Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-28 20:46:55 +02:00 | Gregory | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-07-28 19:59:04 +02:00 | G | Not fully | All of the above | Administrative Clogging | |
2026-07-28 19:31:57 +02:00 | Peter | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-07-28 16:47:22 +02:00 | Bev | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | The PIE Act has for too long tolerated and shielded unlawful occupiers whilst infringing the property rights of lawful property owners, a fact which unlawful occupiers have been quick to exploit and take advantage of. This Amendment Bill is long overdue. One of the founding principles of South African law is the recognition of the property rights of lawful owners and it is time that such rights be respected and protected. There should be no requirement for a municipality (or other body) to provide alternative accommodation for an unlawful occupier before an eviction may be granted. That requirement simply further erodes the rights of the property owner to proceed with an eviction. This Amendment should be passed as quickly as possible. It should be viewed as a rights issue, not as a political issue as has happened consistently over the past three decades. | |
2026-07-28 14:05:23 +02:00 | Diana | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-07-28 10:24:43 +02:00 | Gerrit | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-07-28 09:32:00 +02:00 | Mark | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | You can't have cities overrun by criminals, nor a criminal element. Bylaws, and property rights need to be respected. Homelessness is a direct consequence. This is something liberal retards can't wrap their minds around. When property rights and bylaws become secondary, rate payers move on, and the municipalities suffers, bringing decay, and larger unemployment, hence greater homelessness, and despair. | |
2026-07-28 08:43:03 +02:00 | Robert | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | ||
2026-07-28 08:04:59 +02:00 | Charl | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | ||
2026-07-28 05:44:51 +02:00 | Roy | Yes I do | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | |
2026-07-27 23:40:05 +02:00 | Caroline | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Bill | Property rights must be protected. | |
2026-07-27 22:00:50 +02:00 | andre | Yes I do | Property Rights & Investment Protection | People are losing their whole old age investments and livelyhoods to non paying tenants and home highjackers. Invading land and even school sportfields to build shacks. Illegal immigrants are moving into public spaces. criminals live in public spaces and rob and kill citizens and cant be removed not to mention the hygiene issues. Councils need more powers to remove people. Also, you know how the law requires that new accommodation be offered? Many many of these people invading land have homes elsewhere like the eastern cape and kzn. Surely if you have a house there should be no leniency for squatting. Any normal person that chooses to relocate sells their current home and buys or rents a new one in the city they are locating to. | |
2026-07-27 20:14:33 +02:00 | ROSE | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | I DO NOT SUPPORT ILLEGAL SQUATTING |
2026-07-27 20:03:44 +02:00 | Charles | Not fully | Constitutionality & Homelessness | ||
2026-07-27 18:07:25 +02:00 | MaryAnn | Yes I do | All of the above | Property Rights & Investment Protection | People should earn a living & not feel entitled to unlawfully occupy someone else's property. I worked hard to provide a home for my kids & others get hand-outs while immigrants & those choosing homelessness gets involved in various crimes. I'm all for helping the poor team but nowadays being Poor seems like a job description. |
Private Owners Cannot Carry the State’s Housing Burden:
Supporters argue that under the current 1998 PIE Act, private landowners and developers are practically forced to accommodate unlawful occupiers for years. This happens because heavily burdened municipalities lack alternative shelter, draining the financial resources of law-abiding owners.
Dismantling Organized Crime and Syndicates:
Proponents point out that land invasions and high-rise building hijackings are rarely organic acts of desperation; they are increasingly run by highly organized criminal syndicates (“shack lords”) who unlawfully extract rent from the poor. Extreme penalties—like the R2 million fine, asset forfeiture, and prison sentences—are necessary to break these syndicates.
Relieving Municipal Financial Stress:
Forcing local governments to provide emergency shelter indefinitely is financially breaking South African cities. Giving courts the power to issue eviction orders without mandatory alternative housing, and placing strict expiration dates on emergency shelters, will safeguard municipal budgets for basic service delivery.
Managing Equally Regardless of Time:
Scrapping the 6-month rule closes a loophole where occupiers intentionally try to delay legal actions just long enough to secure enhanced legal protections, allowing landowners to act efficiently to recover their property.
A Direct Violation of the Constitution:
Opponents argue that Section 4(14) of the Bill—which allows evictions to occur without requiring alternative housing—directly violates Section 26(3) of the South African Constitution, which explicitly protects citizens against evictions that result in immediate homelessness.
Spur a Massive Humanitarian and Homelessness Crisis:
Human rights organizations warn that removing the obligation to provide alternative shelter and putting “timers” on emergency accommodation will not solve the housing shortage. Instead, it will simply displace thousands of vulnerable families, leading to a catastrophic spike in street homelessness.
Criminalizing Human Rights and Poverty Support:
Critics flag that the text defining “incitement” and “organizing” is dangerously broad. There is serious concern that an NGO worker, community leader, or human rights lawyer offering basic legal advice or emergency relief to an informal settlement could be accused of “permitting” or “arranging” an invasion, exposing them to ruinous fines.
Stripping Protections From Established Communities:
Deleting the distinction between short-term and long-term occupiers strips historic protections from long-standing informal settlements. Established, multigenerational communities could find themselves procedurally fast-tracked for eviction in the exact same manner as a fresh land invasion.