Sunday, February 28, 2010

Land reform: Govt changes tack

Another government stuff up. These people have no concept of planning and implementation of plans. The process of land reform could have been done succesfully over a much longer period of time and if it was thought through properly. Inevitably, now it's coming to 'altering' the willing buyer, willing seller principle. The slippery slope down into absolute chaos is ever a threat in this crazy country of South Africa, until the day when there will be nothing left to destroy.

Hennie Duvenhage, Fin24.com (18 Feb 2010)

Cape Town - The new target for finalising restitution and land reform has now been set down for 2020. A further 4 222 land claims need to be dealt with at an expected rate of 603 claims a year.

This has emerged from the budget for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, which forms part of the national budget submitted to parliament.

Agri SA executive director Hans van der Merwe says the budget indicates that government has pulled the handbrake on restitution.

For the 2009/10 fiscal year R2.1bn was set aside for the restitution programme, while R1.5bn has been earmarked for it in 2010/11. For 2011/12 the estimated budget rises to R2bn and for 2012/13 to R2.1bn.

The Land Claims Commission expects to finalise its current commitments by 2012/13 and, after further negotiations, will review the price at which land is bought, according to explanations accompanying the budget.

The Land Reform Commission also envisages trying to acquire smaller tracts of land that are cheaper and better suited to human settlement.

Van der Merwe says restitution is a political necessity, but corruption, nepotism and injudicious purchasing have wasted a lot of money and negatively affected the country's food production capacity.

Government intends funding its land reform programme better in future. The R2.9bn in the fiscal year soon to end will rise to R4bn in 2010/11, R4.7bn in 2011/12 and R4.9bn in 2012/13.

It seems that with this programme, as well, a greater realism has come about - targets for transferring land from white to black hands are being considerably scaled down.

Instead of attempting to transfer 721 700ha in 2010/11, the new target is 283 592ha. For 2011/12 it has been reduced from 794 070ha to 302 615ha, and for 2012/13 the new target is 321 122ha.

The department says, however, that it will be necessary to alter the principle of "willing buyer, willing seller" and ways of acquiring cheaper land are being investigated.

13 Opinion(s):

Exzanian said...

That last sentence is very ominous, especially coming from a government that is making it up as they go along....

Black Coffee said...

They should just take all the land and redistribute it according to population. Anotherwords if blacks are 85% of population in SA they should get 85% of land. So much of it that is now in white hands was stolen and robbed from blacks over past 3 centuries that it is hard to know who, if any, among whites has a morally legitimate claim to land. Before you delete my comment - think about it. You know this to be true and this would be best course to avoid conflicts in the future.

Exzanian said...

Oops, I let that one through. But let me respond. BC - That is a lie. The blacks originated north of SA and migrated south at around the same time white settlers arrived. The only indigineous people of SA are the !Koi San (Bushman) The blacks are truly the land thieves in this picture....

Islandshark said...

Was wondering what the delusional turd's name was doing on here...

Anonymous said...

As always BC talks kak.

VI said...

@ExZ. Fucking need to take my heart medication now.

@BC. Does "anotherwords" fall into the same category as "winningest" and "misunderestimate"?

Define stolen, because the Zulus and the Xhosas weren't the earliest inhabitants. Also, what are the Zulus and Xhosas doing about the land they "stole" from earlier, smaller tribes? Why should blacks be rewarded for breeding like flies? What will they do with land anyway? Don't labour under the illusion that whites own most of the land. They don't. The issue is arable land. But I get it; the ANC will fuck with the commercial farmers until we are unable to feed all the entitled masses.

Jim Beam said...

So Black Coffee in your delusional state please entertain me with your thoughts on which blacks get land and which do not. How do you decide which blacks in the township will be good farmers so that nobody starves to death?

As you may well know that the blacks are not from South Africa but migrated from Central Africa to the southern part of the continent.

So, whites stealing land is a bit dumb when you consider history because so did the blacks. Why do you support one set of illegally occupying nations as worthy and not the other?

Has the Hotnot not factored into your head or has CNN and FoxNews finally left you brain dead.

Maybe Black Coffee you are simply put - a racist.

Lime said...

Well said JB. This idiot still doesn't get it. He lives in lala land and keeps reminding us why we banned him. He should rather stick to USA and what Obummer et al are doing to the country. Maybe the Native American Indians should get all the land there too or aren't they black enough??

Black Panther said...

Blacks, other than the Khoi and San, came down to South Africa thousands of years before the white settlers did. How about you read up in the copious literature before posting things which appear intelligent but in fact only make some of you look delusional.

VI said...

@Black Panther. Are you educated at that idiot institution Howard U? The whites may have arrived at the Western Cape after the Zulus and Xhosas trekked south from the Congo, BUT they had definitely not migrated to the Western Cape. Moreover, where do you draw the line? A few hundred years or a few thousand years? What makes one group more entitled to the land than another? No trot along, and go and read some more comics.

Black Panther said...

And how do you think they classified the Khoi VI? They were black in the eyes of settlers -whether they referred to them as such or as "Hottentots", the effect was same. Whites got rest of land through robbery (like the much celebrated Battle of Blood River - Dingaan only attacked the trekkers because he did not want to lose land) and Nazi-like legislation like Natives Land Act. As far as American Indians Lime - I believe they have a very legitimate claim on land in USA and Canada because white settlers here acquired that land through robbery and mass murder which was on scale of Holocaust - possibly bigger. Having recognized that fact the U.S. Supreme Court in fact awarded some land around Black Hills of South Dakota to Indians in 1980s. The American courts should certainly do a hell of a lot more to rectify the past genocide against Indians, and the way Indians toil in poverty and alcoholism in reservations is but a living testament to the crimes of white supremacy right here in America. It would be too much though to expect Obama to change all the wrongs even if he wanted to, as multi-national corporations have too much of a stranglehold on governments the world over.

Exzanian said...

Check me if I'm wrong, but the negroes came from the North and started settling in waves around 500 CE. By 1200 CE they had settled in Eastern parts of Natal and the Cape and were trading with the San and each other. That is only a few hundred years before the white settlers arrived, and many parts of SA were not settled at that point in any event...

Viking said...

Black Panther

I think you'll have problems reading present day concepts back into the past particularly when it comes to land ownership. back in the day, you only 'owned' what you could defend and by definition land was always taken or lost by military force.
By the standards of native peoples, land was 'lost' fair and square.

secondly, the Xhoi may have been seen as 'black' but after a certain point in history they were protected - for example, it was illegal to enslave them. Small mercies, perhaps, but you don't get to re-write history any more than I do.