GOOD Statement by Brett Herron ,
GOOD Secretary General
31 January 2025
The GOOD Party has made submissions regarding the proposed sale and development of the Woodstock Hospital site. The Public Participation Process closes today, 31 January.
The site, renamed Cissie Gool House, has become a crucial refuge for those displaced by housing inequalities in Cape Town. It is currently home to approximately 900 residents, many of whom are vulnerable individuals and families.
The site was originally designated for affordable housing in 2008 but for years, no tangible progress was made toward developing the property. In 2017, after standing vacant for years, it was occupied by its current residents. Many of whom are lifelong residents of Woodstock, Salt River and other surrounding communities, displaced by the gentrification of the areas rendering their homes unaffordable.
GOOD submits two key concerns: Namely the lack of meaningful engagement and the lack of a clear plan to rehouse its current residents.
Lack of Meaningful Engagement
The City’s approach to this process has not adequately addressed the rights and voices of the current occupiers of Cissie Gool House. The following points highlight these gaps:
• Insufficient Consultation: Engagement with occupiers has been limited and often superficial. Residents have repeatedly stated that they have been excluded from meaningful discussions about the development plans and denied opportunities to voice their needs and concerns effectively.
By labelling the occupants as “hijackers,” the City demonstrates its failure to understand or acknowledge their lived realities. These individuals are not hijackers; they are community members who have transformed a vacant hospital into a home. Against immense challenges, they have created a self-organized community with rules, guidelines, and mutual support structures. Instead of dismissing their efforts, the City should recognize their resilience and engage constructively with them.
• Impact on Vulnerable Residents: Many of the residents include women, children, elderly individuals, and those previously rendered homeless. Many of the residents work in these communities and their children go to schools in these communities. Failure to engage with them risks exacerbating their precarity, undermining the very principles of inclusive urban development.
• Missed Opportunities for Incremental Development: Prioritize development models that allow residents to remain on-site during construction, minimizing displacement and disruption to their lives. The Stedone Report offered these suggestions when it came to the development of the hospital, stating: “The Woodstock Hospital has been recognised as a potential site for redevelopment and refurbishment, however it has been occupied by approximately 697 registered occupants since 2017. As such, it is proposed that the property be developed into Social Housing, with the possibility of CRU and transitional housing, to absorb the existing occupants and mitigate further displacement.” Additionally, the report noted that, “The project can yield up to 845 units to accommodate approximately 1,900 people at an estimated total cost of R359,174,000 or R422,558 per unit.” These insights highlight the feasibility of incremental development as a solution to both the housing crisis and the urgent need to prevent displacement of vulnerable residents.
• Failure to Address Spatial Apartheid: The City has not demonstrated a commitment to combating the ongoing legacy of spatial apartheid that continues to shape Cape Town’s urban landscape. The exclusion of current occupiers from meaningful development discussions perpetuates a pattern of displacement and segregation, reinforcing historical inequities rather than dismantling them.
Where Will Residents Go?
The redevelopment plan has not provided clear, viable alternatives for current residents. Key concerns include:
• Risk of Displacement: Without guarantees of relocation or accommodation, the proposed development threatens to render hundreds of individuals homeless. Many residents already struggle with access to resources and support systems.
• Eligibility Criteria: The City’s assertion that not all current residents would qualify for the planned housing units raises pressing questions about the fate of those who are deemed ineligible. As Carl Pophaim stated: “We have been clear as a city that occupation and invasion is not a metric for qualification for a housing opportunity.” This prompts the critical question, what, then, is the metric? Many of the occupiers, having moved into the hospital building out of sheer desperation, would otherwise have faced destitution and homelessness. If homelessness itself is not considered a qualifying criterion for housing opportunities, what does this say about the City’s commitment to addressing the needs of its most vulnerable residents?
• Temporary Relocation: While there have been mentions of temporary relocation within the site, no detailed plan has been communicated to the residents or the public. This lack of transparency adds to the uncertainty and anxiety among the occupiers.
To ensure a fair, inclusive, and just process, GOOD recommends the City:
• Halt the Sale Until Comprehensive Engagement: The sale and development plans should be paused until a robust and inclusive consultation process with current occupiers is completed.
• Explore Incremental Development Options: Prioritize development models that allow residents to remain on-site during construction, minimizing displacement and disruption to their lives. The Stedone Report from 2019 offered suggestions that would help alleviate any displacement that may occur, and displacement is a major fear of the residents.
• Guarantee Alternative Housing: Provide clear, detailed plans for temporary and permanent housing solutions for all current residents within or close to where they currently live, including those who may not meet eligibility criteria for the new housing units. In the context of the Constitutional Court having recently ruled, in December 2024, that the City of Cape Town’s implementation of the National Housing Programme with regards to Temporary Emergency Accommodation is unconstitutional, this makes our case for halting the sale even stronger.
• Transparent Communication: Regular updates and open communication channels should be established to keep residents informed and involved in the decision-making process.
• Independent Oversight: Establish an independent body to oversee the consultation and development process, ensuring fairness and accountability.
While the development of affordable housing is vital, the process thus far has raised serious concerns about the lack of meaningful engagement with current occupiers and the question of their future should the site be redeveloped.
Cissie Gool House highlights the City’s failure to actively combat the persistent legacy of spatial apartheid, which continues to shape Cape Town’s urban landscape and perpetuate historical inequities.
Media enquiries:
Brett Herron, GOOD: Secretary General
Cell: 0825183264
Email: bretth@forgood.org.za
Samantha Jackson, GOOD: Media Manager
Cell: 083 5509875
Email: samantha@forgood.org.za