A/HRC/28/62 Metropolitan government, a municipality that was facing the most severe homelessness/informal settlement crisis in the country. 38 The claimants were living in a sports field under plastic sheets without services. They argued that the neglect of their desperate circumstances by the municipality and other levels of government violated their right to adequate housing. 46. Housing is an area of concurrent national and provincial competence in South Africa, but the Constitution requires the national and provincial governments to assign responsibilities to a municipality “if that matter would most effectively be administered locally and the municipality has the capacity to administer it”.39 Within that context, the Constitutional Court established that measures taken to realize the right to adequate housing must be “reasonable” — that they must be comprehensive, coherent, flexible and effective; have due regard for those in poverty and deprivation; utilize available resources; be free of bureaucratic inefficiency or onerous regulations and ultimately be capable of realizing the right to adequate housing. The Court also emphasized the fact that responsibilities must be clearly allocated to the different spheres of government with appropriate financial and human resources, and that local governments have an obligation to ensure that services are provided in a sustainable manner.40 The Court held that the housing programme had failed to adequately prioritize those in the greatest need. 47. That decision has had a significant impact in many municipalities, leading to socalled “Grootbroom allocations”. In subsequent cases in South Africa, the reasonableness standard has been applied to require municipalities to provide adequate alternative accommodation to anyone evicted from either public or private land; 41 to ensure meaningful engagement with affected communities on planning and housing issues; 42 and to ensure that rent increases imposed by private landlords are just and equitable. 43 With respect to available resources, the Court has recognized that local governments cannot escape their obligations to progressively realize the right to adequate housing simply by claiming dependence on funding from other levels of government, and that the division of responsibilities between the different spheres should not be absolute or inflexible where local government is best suited to “engage with and prospectively plan around the needs of local communities”.44 48. Important jurisprudence on the right to adequate housing applied to subnational levels of government has also emerged from Argentina. In the Matanza/Riachuelo basin case, a suit was filed seeking compensation for damages, including violations of the right to housing resulting from pollution of the basin. 45 The Supreme Court of Argentina held that the responsibility to ensure the prevention of future damage and to rectify existing environmental damage resided with all three levels of government — the national Government, the provincial government and the City of Buenos Aires. After several 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 14 Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Grootbroom and Others (CCT11/00) October 2000, para. 58. Constitution of South Africa, Section 156 (4). Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Grootbroom and Others (CCT11/00) October 2000, para. 39. Occupiers of Portion R25 of the Farm Mooiplaats 355 JR v. Golden Thread Ltd. and Others (CCT 25/11) December 2011. Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v. City of Johannesburg and Others (CCT 24/07) February 2008. Maphango and Others v. Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd. (CCT 47/11) March 2012. City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v. Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 37/11), paras. 46, 54 and 57. Mendoza Beatriz Silva et al. v. State of Argentina et al., Supreme Court of Argentina, 8 July 2008.