 1994, third-level education was made free. We now have officially the most educated population in the world and a workforce of 2.8 million people [out of a population of 5 million].' The country is tweaking and tailoring its education system to make sure that it is fit for purpose, he added. 'Over the last decade, we have increased the amount of projects coming out of very specific qualifications in areas relating to the life sciences sector and the tech sector. We work hand in hand with third-level institutions and businesses that want to invest in Ireland.' The life sciences sector — encompassing pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medical devices — is a major contributor to the Irish economy, generating over €100 billion in exports annually and directly employing over 100 000 people. However, Ireland is facing a housing crisis: 'We need more people working in those areas, not to just construct the houses that we so desperately need, but also the infrastructure, the water, the roads and the healthcare facilities,' he said. Statistics show that Ireland's Richmond reiterated that investing in education was crucial to eradicating poverty. 'When we go to G20, the central plank has to be education' to boost the economy and facilitate development, he said. The journalist's trip to Ireland was sponsored by the Embassy of Ireland in South Africa.
