Ok so here are the rules:
(a) where the land is not being used and the owner’s main purpose is not to develop the land or use it to generate income, but to benefit from appreciation of its market value;
(b) where an organ of state holds land that it is not using for its core functions and is not reasonably likely to require the land for its future activities in that regard, and the organ of state acquired the land for no consideration;
© notwithstanding registration of ownership in terms of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (Act No. 47 of 1937), where an owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so;
(d) where the market value of the land is equivalent to, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the land.
In other words, land can be seized without compensation if the owner is not using it, and is rather just waiting for property values to rise in order to sell at a profit.
Yeah sounds horrible.
How is this a genocide?
Stop spreading the bullshit.
Also, you might want to at least consider south African history and who was really fucked for a long time under Apartheid before spouting your crap.
I get where you are coming from, but I wanted to put that out there. Not for the person I was calling bullshit on, but for everyone else reading this.
You are right though. The only way to get through to anyone is to get them to prove their point of view. Proofs just make them argue in new ways and never learn anything.
I guess I will leave this up as it is done already, but take what you said into consideration for the future.