DA names Geordin Hill-Lewis as Cape Town mayoral candidate ahead of local elections

There is a growing gap in Cape Town between what residents are told and what they experience.

The City says affordable housing delivery is accelerating. Many residents waiting for housing say otherwise.

Last week, Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis marked the handover of the Salt River Market site for an affordable housing development. The announcement was accompanied by positive headlines and renewed commitments to tackling the city's housing shortage.

However, beyond the ceremony lies a more difficult question: where are the homes?

The Salt River Market project is expected to deliver 970 housing units, of which 300 will be social housing units. The remainder are classified as market-linked affordable housing.

This raises an important question about the meaning of affordability in a city where many residents struggle to meet basic living costs.

Affordable for whom?

For pensioners dependent on state grants, security guards earning modest wages, domestic workers commuting long distances from the city's outskirts, and thousands of families living in informal or backyard accommodation, many so-called affordable housing options remain out of reach.

Critics argue that Cape Town's housing policy increasingly uses the language of affordability while delivering housing products that remain inaccessible to many low-income residents.

The scale of the challenge remains significant.

More than 450,000 people are listed on the City's housing database. Behind that figure are families, pensioners, workers, young people, people living with disabilities and others whose lives are shaped by the absence of secure housing.

The issue is not simply the existence of a housing backlog. The concern is whether housing delivery is receiving the urgency required to address it.

The City has become increasingly effective at announcing housing projects. Whether those projects are being delivered at the scale necessary to meet demand remains a matter of public debate.

Projects such as Founders Garden and other inner-city developments have been the subject of repeated announcements over several years. Each milestone is presented as progress, yet many of the underlying realities remain unchanged.

Low-income residents continue to be concentrated on the urban periphery. Transport costs remain high. Property prices continue to rise. Rental accommodation becomes increasingly expensive, while homelessness remains a visible challenge.

Supporters of the City's approach note, correctly, that housing developments require time to plan, approve and construct.

The more important question, however, is whether housing for low-income residents receives the same level of political urgency as issues affecting wealthier communities and investors.

Critics argue that when economic development and investment confidence are at stake, the City is able to move quickly. Housing delivery for the poorest residents, by contrast, often appears slower and more constrained by administrative processes.

These perceptions shape public confidence in government priorities.

Concerns have also been raised about the operation of some social housing developments.

In Goodwood, disputes involving social housing tenants, including pensioner Valerie Gates, have drawn attention to allegations relating to lease renewals, service charges and tenant treatment. Housing activists and legal organisations argue that such cases highlight broader concerns about whether social housing is adequately centred on dignity, security and affordability.

Housing cannot be measured solely by the number of units delivered. It must also be measured by stability, affordability, safety and residents' sense of belonging.

Another question deserving public scrutiny is how public land is being used.

Cape Town possesses some of the most valuable public land in South Africa. Decisions regarding that land should be assessed according to whether they primarily benefit residents who have historically been excluded from economic opportunity and well-located housing.

Many residents have become sceptical of housing announcements not because they oppose development, but because they distinguish between announcements and completed projects, between commitments and outcomes.

A site handover is not the same as housing delivery.

Cape Town has many of the resources required to address its housing crisis. It has land, planning expertise and access to funding mechanisms.

What remains contested is whether there is sufficient political will to challenge a development model that often treats housing primarily as a market commodity rather than a constitutional right.

Ultimately, the housing crisis reflects political choices about priorities, public assets and who benefits from urban development.

Mayor Hill-Lewis frequently speaks of building a city of hope. Hope matters. But hope must be matched by delivery.

Residents want more than announcements, artist impressions and ceremonies. They want tangible results.

Until housing is delivered at a s…