Municipal valuations: Why it’s time for a rethink 

For most homeowners in Joburg, the monthly rates bill is one of the most frustrating aspects of property ownership. What’s particularly galling is the fact that it’s determined by the City of Joburg’s municipal property valuation – a number that, in increasing cases, bears little resemblance to the current market value of your home. 

Joburg’s property market has not exactly boomed over the past 15 years. In fact, property values have largely stagnated or declined. With GDP growth averaging just 1% over this period, it’s illogical to suggest that property values have increased to justify the often-inflated municipal valuations that are used to calculate rates. 

And yet, those inflated figures persist – and it’s an arduous, time-consuming task to apply for (and achieve) a revaluation. Why? Because the municipality needs the money. To be fair, the city has to function. Roads must be maintained, rubbish collected, electricity distributed and essential services delivered – all of that costs money. Ballooning costs and inflation compound the challenge. 

In the absence of diversified and efficient revenue streams, the municipal rates charged to property owners remain one of the primary sources of funding. The council relies on the premise that the value of properties will increase, whereas its income is largely dependent on depreciating assets. 

So the municipality is caught between a rock and a hard place – and so are homeowners. 

As Jaco van der Westhuizen, director at Fairbridges Wertheim Becker Attorneys, points out: “From a legal perspective, the accuracy of municipal valuations is critical because these figures directly determine the rates homeowners are liable to pay. When valuations are inflated or outdated, it can amount to an unfair administrative action, which is challengeable under South African law.” 

That would be acceptable if their valuation model was sophisticated and reliable. But it isn’t. The city appears less thorough in its assessments. As a result, homeowners are paying based on figures that aren’t necessarily grounded in reality. 

Van der Westhuizen also notes: “Property owners have the statutory right to lodge objections and appeals under the Municipal Property Rates Act, but the process is often complex, poorly explained, and subject to strict deadlines. Many owners simply give up because they do not fully understand the procedure or the evidence required.” 

This disconnect breeds mistrust. And when citizens lose trust in the fairness of their bills, the legitimacy of the system begins to crumble. 

So what’s the solution? 

I believe we should begin by renaming the municipal valuation. As it stands, the name implies a fair valuation of a property’s worth – and it simply isn’t that. If it’s really just the basis for calculating how to contribute to the cost of running the city, then let’s call it that: a service-based contribution index, or something more transparent. 

Even better, we should develop a more accurate, data-driven algorithm for calculating charges – one that reflects actual market conditions, takes into account inflation and city budgets, and is clearly communicated to the public. 

Van der Westhuizen agrees: “Greater transparency in the methodology would not only restore public trust but also reduce the number of disputes. When homeowners understand how figures are calculated – and have access to that data – they can make informed decisions about whether to object.” 

Transparency is key. Most residents would accept increases — or at least understand them — if they were properly explained and logically grounded. But when flawed valuations form the basis for opaque billing, resentment grows. 

Of course, the ideal scenario is a thorough, physical, professional revaluation of every property in Joburg. But realistically, this is unlikely to happen any time soon. In the meantime, the city must urgently reconsider how it frames and calculates rates. 

Van der Westhuizen concludes: “Any future reform must align with the constitutional requirement for lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action. This means ensuring property owners are given proper notice, clear reasons for valuations, and meaningful opportunities to challenge them before they become final.” 

As property owners, we want a thriving, well-serviced city. But we also want fairness and accuracy – and a system that doesn’t punish owners based on outdated or inflated assumptions. If the municipality wants to start winning back public confidence, this is one place to begin. 

_{Top image: Rawpixel/Pexels-humanistagram/Currency collage.}