MALAIKA MAHLATSI | How NIMBYism in Sandton and SA broadly perpetuates the housing crisis

In discourse on the global housing crisis, there is a term known as NIMBYism, which I first came across while analysing literature for my Master's in Urban and Regional Planning a few years ago. It is derived from the word NIMBY, which is an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. NIMBYs are people who oppose new development projects – housing, infrastructure and facilities – in their immediate vicinity, despite often agreeing with them elsewhere.

They oppose low-income housing projects near their homes even as they understand and often support the importance of affordable housing. They oppose the construction of homeless shelters, halfway houses (centres for rehabilitating former prisoners, psychiatric patients and other persons who are not used to non-institutional living) and similar community facilities. NIMBYs also oppose re-zoning laws that would allow for higher-density housing, such as student apartments in single-family residential areas, even when they recognise the importance of developing learning facilities and can cognitively draw the link between better education outcomes and economic development.

NIMBYism is one of the factors impacting the global housing crisis. It is especially pronounced in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, Australia and other parts of the developed world that are confronted with a housing crisis. In these regions of the world, NIMBYs are extremely powerful because they are part of the asset class and are extremely well organised.

Data also indicates that they play an active role in political life and vote at rates much higher than younger people who are directly impacted by housing affordability challenges. Opposition to developments has often led to the downsizing and even the cancellation of projects, especially affordable housing, reducing the overall housing stock. This restriction of supply leads to strained affordability as the organised NIMBYs prevent lower-income households from accessing housing.

NIMBYism also facilitates housing affordability because it discourages developers by forcing them to spend more on legal fees, feasibility studies, and project redesigns.

This drives up the final cost of housing – a cost that is then passed down to consumers.

At the core of the NIMBYs’ opposition to development is the fear of decreased property values, a change in the character of their neighbourhoods, traffic etc. They are determined to prioritise local preservation over broader development. In the context of South Africa, NIMBYism doesn’t only constrain affordable housing developments, it also reinforces economic and racial segregation. This is because colonial and apartheid city models were designed to house White people in low-density areas that are in close to economic activity, while Black people were housed in underdeveloped high-density townships.

These were built on the outskirts of cities, far removed from central business districts and thus requiring longer commuting times. It is for this reason that today, while average South African households spend approximately 16% on transport, low-income workers are disproportionately affected, with many spending up to 51% of their earnings to get to work.

MORE BY THIS AUTHOR:

MALAIKA MAHLATSI: The dangerous myth of 'reverse apartheid' in South Africa

MALAIKA MAHLATSI | Rand Water is fighting a losing battle in Gauteng: This is why

MALAIKA MAHLATSI | The hypocrisy of the remuneration narrative in the public vs private sectors

There have been cases of NIMBYism in South Africa and the most egregious of this is currently happening in Sandton. Plans for a 12-storey student accommodation block in the affluent suburb of Sandown have sparked fierce criticism.

The development, which would see a single residential property on the corner of Grayston Drive and Webber Street transformed into a high-rise building to house students from the recently completed Emeris Sandton, a new state-of-the-art R420 million campus that opened at the beginning of this year, has been met with serious opposition.

Sandown residents are objecting to it on the grounds that the development could overwhelm already strained infrastructure and change the character of the suburb. The sentiments of the residents are captured by one Lerato Rasoasi, who was quoted by eNCA as saying: “We are not happy at all. One of the things that I like about the area is that it’s quiet. Even my complex is very quiet and serene. It’s a disruption to our lives, and I don’t like the idea of now having to wake up to a 12-storey building in front of me, and the noise. Like, I said, I like the serenity of the area”.

Even the ward councillor, Andrew Stewart, whose opposition is centred on the impact of densification on public infrastructure, raised the issue of the character of the suburb to the interviewer, stating that the development “would have an undoubtable impact on the ethos of this suburb”.

South Africa is facing a serious student housing crisis that exists alongside a crisis of the inadequate supply of higher learning institutions. As the government has failed to build more universities and colleges across the country, the private sector has come in to fill the massive gap. While I have my own issues about private colleges and the rise of the entrepreneurial university in South Africa, I believe in the importance of investment in higher learning and particularly in institutions that respond to the needs of modern society – which Emeris Sandton is prioritising with its advanced technology offerings (my own brother is a Bachelor of Computer and Information Science student at Emeris Waterfall).

The idea that people who understand how education outcomes are linked to economic and human development are so vehemently opposed to student housing and believe that their preference for a quiet environment matters more than the future of this country is unconscionable.

I, too, as a resident and homeowner in Sandton, chose the area for its good amenities and relatively safe environment. I, too, enjoy green spaces. But it cannot be reasonable that the preferences of individuals should be placed above the national interest of having nearly 10,000 students who will be registered annually at a higher learning institution.

The NIMBYs of Sandton are engaged in a simplistic and wrong discussion. The real discussion should be about how we should mitigate the negative impacts of studentification, which include the inflation of the property market that could see people displaced due to growing unaffordability. This has already happened in several university towns across the country, such as Stellenbosch, Mangaung, Gqeberha (formerly Port Elizabeth), Johannesburg (in areas like Auckland Park) and Tshwane (in areas like Hatfield). The other discussion should be how to compel coordination between the private and public sectors to shoulder equal responsibility for public infrastructure development and maintenance.

These are far more important discussions than the preservation of suburban character, which comes at the expense of students, as well as broader working-class people who are denied low-cost housing in low-density suburbs by the NIMBYs who prioritise the preservation of suburbs over their transformation.

Malaika is a geographer and researcher who holds a Master's in Urban and Regional Planning. She is a PhD in Geography candidate at the University of Bayreuth in Germany.