Timeline of the Group Areas Act and Selected Related Pieces Legislation

1885The Asiatic Bazaar Law was passed in the Transvaal, which authorized the creation of separate districts for Indians. Its primary justification was that of sanitation (Dison and Mohamed, 1960: 24).1894The Glen Gray Act, passed by Cecil Rhodes in the Cape, restricted the ability of African men to own and (Root Wachira, 2009: 668). It also imposed a labour tax of ten shillings a year on owning land for Africans, unless they could prove that they had been employed outside of their reserve for at least three months (Wilson, 1953: 243).1903The Locations Act was passed by the Port Elizabeth City Council. It created an African neighbourhood called 'New Brighton' (Swanson, 1977: 401).1904Fear of the spread of the bubonic plague caused the creation of an exclusively African settlement in a Kilpspruit sewage farm, near Johannesburg (Swanson, 1977: 388).1913The Natives Land Act limited the landmass where Africans were allowed to own land to approximately 9 million hectares, and created specific areas (which came to be known as 'homelands') within which whites were not allowed to buy land (Horrell, 1978: 3). This act initially allocated approximately 8 per cent of South African land to be purchasable by Africans (Beinhart, 2001: 10).1923The Native Urban Areas Act was passed by the Smuts government. The Act gave municipalities greater powers to segregate housing, police African communities and control movement of Africans by imposing passes. The Act specified that alternative housing must be provided for those who were moved using the Act (Horrell, 1978: 2).1924The Smuts government both attempted to pass the Class Areas Bill and to form a Pact government. It would have restricted Indian residential and trading rights, but due to vehement public opposition within South Africa, as well as from the Indian government, the Bill was never passed (Horrell, 1978: 5).1927The Native Administration Act was amended to give the Governor-General the power to rule Africans by decree, including for them not to leave a stated specified area for a particular amount of time (Horrell, 1978: 4).1932The Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Act was passed to reinforce the Asiatic Bazaar Law (1885). Initially, it included a clause that would have forced local authorities to set aside 'Asiatic' areas. Due to public outcry, the clause was later dropped (Mabin, 409: 1992).1936The Native Trust and Land Act was passed, updating the Native Land Act of 1913. It gave new powers to the Department of Native Administration and Development which allowed it to begin to evict owners of 'black spots' (land owned by Africans surrounded by White-owned farms) (Horrell, 1978: 203). It increased the amount of land purchasable by Africans from 8% to 13% (Hellmann, 1949: 174).1937An amendment was made to the Native Urban Areas Act which forbid Africans from acquiring property from non-Africans in cities and townships (Kirkwood, 2: 1951). The Native Laws Amendment Act prohibited Africans from acquiring land from non-Africans except in situations where the Governor-General made exceptions. It made approval from the Minister of Native Affairs would be necessary to establish new churches, schools or other institutions which would cater mainly to Africans in urban areas. Additionally, it allowed towns to apply to have areas declared as closed to entry of Africans; other than those who were employed there, seeking to be employed there or visiting someone in the area (Horrell, 1978: 3).1950Introduced in February, the Population Registration Act, No. 30 of 1950 made racial classification on a national register compulsory. The groups named were Europeans, Coloured, and Natives. Coloured people and Natives were also subcategorized according to their ethnic group. A Race Classification Board was set up to adjudicate disputed cases. Documents were issued to people based on the racial group they were designated. Identity cards were issued to all people over the age of sixteen which accorded authorized officials (like police officers) the power to demand anyone of that age or older to produce their identity cards. Those who failed to produce their identity cards had seven days to report to a police station (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1950: 24). Passed in Apri l , the Group Areas Act, No. 41 of 1950 made the entirety of South Africa became areas in which inter-racial transfers of land and immovable property were controlled, as well as the rights of occupancy. From the controlled areas, group areas were cut out of cities and towns where either occupation or ownership (or both) was restricted to persons belonging to a specific racial group. The only exceptions were that of reserves, urban locations and missions stations (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1950, 26).7 July: Group Areas Act is promulgatedProclamation 242 of 1950 made the first provisions of the Group Areas Act operative, those relating to the Land Tenure Board and to the inspectors appointed by the Minister (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 19).1951Native Building Workers’ Act, No. 27 of 1951 was introduced to speed up the provision of housing for Africans in urban areas by providing for the training and employment of Africans as skilled building workers in African townships, with lower rates of pay than those stipulated for builders of races. Before this act, the skilled labour had been done by whites which forced up the cost of housing due to their wage requirements. The act forbid the employment of Africans on skilled building work in nontownship urban areas (Horrell, 1971: 74).Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, No. 52 of 1951 reinforced many of the clauses of the Group Areas Act. It made it illegal to enter land or a building or any Native location without permission and imposed fines on those organizing or collecting fees from the illegal occupation of land or housing, as well as those illegally living there (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 13). The Bantu Authorities Act, No. 68 of 1951 made provisions for the establishment of Bantu tribal, regional, and territorial authorities, and for the gradual delegation of these authorities of certain executive and administrative powers in their own areas (Horrell, 1971: 22).30 March: proclamation No. 71 brought the Group Areas Act into effect in the Cape, Transvaal and Natal making them specified areas, though proclamation No. 72 exempt the Cape from subsection 10.1 of the Act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 19). Proclamation No. 73 of 1951 made Indian and Chinese ethnically distinct groups in the Cape, Transvaal and Natal. The Malay group became distinct in portions of the Cape (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 19).Proclamation No. 75 set certain municipal areas, including almost the whole of Durban, under investigation to be defined as to which groups were occupier and which are unoccupied (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 19).In May, the Director of the Institute of Race Relations met with the Mayor of Durban to speak about the effects of the Group Areas Act on Indians in the city (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 24).Â£8,500,000, plus repayments on previous loans was allocated to the National Housing and Planning Commission (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 35).In the Cape, 108 houses were built by the state for Coloured-people, 280 houses and Â£51,300 for hostels for Africans. In the Orange Free State 7 houses were built by the state for Coloured-people, 145 houses for Africans. In the Transvaal, 1,475 houses were built by the state for Africans as well as 23 hostels (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1951: 36).No municipal houses were completed 1951 in Cape Town, Kimberley, Pretoria, Randfontein or Boksburg but in the Springs Municipality 827 were built, in Benoni 606 were built, in East London 400 were built, in Port Elizabeth 201 were built and in Germiston 200 were built (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1952: 36).1952The Minister of the Interior introduces the Group Areas Act Amendment Bill due to the difficulty involved in proclaiming a group area within a comparatively short period. The amendment also sought to be able to proclaim group areas without the effects immediately coming into place. It extended the period during which the Government is empowered, without reference to Parliament to establish certain group areas from five to fifteen years. It enabled the Governor-General to define an area which he proposed in the future to declare a group area for occupation or ownership by any one racial group; and provided that, after an area is defined in that way, the use of land there will be controlled to prevent development that would be in conflict with its future status. The amendment authorized the Minister to make determinations in conflict with provisions of title deeds. It also changed the racial status of White men to that of the woman he was married to or co-inhabited with (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1952, 32).In September, the Minister of Native Affairs created an interdepartmental committee to enquire into the backlog of African housing and the problem of increasing costs (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1952: 35).Proclamation 255 and 256 further impose the Group Areas Act. The entirety of the Orange Free State became a “controlled” area. In the Cape, Transvaal and Natal, urban areas became “specified” areas but the rural areas were considered “controlled” (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1953: 45).1953By February 10th The Minister of the Interior had received 1958 applications for inter-racial transfers of ownership and had rejected 1651 of them.On July 20th, it was reported that the Government had announced its willingness to modify the Group Areas Act by making provision for the introduction of a system of public acquisition of property to protect owners affected by race zoning, also by providing for the payment of excess profits to the State. No group areas had yet been proclaimed (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1953: 45). The Land Tenure Advisory Board clarified that mission churches will be considered companies, thus mission operated by Whites had ten years until they had to apply for permit to continue to operate (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1954: 57).Durban submitted proposals for group areas for the city (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 111).1954On four occasions during the year, the Chairman of the Land Tenure Advisory Board ruled that the Indian Congress should not be permitted to give evidence at public hearings because it had no direct financial interest in the proceedings at hand, and much of its protest at the hearings was of the Group Areas Act itself. This was challenged in the Supreme Court which ruled that the Board did not have the authority to limit the word “interest” so narrowly and that, therefore, they did not have the grounds to refuse their testimony (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1954, 59).A proposal was submitted to create three African settlements around Johannesburg (Alexandra Township, Eastern Native Township, and the large Meadowlands-Orlando-Moroka area south-west of the city). It proposed moving nearly 170,000 Africans, Indians and Coloureds (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1954, 59).June: the Natives Resettlement Act was passed which applied to the four townships of the Western Areas and to other areas adjoining Johannesburg, as was to be determined by the Governor-General. It established a Resettlement Board to undertake the removal scheme. The Resettlement Board was to consist of between nine and ten members who reported directly to the Minister of Native Affairs. It had the power to acquire, develop, and dispose of land to build houses and to grant leases and building loans to facilitate people building their own houses. It was empowered to expropriate land if it was unable to be purchased on reasonable terms. Africans from Western areas who were required to move had to be provided with an alternative accommodation or, if they prefered, a plot on which they could build for themselves (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1954: 61). People had one month to vacate their premises, failure to do so would result in the demolition of their immovable property. While the person who received an order to vacate could appeal to a magistrate, the Board was not responsible for any loss or damage sustained because of orders it gave.A Committee of the Land Tenure Advisory Board heard proposals by the City Council of Pietermaritzburg (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 117).Group area demarcated as Coloured in Roodepoort, Transvaal (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 107).1955Group Areas Development Act, No.69 of 1956 was passed with the purpose of eliminating speculation in property values which might arise as far as a result of the proclamation of group areas. It established a Group Areas Development Board to assist disqualified persons to dispose of their properties and resettle themselves elsewhere (Horrell, 1978, 73).July: group areas proclaimed in Carnarvon, central Cape. White and Coloured areas declared, three or four Coloured families and one Indian trader were given two years to move, unless they acquire a permit to remain in their homes (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 107).Land Tenure Advisory Board held public hearing to hear zoning schemes for the northern Cape Town suburbs (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 113).October: White group area declared in Amalinda, East London (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 106-107).November: group areas declared in Brit, central Transvaal for White and Indian. 85 Indians displaced. Ownership rights of White property in the Indian area and Indian property in the White area may continue for their lifetime, but occupation can only be granted by annually renewable permits. Indians move to the southern, further out of town, area (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 106- 107).Group areas set aside for White and Coloured in Brandvlei, north-west Cape (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 107).1956February 1: proclamation 13 of 1956 brought the Group Areas Development Act into effect (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 105).Lady Shelborne in Pretoria, which was previously an African area under the Native Urban Areas Act of 1945, was proposed to be set aside for Coloured or White group area. However, since the area as well as Claremont, were zoned under the Native Urban Areas Act, the Land Tenure Advisory Board adjourned their sitting (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 107).April: Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 29 of 1956 allowed the government to proclaim group areas for White or Coloured people, anywhere in the Union, without reference to Parliament until 1965.Parliamentary approval would be required in the case of an African area within a completely released area, and in the case of Transvaal and Orange Free State for Coloured and Indian group areas unless they already resided or the majority portions of the land fell within areas already set aside of those groups under the Gold Law or old Transvaal legislation. Section 9.2h empowered the Board to deal with areas which had already been zoned by the Native Urban Areas Act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 104). The nearest African area to Pretoria where alternative property was nineteen miles outside outside the city and served by an inadequate railway (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 105).The Land Tenure Advisory Board hears proposals for the southern suburbs in Cape Town (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 113).3 August: group areas proclaimed in Johannesburg. Newlands, whose population was about threequarters and a quarter Indian, was declared for White occupation within two years (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 109). Graymount, Albertskroon, Claremont, Sophiatown and Westdene were declared White. Africans began to be removed under the Western Areas Removal Scheme (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 108). Albertville, a predominantly Coloured neighbourhood, is zoned as White (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 109). Pageview, near the city centre, which was largely Indian owned and almost exclusively inhabited by Indians, Coloureds and Africans, was declared a White area. Approximately 9000 Indians, 700 Chinese, 7500 Cape Coloured and 2000 Malays; and between 700 and 850 Indian traders and 150 Chinese traders were forced to move. The traders received no compensation (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 110).The areas of Bosmont and and New Monteleo, west of Coronationville and Newclare in Johannesburg, were proclaimed to be set as Coloured areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 147).August 25, 26: Dr. Dadoo makes a statement following the proclamation of the first large group areas in the country, in Johannesburg.October: group areas proclaimed in Balfour, South-Eastern Transvaal. The town council positioned the Indian group area be further out of town than the White. The areas were proclaimed for immediate ownership and for occupation within one year (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 107). Group areas for Coloured, Whites, and Indians in Dundee, Northern Natal. Whites retained all their present area and gain some properties. Coloured-people gained properties at the expensive of Indians.Indians were given their present area, minus the Coloured area, plus a section of undeveloped land.Group areas were proclaimed for immediate ownership and for occupation within four years (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1956: 108).1957November: the Minister of the Interior discussed proposed amendments to the Group Areas Development Act (No. 69 of 1955) which would empower the Group Areas Development Board to compel the nearest local authority to provide housing and other services in areas demarcated for resettlement of persons of various groups, whether or not the new areas are within the municipal borders. Failure to do so would result in the Board taking on the power of the local authority, creating the new housing and services for the groups and having the cost deducted from grants to the local authority by the Government or recovered by court action. Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban city councils strongly opposed the proposed amendments(South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 89).Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 57 of 1957 clarified the determination of the racial group of persons or companies, including for the purpose of public entertainment, eating at a restaurant or being the member of a club, who were affected by the Group Areas Act (Horrell 1978, 72)(South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 91). For the purposes of the Act a woman would adopt her husband's race classification (Horrell 1978, 72). It also clarified those who were exempt from provisions relating to occupation related employment, emphasizing that domestic servants were exempt from the status of a disqualified person in a White group area (Horrell, 1978, 73). These effects were brought into place by proclamation No. 333 of 1957, which functionally stopped the Government or statutory bodies from inviting disqualified persons, including those representing other states, to restaurants or clubs. It also stopped coloured-people from being able to eat at any restaurant (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 91). Multi-racial cinemas were allowed to continue to operate after 1 November 1957, provided by that they obtained permits from the Group Areas Board (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 92).1958Proclamation No. 164 of 1958 replaced the withdrawn proclamation No. 333 of 1957. The new proclamation made the law such that no racially disqualified person may be present in premises under controlled, specified or group area for the purpose of attending any public cinema, or partaking of any refreshments ordinarily involving the use of seating accommodation as a customer in a licensed restaurant or as a member of or a guest in any club (save as a representative or guest of the state, a provincial administration, a local authority or a statutory body). This allowed Government officials to take disqualified persons to sit-down restaurants and allowed disqualified people to buy refreshments at non-sit-down establishments (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 91).6 June: group areas proclamation in Durban. This included Cato Manor being zoned as White (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 111). Approximately 1000 Whites, 75000 Indians, and 8500 Coloureds were estimated as having to move, as well as possibly 81000 African (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 112).26 June: Group Areas Board hears an application for the continued operation of the Durban International Club, which had been in existence for 15 years previous. The application was supported by the Durban City Council (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1958: 92).1959The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, No. 46 of 1959 abolished the parliamentary representation of Africans. It recognized eight African national units- North-Sotho, South-Sotho, Tswana, Zulu, Swazi, Xhosa, Tsonga, and Venda- and provided for the appointment of five Commissioners-General to represent the Government in African areas. The constitutional powers of Bantu territorial, regional and tribal authorities were more clearly defined; and it was laid down that representatives of territorial authorities would be appoint in urban areas (Horrell, 1971: 23). The Indians appealed to the Johannesburg city council to provide them a housing scheme in Langlaagte so that they would be able to continue with their work. The group area which had been set aside for them, Lenasia, was over 19 miles outside of the city and made impossible for them to carry on their business. The city council refused (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 148).19 November: Bosmont and New Monteleo in Johannesburg are proclaimed as areas of Coloured ownership, in addition to their status as Coloured occupation (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 147). The neighbourhoods lie outside of the city boundaries but the Group Areas Development Board announced the need for assistance from the city council to service the area, for which they were willing to enter into an informal agreement (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 148).18 December: the Supreme Court, Pretoria, ruled that the definition of an affected property must be construed as not including property occupied partially by different racial groups (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1960: 146).Toward the end of 1959 the Government was finishing the process of resettling African residents of Sophiatown. More than a thousand Africans remained, even after been rendered homeless because the government demolished their home. Special applications were held by the resettlement board for those who qualified under pass laws to remain in the city to receive accommodation there but by February 1960 the hearings were ended. (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 150). Africans who were resettled from Lady Shelborne and Claremont were given the opportunity to purchase land at Uitvalgrond, twenty miles northwest of the city. The Chinese and Coloured communities both raise objections to the placement of their new areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 152).In Durban, the proposed White area were well-established Indian business areas that included four Indian schools, two religious schools and a mosque. The proposed areas are what incited the action against the Minister of the Interior by nineteen members of the Indian community (see below) (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1960: 153).196029 March: the Minister of the Interior gives assurances in the Assembly that “no one who is not in a position to provide a dwelling for himself will be required to move should alternative accommodation not be available. It is naturally expected of well-to-do people to provide housing for themselves in their own areas. [...] Where people cannot afford to build their own houses, the Group Areas Development Board or the local authority will provide the necessary housing.” (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1960: 143)4 July: The court heard the case of S.M. Lockhat and Eighteen others vs the Minister of the Interior. The nineteen member of the Durban Indian community filed action against the Minister of the Interior to challenge the proclamation which required them to move before June 5 1959 on the grounds that:1. The Group Areas Board had failed to give proper consideration to the availability of suitabl accommodation for members of the Non-White groups outside the areas set aside for Whites;2. before completing the enquiry the Board had already made a decision as to the group areas it was going to recommend, hence failed to give proper consideration to the representations made at the enquiry;3. the chairman of the Board was prejudiced against Indians and this prejudice improperly influenced his mind;4. the Act did not authorize the discrimination between different races as to result in partial and unequal treatment to a substantial degree, which would be the effect of the proclamation (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1960: 144). The Minister of the Interior amended the proclamation in such a way that resolved some of the issues by making them less vague (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1960: 145).Justice J. Henochsberg used Abdurahman’s (the verdict of separate but not substantially unequal) case as precedent to declare that “the exercise of a power to proclaim group areas for the different race groups can and should”¦ be exercised without the inevitable result that members of different races are treated on a footing of partiality and inequality to a substantial degree.” (Dugard, 1978: 318, 319) Therefore, not only would the plaintiffs have to prove that there was inequality but also that it was substantial, as well as having to prove their allegation of prejudice concerning the chairman of the Board, but the judge did rule that the allegations constituted a sufficient basis in law for the Court to interfere. The Government appealed the outcome of the case (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1960: 145).Between 1959 and 1960 at least 26 other cases relating to the interpretation of the legislation dealing with group areas came before the courts (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1960: 146).1961Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 23 of 1961 provided that at least a year must be given for the owner to continue to be the occupier, if it is for a specific purpose, like as a trading business (Horrell, 1978, 72).10 February: group areas are proclaimed in Cape Town between Salt River to Retreat and from Hout Bay to Zeekoevei, which reserved the areas for Whites. Coloureds maintained the Battswood area (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1961: 167).Appeal Judge Holmes J. A., when delivering the judgement of the case Minister of the Interior v. Lockhat (a case attacking the validity of a proclamation which resulted in the substantial inequality of treatment of Indians in Durban), the court stated “The Group Areas Act represents a colossal social experiment and a long term policy. It necessarily involves the movement of Group Areas of numbers of people throughout the country. Parliament must have envisaged that compulsory population shifts of persons occupying certain areas would inevitably cause disruption and, within the foreseeable future, substantial inequalities. Whether all this will ultimately prove to be for the common weal of all the inhabitants is not for the court to decide” (Dugard, 1978: 83, 320). This appeal reversed, to a certain extent, the ruling by Justice J. Henochsberg in 1960 because Henochsberg could not find anything in the Act itself to back up his ruling so the court ultimately sided with the interpretation that since the act did not seem to contain an inherent intention of treating people unequally, the Group Areas Act was upheld (Dugard, 1978: 320).April: the Secretary of the Group Areas Board in Natal indicated a softening of policy in letters sent to the Town Clerks of Durban and Pietermaritzburg stating concern over ability for Indians to exist as a completely segregated, self-sustaining community. He suggested there should be accommodations to allow “a reasonable measure of trading with members of the other racial groups” (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1961: 155).July 28: Proclamation No. 34 set up the Department of Community Development. Its mandate was:1. to furnish the machinery, undertake the planning and execute the administrative work necessary for the functioning of the Group Areas Board;2. to handle applications for permits to the extent that the Minister may by delegation approve;3. to carry out the administrative and financial activities necessary for the discharge of the functions entrusted to the Group Areas Development Board;4. to develop local government by Coloured and Asian people in their respective areas;5. to develop group areas as socio-economic units;6. to encourage the responsible local authorities to provide public amenities;7. to undertake such other functions as may be assigned to it from time to time.The administration of this department was assigned to the Minister of Coloured Affairs, Community Development and Housing (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1961: 154). Housing shortages are experienced by Africans moving into the South-West Townships in Johannesburg. (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1961: 157).New proclamations in Durban set Sea View, which adjoins Bellair, for Whites. The lower portion of Westville, inland from Cato Manor was also zone for Whites. These both displaced many Indians who were given additional land next to Reservoir Hills. The area designated as Coloured was a fairly nice White and Indian area, which they were seen as benefitting from (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1961: 176-177).In Pietermaritzburg, about thirty percent of Indian residents in proclaimed areas would have to move, many from localities where they established themselves over a half century ago (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1961: 181).1962Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 49 of 1962 reinforced the terms of Amendment Act No. 23 of 1961 (Horrell, 1978, 72). It also provided that the new Department of Community Development would take over functions that related to group areas that had previously fallen under the portfolio of the Minister of the Interior. The Group Areas Board, the Community Development Board and the Housing Commission now fell under this department (Horrell, 1978: 72). Additionally, it established of local governing bodies in Coloured and Asian group areas and made changes to provisions concerning property.The issuing of permits authorizing the occupation of land or premises could now be subjected to condition of only occupying the land or premises that the permit pertained. It meant that people who voluntarily gave up their businesses before becoming disqualified people would be favoured for new land or premises in their appropriate group area (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 135). The Amendment Act broadened the definition of “affected property” from the Development Act so that it now included any “defined” property that is used entirely or in part for a purpose other than that specified in a proclamation concerning it. For instance, if an area or property was “defined” as residential, it would not have affected those properties that were solely for business use. Improvement to properties after a proclamation allowed owners to apply for them to be reevaluated but properties that were damaged were valued at their price from the initial evaluation (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 136).The Minister of Community Development gave reassurances that steps would be taken so as to prevent a loss of livelihood for Indian traders, in large towns provisions would be made for specified areas for Indian trade, though isolated Indian shops were not granted protection. The Minister continued that Indian areas should not join African townships, and Indians should not be allowed to set up trade with poorer Whites or Coloureds. However, Indian, Coloured and African areas would not be allowed to surround White towns, because it would have prevented expansion. Mosques in White areas would have apply annually for permits (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 137).13 April: many more of Johannesburg’s suburbs were zoned for Whites; land was added to the Coloured group area in the extreme west; and a border strip was set aside between White and Coloured areas by Proclamation No. 83 (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 137). Nearly the entire municipal area was zoned for Whites, very few were called upon to move. Nearly all the Coloured, Indian, and African areas were zoned outside the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg, as far as 22 miles away (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 141).June: about 10,000 African squatters, many of whom were legally employed in Durban, were told they would be allocated housing by the Minister of Bantu and Administration and Development. Only those who were:a) old Umlazi residents who had to vacate their allotments when the area was developed for township purposes;b) other displaced families who belonged to the tribe in the area the township is situated;c) or were Zulu persons who are legally employed in the southern portion of Durban;would qualify for the housing. Others who were legally employed would be moved to townships closer to their employment and “illegal” squatters would be repatriated to their appropriate homeland (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 150).The many Coloured families were displaced in Cape Town by zoning of group areas had yet to receive housing from the Government. In other parts of Western Cape were reviewing group areas for Coloureds and Whites (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 147).A soccer team made up of Indian, White and African members were acquitted from a charge of violating the Group Areas Act by the Natal Supreme Court, as the players had not sat down together for refreshments as customers in a club, restaurant or tea room (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1962: 219).Ladysmith proclaims the eventual removal of all Indian businesses from the main shopping area (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 178).1963The Removal of Restrictions in Townships Amendment Act, No. 32 of 1963 widened the powers of the State authorities at all levels of government to create restrictive conditions on land which had been removed from cases where the authorities required the land for public purposes. This allowed, for example, the prohibition of occupation by Indians, Coloureds, Africans and Asians (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 165).The Better Administration of Designated Areas Act, No. 51 of 1963 empowered the Government to place three types of 'designated' areas under their control. A local authority was required to administer African owned neighbouring areas, which had previously been outside their jurisdiction (Horrell, 1978: 72).The Slums Amendment Act, No. 55 of 1963 increased the powers of the Government to ensure that the duties of local authorities under the Slums Clearance Act were carried out (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 165).February: the Minister of the Interior emphasizes that Whites may not play on mixed sports teams, while Indians, Africans, Coloureds, and Asians could have their own sports teams that develop independently of White teams it was not the role of the government to fund them (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 283).The Transvaal Indian Congress issued a memorandum on the effects of the Group Areas Act in the Transvaal citing more than 78 percent of Indians as being liable for eviction by the existing proclamations and more than 80 percent of Indians as being employed as or by a trader. March: the Government announces the elimination of family housing in the Alexandria township. Eight hostels to accommodate single men and women were to be built and families that wished to stay together would have to move to other townships (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 183).July 1: changes to conditions relating to the housing loan schemes that had been announced by the Minister of Community Development and Housing came into effect (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 165). People who wanted to build their own home that costed no more than R5000 could apply for individual loans; a contribution of 10 percent of the cost of the land and proposed dwelling has to be paid in cash. The maximum loan was R4500 was to be repaid over 30 years at about R26 a month, which included capital redemption and interest (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1963: 166).2 October: a proclamation prescribed that the area of Durban, except for industrial areas and portions still left as controlled areas, would be allocated for Whites. Large Indian zones would sit in the north and south of the city, where Coloured areas would adjoin them and African areas would be further north and south respectively. The proclamation finally decided that Cato Manor, home to 40 000 Indians, would be a White area; thereby destroyed the investments made by the Indian who had lived there for 80 years. A couple other Indian neighbourhoods were similarly affected, and the large commercial areas of the city that were zoned as White limited the property Indians could own there. These were all major blows to the Indian community. While the White beach resort of Isipingo Beach was lost to them when it was proclaimed Indian.1964The planning division, which had previously been under the Department of Community Development and activities related to the planning of the Group Areas Board such as permit controls and proclamations were placed under the new Department of Planning (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 209).The General Law Amendment Act, No. 80 of 1964 among other things, empowered the Group Areas Board to develop not only proclaimed areas but also any part of a controlled area. The powers of the courts to enforce eviction orders were also increased (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 209).The Pass Laws are amended, adding new constraints to the movements of Africans in South Africa. The labour bureau used passbooks to control the movement of Africans. In addition to requiring all Africans over the age of 16 to hold a passbook, where all official details needed to be entered (where the holder is permitted to be, and if appropriate, work, and records of employment and payment of taxes), the amendments allowed Africans to visit urban areas for 72 hours without obtaining a special permit but was not allowed to stay longer unless:a) s/he has lived there continuously since birth;b) s/he has worked there continuously with one employer for at least ten years, or has lived there lawfully and continuously for fifteen years, and has thereafter continued to live there and has not been in employment outside the area, and has not been convicted of a serious offense;c) s/he is the wife, unmarried daughter or son under the age of eighteen of an African in one of the categories mentioned above, ordinarily resides with her or him, and entered the area;d) s/he has been granted special permission to be in the area.However, Africans could still be ordered out of urban areas if they were deemed undesirable or idle (Horrell, 1973: 23).February: a number of Indians illegally occupying land in proclaimed White areas were brought to court after they failed to obey an eviction order (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 217).April 3: new lists were issued relating to the categories of persons who may be exempted from restrictions on the occupation of land or premises by disqualified persons in group areas and specified and controlled areas by proclamation No. 762. (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 209).June 2: the Minister of Indian Affairs pointed out that while larger cities have allowed certain “controlled” areas open to members of racial groups (other than Africans) for trading purposes, the lack of accommodation in smaller communities is forcing Indians to move their businesses and homes (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 210). Thus contradicting the assurance by the Minister that no Indian would be deprived of their livelihood because of the group area legislation. The Minister suggested that Indians set up manufacturing instead of trading, where they could employ other Indians instead of Africans (South African Institute of Race Relations, 1964: 211).1965Act No. 26 of 1965 made it a punishable offense for anyone to:a) attend a performance at any place of public entertainment (theatres, cinemas, public sports fields, etc.);b) partake of refreshments that ordinarily involve the use of seating accommodation in a licensed restaurant, refreshment or tea room;c) be a member or guest in any club (unless a government authority is the host) in an area or building which had been allocated to persons of a racial group other than their own (unless they have been granted a special permission to be there (Horrell, 1973: 94). Furthermore, while White hosts were allowed to accommodate Coloured or Asian guests (and viceversa) for a period of not more than ninety days in any calendar year, Africans were not allowed to be accommodated overnight in premises or on land situated outside an African township unless they obtained a permit from the local authority of the area. If Africans came from outside the urban area where they were to be temporarily accommodated they could not remain there for more than 72 hours (Horrell, 1973: 98).Community Development Amendment Act, No. 44 of 1965 renamed the Group Areas Development Board the Community Development Board. The Department's functions were made to include provision of housing, slum clearance, urban renewal, etc, along with the achievement of the group areas legislation. The Amendment empowered the Department to exercise their power outside as well as within proclaimed areas (not in African townships, African or Coloured reserves or rural settlements) (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 181). The Board also became exempt from by-laws relating to the type of building to be erected and which materials were necessary to use. It could also be exempt from restrictive conditions relating to the establishment of township, as long as the township was not detached from the surrounding area (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 181). The prohibition or control of the erection or alteration of any building in an area where a slum clearance or urban renewal scheme was taking place became the responsibility of the Board. The Board was now able to give goodwill payments to people or businesses which did not exceed the value of the property (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 182).Housing Amendment Act, No. 49 of 1965 amended the definition of local to include a board of management of rural Coloured area; a 'specified' area, in terms of the African Resettlement Act of 1954 (sometimes the Bantu Resettlement Act) which was controlled by the African (sometimes Bantu) Resettlement Board (Meadowlands and Diepkloof in Johannesburg); and a management board established in an African area as local authority purposes of the Housing Act. The National Housing commission was empowered to loan money to these boards for housing schemes (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 183).The Expropriation Act, No. 55 of 1965 dealt with cases in which property that is required for township development or for other public purposes may be expropriated by the Minister concerned, or to whoever they delegated the power to.Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 56 of 1965 made the Minister of Planning responsible for the planning of group areas and for permitting control until the time that group areas were proclaimed by the Group Areas Board. After group areas had been proclaimed it became the responsibility of the Minister of Community Development. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development became responsible for Africans. It provided that police would no longer needed warrants and could enter property, day or night, to question the individuals there as to their ownership, occupation or use of the land. Furthermore, police could demand that these people appear before them at any stated time and place (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 180). It also removed the need for parliamentary approval to create a group area, as existed in the original 1950 (except for the first five and then fifteen years) (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 181).11 June: Greenpoint in Cape Town is declared White. District Six, Woodstock, and Salt River remain unzoned (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 184). Port Elizabeth neighbourhoods of of Fairview and Salisbury Park are declared White (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1965: 185).1966The Community Development Act, No 3 of 1966 was passed as a consolidating measure to clarify the compilation and maintenance of lists of affected properties, the powers of valuators, the procedure relating to the determination of basic values and appeals to revision courts, the expropriation of properties and the arbitration of proceedings (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 178). The Housing Act, No. 4 of 1966 was passed as a consolidating measure (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 178).1 February: the Minister announced the plan to deal with the housing shortage caused by resettlement plans, overcrowding, and the poor quality of housing (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 179).11 February: proclamation 43 declared the majority of District Six in Cape Town as a White area. Due to the controversial nature of the decision, it had been avoided up until this point (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 187). It was estimated that between 20000 and 33000 people (about 5700 families) would be forced to moved by the proclamation (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 188).26 October: Group Areas Act, No 36 of 1966 was passed as a consolidating measure (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 178).1967Community Development Amendment Act, No. 42 of 1967 stopped the government from having to pay the disqualified owner of a property sold by the Community Development Board any appreciation value if the property was sold within the first 5 years of the relevant group area proclamation. However, after the five year period, some payment would have to be made (on a sliding scale, not exceeding 50 percent). It also clarified the term 'market value' as it applied to properties affected by group areas proclamations, and set dates within which appeals could be submitted against the determination of the value of properties (Horrell, 1978: 73). Furthermore, it removed the Board’s discretion to have basic values redetermined if buildings were erected, extended or altered without its permission on land owned by a racially disqualified person (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1967: 192). Many Coloured areas were rezoned in Johannesburg, including a move from the predominantly Coloured township of Protea, where most people owned their owned land in freehold, to the Coloured group area Nancefield; as well from Noordgesig, which was declared an African area, to Newclare (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1967: 196-197).Similarly, in Cape Town, Coloured peoples land holdings and residencies were marginalized by the proclamation of District Six, Kommetje, Simonstown and Fish Hoek (and the whole area in between) as white (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1967: 200).1968The Bantu Laws Amendment Act, No. 56 of 1968 made it clear that prescribed areas, where influx control and related laws and regulations can be applied did not necessarily have to be urban areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1968: 194). It provided that, subject to the Administrator’s approval, the South African Bantu Trust could by agreement with a local authority, take over the assets and liabilities of the local authority in respect of an approved Bantu housing scheme that has been or is being carried out by means of moneys from the National Housing Fund, or borrowed by the local authority. As well, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was empowered, after reference to the Administrator and consultation with the relevant urban local authority, to demand the removal, curtailment, or abolition of a location, Bantu village, or Bantu hostel by the local authority if they resided within their area of jurisdiction. The Minister might have wanted to do this if they considered it to be a health or safety hazard or if it was in the interest of for town or regional planning (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 164). If a Medical Officer of Health considered it necessary, the local authority could condemn the dwelling and which gave occupants one month’s notice to vacate it. The local authority could then demolish it. Occupants of condemned dwellings were supposed to be offered alternative housing accommodations, as approved by the Minister (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 165).The Community Development Amendment Act, No. 58 of 1968 widened the powers of the Community Development Board to operate in areas under the control of local authority (Horrell, 1978: 75). It also made requirements for traders applying for new licenses to obtain documentation from indicating whether or not they will be allowed to occupy the premises in the area they want to trade in. If a racially disqualified person was issued a license, it was renewable unless the Minister or someone acting on their behalf objects. The Minister was also given the power to put blanket bans on the issue of trading licenses in a group or “defined” area where development has been frozen, unless the Minister, or someone acting on their behalf, produces a certificate stating that the license may be granted (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1968: 191).A committee of the Department of Planning, Community Affairs, and Bantu Administration and Development acted in consultation with the Registrar of the population to determine whether Coloured people who had been living in African townships for extended period of time had been “Bantu-ized”, and whether those people should be and would prefer to be reclassified as “Bantu” (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1968: 192)The Housing Amendment Act, No. 80 of 1968 changed the name from “sub-economic schemes” to “auxiliary housing schemes”, lowered the rate of interest and extended the period of time where they could be paid back. Only Whites, Indians and Coloureds qualified for these loans, as the Bantu Investment Corporation was responsible for small loans to Africans (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1968: 194). There were, however, sub-economic schemes for Africans passed at lower levels of government before passage of the act, like the subsidization of housing by the government of Johannesburg (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1968: 195).Africans were no longer allowed to build their own homes on plots leased from local authorities in urban areas. Local authorities were the only body who could legally buy the home of Africans who already owned their houses. Africans who wanted homes in urban areas could only build them on plots rented or purchased in townships within homelands (Horrell, 1973: 33-34).23 February: the Minister of Community Development said that it was not the task of the State to provide temporary housing to Africans while they were providing services to Whites, urban African housing schemes should be self-sufficient.1969An Amendment Act, No. 58 1969 empowered the Community Development Board to call upon local authority to provide state services in an area within the latter's boundaries in which the Board had taken over the local authority's powers. If the local authority failed to do so, the Board was able to provide the services and deduct the cost from the budget of the local authority, or regain the money through court action but it would have to repay the authority if, for some reason, the area was deproclaimed (Horrell, 1978: 73).Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 69 1969 reinforced Amendment Acts No. 23 of 1961 and No. 49 of 1962, (Horrell, 1978: 72). It extended provisions which had previously only applied to group areas to controlled areas, thereby they came to apply virtually everywhere except in Bantu areas. The property of racially disqualified people, acquired through testamentary disposition or intestate succession, had to be sold within a year (to someone qualified to own it) unless an exception was granted. Domestic workers in White homes were given an exception with regards to the limitations of occupation of disqualified peoples. (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 162). Early in 1969, the chairman of the National Transport Commission announced that apartheid would be introduced on, what had previously been non-segregated buses, in Cape Town (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 180).January: a Chinese man and his landlord are charged with violating the Group Areas Act by living in a White area. There is no Chinese area in Johannesburg, where the man lived. This family was asked to leave the city by the end of the year and his landlord was sentenced to R50 or 25 days (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 169).7 February: as a result of proclamations on 30 September 1968, 656 white families, 58 999 Coloured families, 784 Chinese families, and 35 172 Indian families became disqualified to stay in their homes. To that date 497 White families, 25 587 Coloured families and 17 723 Indian families had been resettled (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 16).April: the Minister of Community Development refused to receive a deputation from the Cape Town City Council which wanted to appeal to him to give a blanket permission for Coloured people to use municipal halls in its area for meetings, school concerts, wedding receptions and similar gathers, but not dances. The Minister denied their request and said each would have to apply for a permit which would be judged according to their own merit (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1966: 167- 168).July: the Transvaal Provincial Executive approved the incorporation as of 1970, of 100 square miles of land which had been controlled by the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas into the city of Johannesburg, including Lenasia (Indian area), Nancefield and Klipriviersoog (Coloured area) and Soweto Township (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1969: 169).1970The Bantu Laws Amendment, No. 19 of 1970 removed the necessity for a public enquiry to be held before the Minister can order a local authority to take action against an African township or hostel. When such an order is given, the Minister will fix a date, after which the Bantu Affairs Commissioner may instruct the police to remove any African who, in his opinion, is in the township or hostel without permission to be there. No compensation was payable to those whose homes were demolished and they could be move to anywhere that was deemed to have adequate accommodations. It also widened the powers of local authorities to subsidize services which the minister certifies is in the interest of Africans, in the homelands as well as urban areas. Contributions to the costs of such services could have been charged directly to the local authority’s Bantu beer account,with the permission of the Minister, rather than having the profits from the beer (up to two-thirds) be taken by the Department (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1970: 196).June: about 1200 White households received notice that they had too many African servants residing with them. The Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1963 provided that, unless special permission was grants, private householders were not allowed to accommodate more than one African domestic servant, while hostels and other businesses could not accommodate more than five. Following private outcry, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development agreed to a municipal suggestion that removal of domestic servants would be postponed but the City Council should prepare for the reduction (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1970: 198).24 July: the Minister of Community Development told the Assembly that between 1967-1969, after District Six had been declared a White area, the Group Areas Board had purchased 1309 properties there, of which 1082 had been expropriated (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1970: 189).7 August: the Minister of Community Development revealed that in 1969 his department held properties valued at R21 300 000 in Johannesburg, R15 703 538 in Durban, R10 012 143 in Cape Town and R3 542 042 in Port Elizabeth. This holdings came from the accumulation of property through the implementation of the Group Areas Act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1970: 187).No further African family housing is being provided in the Western Cape (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1970: 199).1971Amendment Act, No. 68 of 1971 extended the period where the Community Development Board was not obliged to pay an owner any of the appreciation value of their property from five years to eight years (Horrell, 1978: 73). In addition, if a person who had become disqualified sold their property got more than the basic value they were required to pay the Board 50 percent of the difference as an “appreciation contribution” (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1971: 155).The section of the Pass Law which allowed Africans who had worked in urban areas continuously with one employer for at least ten years, or has lived there lawfully and continuously for fifteen years, and has thereafter continued to live there and has not been in employment outside the area, and has not been convicted of a serious offense was relaxed (Horrell, 1973: 24).While family housing was continued to be built in Johannesburg, Germiston, Benoni, Springs, Sebokeng, Volkurst, Greater Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, Kimberly, and smaller towns in the free state; it was frozen in much of the Western Cape, including Mossel Bay and Stellenbosch, the rural Transvaal, and Grahamstown. Furthermore, African families were moved to homelands, for example in Pretoria Tswana families were moved to homelands 34 kilometers outside the city (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1971: 164-167)Concerns were raised about the ability to accommodate the number of people that will be needing transport from Soweto to Johannesburg in the coming years by the General Manager of the Railways (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 140-141).May: the Deputy-Minister of Bantu Administration stated that, according to official planners, it should be feasible to transport workers daily between points 70 miles or on a weekend basis, between points of 400 miles apart .26 September: Minister of Coloured Affairs, J.J. Loots announces that larger Coloured group areas will gradually be transformed into full-fledged municipalities, under the Coloured Persons Representative Council.1972The Transport Services for Coloured Persons and Indians Act, No. 27 of 1972 allowed the Minister of Transport to decide upon towns where the employers of Indian and/or Coloured people (other than domestic servants) may be required to pay contributions not exceeding 20 cents per employee a week which was used to subsidize transport services. (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1974: 163) This money could not be fined from the wages of the workers (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 158).Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 83 of 1972 clarified that the Government's power to proclaim group areas to be used for particular purposes (Horrell, 1978: 72). Moreover, it provided that instead of the Minister of Community Development, the Ministers of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs would be responsible for the establishment and functioning of local government bodies in Coloured and Indian group areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 159).The Community Development Amendment Act, No 93 of 1972 gave the Community Development Board the discretionary funds to pay an amount of compensation for inconvenience caused they the expropriation or acquisition of “affected property” caused by the Group Areas Act. The amount given as compensation was not included in the valuation of the property (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 128).Members of Parliament, like LED Winchester and RGL Hourquebie of the United Party and Helen Suzman of the Progressive Party, were very critical of the Department of Community Development for not providing adequate housing (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 130). There particularly there are grave housing shortages for Africans in Durban and Coloureds in Cape Town (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 137).The wives of men who qualified for permanent urban residents were permitted to migrate to cities, provided that housing was available (Horrell, 1973, 24).In Johannesburg, the Citizens’ Hostel Action Committee collected a reported 40 000 signatures in support of a petition urging the Government to discontinue the policy of building hostel for single men and women, to make the hostels that existed in the Alexandra Township be filled only voluntarily, and to use the funds that would have been spent on more hostels to build more family housing (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 148).1973Early in 1973, the Minister of Community Development release the following figures about the number of people affected by the Group Areas Act by the end of 1972:Disqualified Resettled Still to be resettledWhites 1 648 1 513 135Coloured 72 423 44 885 27 538Indian 38 335 27 694 10 641Chinese 1 233 71 1 162(Africans are dealt with by other pieces of legislation, like pass laws)By 1971, the Minister of Community Development said that 4 546 Indian traders had become disqualified occupants, of whom only 547 had been resettled. (Horrell, 1973: 32-33, basic facts)5 October: a State Presidential Proclamation, widening powers of the Group Areas Act, is published in a bid to prevent multi-racial matches at Pietermaritzburg's Aurora Cricket Club (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1974: 112)Proclamation R26 forbade any disqualified person from going to places of public entertainment or eating in a seated-restaurant or refreshment selling business. The maximum penalty laid down was 400 Rand or imprisonment for two years (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1974: 111). The proclamation’s vagueness was instrumental to intimidating organizations into segregating sporting fixtures and theater performances by creating fear of possible prosecutions for circumstances which the law may have not contemplated but for which it could be interpreted to be applied (Dugard, 1978: 82).1974The Johannesburg City Council decides to remove many of the “petty-apartheid” laws in its jurisdiction, including signs indicating “White” and “Nonwhite” from park benches, there was no more racial restrictions on who could visit museums or use municipal libraries, and separate queues at municipal offices would be abolished. Employment opportunities in the municipal service for Africans were to be improved and unions were urged to find better employment opportunities for Indians and Coloureds (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1974: 151).1648 Whites, 73 758 Coloureds, 38 678 Indians and 1 233 Chinese had become disqualified to live in their homes as of February 18th, 1974. 5031 Indian traders had become disqualified as of February 12th, and 4 239 had still to become resettled (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1974: 156).1975The Community Development Amendment Act, No. 19 1975 made it legal for first time licenses to be issued to a person who was racially disqualified in particular areas, provided that no license referred to in a schedule to the Licenses Act of 1962 (which the Minister had the right to overrule). Four types of trading licenses were excluded, the main one being hawkers (Horrell, 1978: 75).21 April: Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 22 of 1975 maintained the existing commitment to the principle of separate residential areas, schools and amenities for different races, but excluded sports venues from its provisions. It assumed that this step was taken in an effort to ease restrictions of South African sportsmen in international games (Kalley, J.A., E. Schoeman & L.E. Andor, 1999). It allowed the minister of Planning at any time t appoint a committee to investigate the desirability or otherwise of establishing a local authority for whatever area which the committee has been established to investigate (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1975: 67).The Housing Amendment Act, No 40 of 1975 extended the definition from that of the original Act of the principal of a housing scheme which may qualify for a loan from the National Housing Fund to include social services centres (like recreation, education, and health care centres), day care facilities for children of working mother or fathers, and facilities for community development, like halls and swimming pools. Importantly, African townships are financed separately from this act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1975: 66)Member of the Progressive Party, Colin Eglin, pointed out during the Budget debate in the Assembly that the shortage of housing for Africans remained a crisis situation (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1975: 70).The Minister of Bantu Affairs removed the restrictions on Africans in urban townships, outside their homelands, from owning their home (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1975: 82).1976Section 1 of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Act, No. 92 of 1975 provided, with particular exceptions, that no person shall enter any land or building with lawful reason, or remain there without the permission of the lawful owner or occupier; and no person other than an African shall enter any land set aside for Africans without lawful reason, or remain there without the permission of the responsible authority. There was an increase in the punishment for violating Section 1.Three new subsections were inserted into Section 3 of the original act which made it illegal for landowners to allow others to build anything on their land without the proper approval, allowed landowners to demolish anything built under those circumstances (as long as they gave seven days notice) and made any person who wanted to engage in business with a member of a specified population group first get a certificate from the Minister of Community Development.The maximum penalty for Section 4, the prohibition on collection of fees associated with the illegal occupation of land, increased to R500 and/or twelve months in prison. There were minor changes made to Section 6(1) which pertained to the creation of emergency homeless camps, including the approval of the appropriate minister. As well, the definition of authorized people to investigate illegal squatting was broadened (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1976: 153- 154).At the second reading of the amendment bill the Minister stated that approximately 21 600 Coloured families in the Cape Peninsula and the surrounding area were squatting, while more than 120 000 people were living in these shanties, almost 25 percent of those were from rural areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1972: 155).2 June: officials of the Peninsula Bantu Administration Board, raided a squatters’ camp in the Bel-Air area. The Board was backed by the police, who as a crime prevention measure (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1976: 158).Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert was found guilty of entry into a group area without permission for visiting Nyanga East and Guguletu where shanties were being demolished with Rev. David Russell and four members of the press. He was cautioned and discharged (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1976: 160).KwaThema Bus Boycott occurs in reaction to the increase of bus fares without a proportional increase in government subsidy (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1976: 179).1977Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, No 72 of 1977 allowed the government to demolish and remove the material contents of any structure deemed an illegal squatter building without any prior notice to the occupants. It disallowed any person from seeking court intervention to stop or prevent the demolition of a structure unless the apparent owner had a deed or other proof of ownership of the land. The amendment also reneged any protections people had received from seeking court intervention before the passing of this amendment, unless they had proof of ownership of the land (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 429).Group Areas Amendment Act, No. 96 of 1977 empowered the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations and the Minister of Indian Affairs to convert consultative and management committees that had been established in terms of provincial ordinances into independent local authorities, controlled by the provisions of the GAA. It also eliminated the application of restrictions on ownership, occupation, purchase and use of land and property by unqualified persons in areas zoned for industrial purposes, except where industrial areas were proclaimed group areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 428).The Housing Amendment Act, No 124 of 1977, inserted a new section to the 1966 Housing Act, which provided for the summary eviction of persons who illegally occupy dwellings belonging to the National Housing Commission. The Secretary of the Commission could take possession of and evict people from their living space without any kind of a court order. The maximum penalty for being convicted under the Act was a fine of R2 000 and/or imprisonment of 24 months (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 428-429).The Community Development Amendment Act, No 126 of 1977 introduced parallel provisions as the Housing Amendment Act with regard to property financed by or belonging to the Department of Community Development (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 429). 11 February: the Government issued a proclamation that with reference for the prevention of illegal squatting act, anyone in the Cape who planned to employ a coloured person and bring them to a group area other than the one they were zoned for needed to obtain a certificate from the local authority of the area, which stated that proper housing is available for the prospective employee (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 430).25 March: all provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act comes into effect in the OFS and CP, where before they provisions had been applied in a piecemeal fashion to specifically gazetted areas. As well, the provisions of the Bantu (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act of 1956 were applied to all orders made or issued, instructions given, authorities conferred, notices served and warrants issued under provisions of the IS Act in so far as they applied to Africans (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 430).10 June: the Prohibition of Interdicts Act was made applicable to regulations empowering the Bantu commissioners to demolish structures on, among other things, Bantu Trust Land and arable lots (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 431).15 June: the Minister of Community Development lowered the sub-economic monthly income level for members of all three population groups regulated by the Act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1977: 433).1978Community Development Amendment Act, No 19 of 1978 abolished the payment of 50 percent of any profit caused by an appreciation in value from the owner of a building to the Community Development Board, while if a building is sold for less than its value the owner would now be compensated for 80% of the loss (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1978: 378).Slums Amendment Act, No. 20 of 1978 added a new clause to section 3(1) of the original act which dealt with the duties of local authorities to prevent nuisances and provide suitable housing or land for its inhabitants. The new section 3(2) provided that a local authority had to, if required to do so by a secretary, annually submit a report on the number, cost and establishment of future 10 year demand for residential erven for each group, steps contemplated to supplement any shortage which may occur and any other related matter. As some local authorities were found to not be providing enough housing, this amendment was an accountability measure to prevent squatting and get proper housing providing (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1978: 377).The Housing Amendment, No 21 of 1978 made ministerial approval became necessary to demolish buildings which were being used as dwellings, if they were reasonable places for people to live. Previously, one only needed permission of the local authority or administrator (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1978: 378).The Group Areas Amendment Act, No 43 of 1978 changed the definition of disqualified person. The amendment changed that which defined the group character of an area from the majority of the population of Divisional Councils to the majority members of municipal councils. The previous system determined the legal persona of many places as Coloured which would become White under the new system (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1978: 379).Coordination of Housing Matters Act, No 66 of 1978 established a Housing Matters Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the minister on coordination of housing matters, the formulations of a national policy on housing matters and land, and the coordination by the department of community development and provincial administrations of townships establishment procedures and the provision, sizes, standards and costs of housing services. It created a committee of relevant ministers, but the committee did not have any power to override any matters which provisions of the Community Development Act or the Housing Act applied (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1978: 377-378).August 1: the Minister of Community Development announced the number of dependents a person had would no longer be taken into account in determining eligibility for houses provided by the National Housing Fund (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1978: 381).1979The Slums Amendment Act, No 76 of 1979 increased the maximum fine and made the fines payable to the local authority instead of the Government (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1979: 359). The Housing Amendment Act, No 109 of 1979 abolished the Black Housing Board and made the Community Development Board responsible for applications for housing related claims and permits through the National Housing Commission (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1979: 399). The Group Areas Amendment Act, No 113 of 1979 removed the Act’s restrictive provisions with regard to ownership, occupation, and use of land by unqualified persons in areas zoned for industrial purposes. Subsequently, a Supreme Court judgement ruled that it also applied to land zoned ‘general’ which could be used to varied purposes, including industrial (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1979: 359).The Minister of Cooperation and Development stated that over 312 families had been evicted in Soweto for not paying rent in 3 years (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1979: 418) The Riekert Commission recommended that on legislation affecting the use of manpower, the GAA should be amended to provide for demarcated areas in the CBD of towns and cities which could be used by persons of all racial groups for commercial or professional purposes (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1979: 466).District Six was officially renamed Zonnebloem. The Minister of Community Development, in response to requests to deproclaim District Six as White from the Ministers Fraternal of District Six and the Cape Town Board of Commerce, that a point of no return had been reached and Government plans could not be changed (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1979: 477).1980The Housing Amendment Act, No 11 of 1980, added new permissible ways of serving notices to to residents, the occupier need not be present (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1980: 345). The Community Development amendment act, No 12 of 1980 added the same permissible ways to serve notices to residents of properties owned by the Board as Housing Amendment Act, No 11. It also provided that if rents were not paid timeously and the Board has served notice on the tenants, the board could take ownership of their possessions until the rent was paid. It added new powers for inspectors to enter and inspect premises or buildings let by the board, acquired or erected through a loan from the board or sold by the board provided a portion of the purchase price was still outstanding (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1980: 345).The Cillé Commission found that during the period it investigated for causes of uprisings in the country, the group areas policy caused a feeling of general dissatisfaction among many Africans and that this feeling undoubtedly contributed to a state of mind that was receptive to provocation to riot. It contributed decisions made by the act as being responsible for riots in Stellenbosch and Mossel Bay (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1980: 351-353).Over 2000 Coloured and Indian persons were thought to be living illegally in central Johannesburg (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1980: 355). Thousands of others were still being moved from areas like District Six (Zonnebloem) (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1980: 359).1982The Housing Amendment Act, No 28 of 1982 conferred borrowing powers on the National Housing Commission, which allowed it to (with the permission of the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Finance) borrow from any source in or outside South Africa to finance capital works (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1982: 335).4 February: a Day of Action was organized by the Cape Areas Housing Action Committee to protest rent increase, several people were detained for questioning and were then released (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1982: 346).May: the President’s Council’s Planning and Community relations committees recommended that it would be inopportune to repeal the GAA ‘at this stage’, they instead recommended that-at least one member of the race group for which a residential area is being considered should be be on a standing committee which the Minister of Community Development may appoint in such cases;-greater use should be made of Section 19 of the Act which allows disqualified people to use certain business areas under permit;-appeals to the minister should be more swiftly handled; and-there should be less timeous declaration of future group areas in order to eliminate many frustrations and problems of the past (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1982: 341)In an interview with the Star, Mr. Louis Fouché, the immediate past director-general of the Department of Community Affairs disagreed with the mounting criticism against the Act, saying that it was a measure that improved happiness and contributed to solving the housing crisis for Africans. In his opinion, it was an Act that was “objective[..] and without political ideology”. Many members of opposition parties vehemently disagreed with these statements. (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1982: 340).1983Housing Amendment Act, No 63 of 1983 provided that register utility companies could apply directly to the National Housing Commission for loans from the housing fund (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1983: 228).Community Development Amendment Act, No 64 of 1983 extended the time a person who had bought immovable property for residential purposes with the assistance of the Board could not sell, rent, lease, etc it from within a period of five years unless it had first been offered for sale to the board, to a period of ten years. If the Board refused to buy it but someone else did, the Board was entitled to a portion of the sale profit (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1983: 228).198427 February: the recommendations of the Strydom Committee on the Group Areas Act and related laws that central business districts in major centres be opened to all race groups are welcomed by city councils, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and other organisations.30 May: Group Areas Amendment Act No 101 commences, liberalizing the who could own and occupy premises in business and industrial areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1985: 97).1985February: Motions that called for the repeal of the GAA and related legislation were passed in the Indian House of Delegates and the Coloured House of Representatives. The National Party argued that the Group Areas Act was reflective of the South African constitution and the societal principal of group adherence, and highlighted the fact that the majority of people were not resettled by the Act but by the Slums Act and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, for the purposes of urban renewal (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1985: 350).The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning clarified that the amendments to the Group Areas Act made in 1984 would not be open to all races immediately and Africans were not allowed to own property in these area (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1985: 97).By the end of 1985, an estimated shortage of 221 572 housing units existed for Africans outside the independent and non-independent homelands, while there was a shortage of between 149 218 and 174 978 within the six non-independent homelands (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986: 358) 19June: the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Acts were repealed (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1985: 4-5)1986The Community Development Amendment Act provided for the disposal of assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the community development board to the three housing bodies administered by the Coloured, Indian, and White Chambers of Parliament (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986: 350).The Housing Amendment Act provided for the same delegation of powers as the The Community Development Amendment Act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986: 351).The Housing Development Bill was introduced in the Indian House of Parliament to establish a housing and housing and development board to provide housing and acquire and dispose of land for the purpose of development in Indian townships (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986: 351).21 February: proclamation R17 replaced proclamation R228; disqualified people were still not able to eat in a restaurant outside their own group area but R17 made an exception for restaurants in free-trade zones (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986a: 321).June: the Abolition of the Influx control act repealed the laws that related to the influx control with respect to Africans, amended the Black Administration Act of 1927 to repeal provisions relation to the removal of African communities; amended the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 which provided for its uniform application, irrespective of race; provided for controlled squatting on land designated by the minister of constitutional development and planning; amended the slums act of 1979 to provide for the application of the act in areas under jurisdiction of local authorities in terms of the Black Local Authorities act of 1982; and clarified incidental matters. In total, it provided for the partial or entire repeal of 34 laws and the amendment of 3 others. Among the laws it repealed in its entirety was the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945, however the Group Areas Act stopped Africans from living in the same areas at Indians, Coloureds or White (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986a: 339).East London and Durban city councils are criticized by the National Party for declaring areas of their city ‘non-racial’. President Botha argued that the act preserved the rights of each racial community and the action of these city councils undermined that (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1986: 500-501)1987The Group Areas Amendment Bill increased the penalties for people contravening the principal act by buying, selling or occupying property to R10 000 and/or five years imprisonment; made it obligatory for the court to evict an ‘illegal occupant’ after s/he had been convicted; enabled magistrates to investigate and make final decisions about the legality of an occupation of a building (no appeals to higher courts); made provisions to allow the sale of illegally occupied as well as owned buildings to be sold; provided for the appointment of inspectors to advise the Board on the application of the GAA; provided that property owners in areas declared ‘free settlement areas’ would be compensated when their property was expropriated; and stated the basic value of the property should be determined on the date of its investigation (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1987: 503).The Free Settlement Areas Bill created spaces where the Group Areas Act and the Black Communities Development Act of 1984 would not apply, allowing members of all population groups to be able to obtain occupation or ownership rights of such areas. The considered areas for proclamation would be advised by a board set up by the bill and would have to be approved by the President and relevant ministers (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1987: 504).The Local Government Affairs Settlement Areas Bill allowed for the political participation of local government processes for residents living in ‘free settlement areas’. All residents of those areas would be allowed to vote for a non-racial management committee but those who were registered as voters for a local authority before the area was opened would be able to remain on the voters roll if they informed the rpov administ of their intention to stay within 90 days; Africans would be allowed to vote as the bill stipulated that they would not have to appear on the parliamentary voters’ roll (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1987: 505).Report by the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council made recommendations on the Group Areas Act that existing residential areas of different population groups should be confirmed and protected; municipalities should be given the option to decide the racial zoning of the area they control but provincial administrators should hear appeals; developers should be free to choose to apply for single or mixed race zongi of new townships; CBD should be open to the ownership and occupation of all races; local authorities should consider open areas of occupation near CBDs; tertiary campuses should be left to make decisions about their own institutions; and restrictions on the occupation and ownership of agricultural land should be eased (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1987: 483-484).The increased crime in the Reef neighbourhood of Joburg was attributed to economic recession and higher unemployment. Moose Ebrahim argued, however, that grey areas, places which have been designated for a certain rae group by GAA but have become desegregated in practice, were just as susceptible to crime (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1987: 492-494)19888 February: Botha signs Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Act into law (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1988: 162-163).The repeal of the prohibition of mixed marriages act is undermined by the fact that there are no group areas where mixed couples are allowed to live together (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1988: 179).1989March: the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Amendment Act repealed section 10 of the principal act which discouraged building societies from advancing loans for the development of housing schemes for retired people (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 95). The Rent Control Amendment Act allowed lessor to invest with a financial institution the deposits accepted when a dwelling was rented from a tenant, thus allowing such deposits to earn interest that would be refunded to the lessee on the termination of the lease (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 95).The Deeds Registries Amendment Act made provisions for the registration of a transfer of a right of leasehold. It also gave the gov the authority to enter into an agreement with the non-independent homelands regarding the registration of perty title deeds there, such an agreement would entitle a specified SA registrar to register property deeds on behalf of the homeland authority The Development Trust and Land Amendment Act redefined released areas to ensure that land transferred to the SA Dev Trust included state-owned African scheduled areas after the commencement of the act in 1936. Land held in trust by Government ministers was to be transferred to nonindependent homeland and the rights of all African individuals, communities and tribes which occupied them would remain intact. This Act was particularly in reference to townships (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 95-96).The Development and Housing Amendment Act (House of Assembly) empowered White housing development boards to be able to, among other things, demolish building that were seen as unfit for human use and give mortgages more freely to Whites (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 96).June: the House Amendment Act (House of Representatives) modified regulations for Coloured controlled housing and made provisions for granting loans for housing in rural areas (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 95-96).November: first four free settlement areas were announced by the government: Country View (midrand, Warwick Avenue Triangle (Durban, Windmill Park (east Rand), and District Six/formerly Zonnebloem (Cape Town), as of March 1990 (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 123).December: Dr. Viljoen said the government believed the GAA, the Population Registration Act would have to be replaced as soon as possible with negotiated alternatives that protected group rights without discrimination (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 738).6 December: The Star reports that the strong opposition of Coloured and Indian chambers stop an amendment to the Group Areas Act which would have drastically increased the penalties for infractions under the act (Horrell, 1989: xxxiii & xlvii).Two mixed couples, one in Durban and the other in the Eastern Cape, were forced from their homes and were given six months to sell their flats. In Johannesburg, four African residents were charged with occupying an area side aside by Whites by the Group Areas Act (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1988: 180-181)1990President F.W. de Klerk announced that the Group Areas Act will be replace by new non-discriminatory measures acceptable to all Houses of Parliament (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1990: 733)1991The government announced that prosecutions for offences under t he Group Areas Act would cease immediately. (Maharaj, 1994: 21)June: Group Areas Act is abolished (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1992: 228)1993June: the Housing Amendment Bill authorized the National Housing Commission to provide finance for housing to individuals, institutions, trusts, and other organizations involved in the provision of housing.The Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Amendment Bill was introduced, it broadened the scope of existing legislation, which dealt only with underdeveloped rural land and government owned land, to include property in urban areas that had been owned by people who had lost their property through removals from the GAA and extended the period of time during which the occupier of property could apply to the course for ownership of such property to be transferred from a nominee owner to the occupier from 6 months to 30 months (South African Institute for Race Relations, 1994: 326) This article was written by Patricia Johnson-Castle and forms part of the SAHO Public History Internship