Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

Summary of case studies
317
those most desperately in need, an otherwise reasonable
local authority housing policy was still in breach of the
constitution.
The Grootboom community had brought an application
to the High Court in Cape Town seeking an order that
the government provide ‘adequate basic temporary shelter
or housing to them and their children pending their obtaining
permanent accommodation; or basic nutrition, shelter,
healthcare and social services to the respondents who are
children’. The High Court ordered that the children (on the
basis of children’s rights enshrined in the constitution) and
their parents were entitled to housing and certain services.
On appeal by the state, the Constitutional Court did not
follow the lower court’s approach. It confirmed the justiciability
of socio-economic rights contained in the constitution.
Secondly, it declined, on the basis that there was insufficient
evidence before it, to determine a minimum core in respect
of the right to housing. It then considered the City of Cape
Town’s housing policy and held that it appeared reasonable,
save that it did not provide relief for those ‘who have no
access to land, no roof over their heads, and were living in
intolerable conditions or crisis situations’ – and thus
declared the policy to be unconstitutional.
The Grootboom decision was greeted with great
acclaim, and pressure was brought to bear on all local authorities
to ensure that housing policies as set out in the
integrated development programmes of each of the local
authorities would make provision for those most desperately
in need. The Constitutional Court has since considered
these issues in even greater depth in the Port Elizabeth
Municipality case and the Modderklip case (see Box 6.26).
The PIE undoubtedly made it more difficult for
owners, in general, and authorities in urban areas, in particular,
to evict people ‘in desperate need with nowhere else to
go’. It has strengthened legal protections for poor people and
has also enhanced their bargaining position when faced with
nowhere else to live, other than on someone else’s land
without permission. The new legislation has protected poor
people against mass evictions and has put extra pressure on
local governments to develop policies for those most
‘desperately in need’, and, accordingly, has ensured that
more land is made available for low-cost housing. There have
been significant policy advantages to the poor flowing from
these court cases. Property owners and lending banks have
been less than enamoured with the courts’ interpretation
and have brought pressure for amendments. The
Department of Housing has recently announced plans to
amend the PIE and other housing legislation.
Strategies for survival: Security of tenure in
Bangkok
The story of the Pom Mahakan community in inner-city
Bangkok (Thailand) and its fight against eviction exemplifies
one of the major threats to security of tenure for poor and
marginalized people all over the world (see also Box 11.6).
The threat is urban planning, or, more specifically, development
pressures that include tourism, gentrification and the
regulation of land use. The Pom Mahakan case also exemplifies
how communities can develop strategies to counteract
such threats. It highlights how it is important to understand
the source of a threat in order to respond effectively to it.
For the last 150 years or more, this community of
nearly 300 people had existed at the edge of Rattanakosin
Island – the original settlement of Bangkok, dating from the
mid 1700s – between the klong (canal) and one of the last
remaining pieces of the old city wall. The community is also
located just next to two of Bangkok’s other major tourist
attractions: Wat Saket (Golden Mount Temple) and the old
fort (Pom Mahakan).
When a master plan was approved for Rattanakosin
Island in 2002, the impetus was to improve the prospects for
tourism in the area. In doing this, the plan called for a
dramatic increase of parklands, particularly around existing
monuments, temples, the royal palace, the canals and the
Chao Phraya River.
Because of its location, the Pom Mahakan community,
living on a piece of land some 50 metres wide and 150
metres long, had been facing the threat of eviction long
before the Rattanakosin master plan. The city had always
seen this location as a future park where tourists could sit
and view Wat Saket from across the klong. With this view
surrounded by the historical setting of the old fort and the
wall of the city, in the minds of the city planners, it had long
been an ideal place for a park.
Understandably, then, Pom Mahakan was the first of
Rattanakosin’s communities to be targeted for beautification.
In January 2003, the city planning department posted
eviction notices on all the houses in the community. Pom
Mahakan was simply going to be the first in a long line of
evictions in aid of the master plan to beautify Rattanakosin.
Behind it were the forces of gentrification and tourism, as
well as arguments about the preservation of national history,
environmental protection and economic development.
In November 2002, as a result of the persistent
insecurity of tenure faced by the residents of Pom Mahakan,
the Community Organizations Development Institute
(CODI) brought a group of architecture students from one of
the local universities to the community. The idea was that
the students, working in close collaboration with the Pom
Mahakan residents, should develop alternative planning
proposals for their community’s improvement. When the
city authorities issued the eviction notices, these alternative
plans became part of the residents’ argument against the
eviction process. Their argument, however, needed more
than an alternative plan. They had to respond to the master
plan and what motivated it – namely, the establishment of a
park. The issues that were included in their argument with
the city authorities comprised the following:
• History: an understanding of how to view history and
historical preservation. Is it the artefacts and/or architecture
alone, or are people included? Is it only ‘official’
history, or is vernacular history included?
• Development: an understanding of the process of development
– how decisions are made and who makes
them.
• Costs/benefits: an understanding of who benefits from