October 31, 2005
JUST to state clearly again: I am highly supportive of the proposal by the Gauteng provincial government (GPG) to "bring together different GPG departments in a cost-effective manner".
I am equally highly appreciative of the published "potential benefits" of the project, which include improving service delivery, identifying a vehicle for changing equity ownership of the property estate in the CBD, improving space functionality and working environment, eliminating process and work disruption, and creating an urban design of a government precinct through consolidation of office space structures that will act as a stimulus for urban regeneration and socio-economic empowerment.
I am also supportive of creating a resource that celebrates the heritage of African peoples who were here before the "discovery" of gold in 1886.
What I am totally opposed to, is creating a poorly conceived public open space at the expense of culturally significant buildings and irretrievable damage to an important existing heritage resource. The celebration of those African peoples here prior to 1886 must be done, but in an appropriate place and manner.
So, having again nailed my colours to the mast, an update.
A number of people have contacted me to express their outrage at the decision by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Sahra) to approve the demolition of 10 culturally significant buildings in the centre of the city to make way for the proposed Gauteng provincial government precinct.
All of them have asked how they can be involved in the protest against the decision. Offers have ranged from toyi-toying outside Sahra or provincial government offices to chaining themselves to the condemned buildings "as the bulldozers come rolling in".
Appeal
However appealing that might sound, the Heritage Act, Section 49, provides an opportunity for interested parties who wish to appeal against a Sahra decision to notify the minister or MEC, who must then establish a tribunal to review such decisions.
I know of at least two other groups and a number of individuals who have already done just that and I will submit a further appeal, including the names of all of those who have written to me requesting to have their names associated to an objection.
As has been the case throughout this process, there is, of course, some confusion. The act clearly states that such appeals should be directed to the minister or MEC "in writing within 30 days". The e-letter I received from the environmental impact assessment consultants, Environmental Impact Management Services, was dated 19 October.
Sahra provincial manager
It states, "The permission is subject to certain conditions, one of which includes the right of interested and affected parties to appeal the decision (within 30 days from the date of issue). In this regard, all comments should be lodged in writing with Sahra provincial manager Thabo Kgomommu (telephone 011 482 8365) by not later than 10 November 2005."
The notification I received has attached only what appears to be the first page of the Sahra letter, which is dated 17 October 2005 and which does not reflect the "certain conditions".
However, 30 days from 17 October is 15 November, not 10 November. In addition, why should one appeal to the Sahra provincial manager, who evidently issued the decision on behalf of Sahra?
In terms of the act, it is the minister to whom the appeal should be addressed. There are a number of other possible "irregularities" regarding the Sahra meeting when the decision was taken which are being investigated.
The plot thickens, but I will keep you informed.
Transportation 1: Community Bus Proposal
I previously mentioned the Community Bus Proposal that is being proposed by Trevor Pengelly. Over this past week I took a few days off and spent some of my time reading Pengelly's proposals, which have left me with some questions that I need to clarify before providing the detail.
Transportation 2: Car Free Day
If the object of Car Free Day was to raise awareness of the lack of public transport, it was a great success.
It also resulted in some really interesting articles in the media. One, in the Saturday Star of 22 October, stated that, "Travelling from A to B has become an enormous hassle as traffic jams clog our urban arteries. And it is the privileged rich minority who own cars who are the problem, say government traffic planners."
Interesting that later in the article "the privileged rich minority" are further defined as "white, middle-class and live in the suburbs". From what I observe daily on our roads, that situation has already changed dramatically and will continue to change.
The article goes on to quote a spokesperson from the Department of Transport's Directorate for Public Transport Strategy who set out the many alternatives to providing new or increased width roads in developed areas: special lanes for cars with more than one occupant; turning your company paid parking bay into cash in your salary because you use public transport; tax deductions to encourage buying bicycles; roads designed for the use of all road-users - pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and car users alike.
In another article the executive director of the South African Road Federation said that unless the government invested adequately in construction, South Africa would never resolve its road congestion.
Talk, talk, talk, talk, yet nowhere did I see the government coming out and saying our public transport is a total disaster, but we have a 10-year plan to fix it.
Taxi recapitalisation
I didn't read of the relevant minister saying that, "I am so shocked at the state of the taxis that carry the majority of our population that I am going to accelerate the taxi re-capitalisation programme."
Here is political talk I have quoted before, that of the dynamic former mayor of Bogota, Enrique Peņalosa: "The measure of a good city is one where a child on a tricycle or bicycle can safely go anywhere. If a city is good for children, it will be good for everybody else.
"Over the last 80 years we have been making cities much more for cars' mobility than for children's happiness.
"We have not given enough thought to how we live. We have left too many of these decisions to others; 99 percent of Third World people have never seen a Dutch or Danish city, where you see people on bikes everywhere. A city full of cars is not a good model for us.
"The images we get from the United States are a very damaging model to Third World cities. We need to avoid undesirable developments such an urban sprawl. People in the US now recognise that there are problems with building cities for cars and not for people, and we in the Third World need to know that.
"Pedestrians and bicyclists should be given as much importance as motor vehicles - even more so in developing country cities, where most households don't own cars."
Bus rapid transit system
Unlike our local politicians, Peņalosa was not just a talker. He put the taxpayer's money where their needs were. Among many other interventions in just three years of office, he created the Trans-Milenio, a bus rapid transit system, which now carries a half-million passengers daily on special bus lanes that offer most of the advantages of an underground at a fraction of the cost.
He reclaimed the pavements from motorists, who traditionally saw them as either a passing lane or a parking lot. "I was almost impeached by the car-owning upper classes," Peņalosa notes, "but it was popular with everyone else."
He established 300 kilometres of separated bikeways, the largest network in the developing world.
In addition, he created the world's longest pedestrian street at 17 kilometres, which crosses much of the city, as well as a 45km greenway along a path that originally had been slated for an eight-lane highway.
Peņalosa's measures reduced traffic by 40 percent, using a system whereby motorists must leave their cars at home during rush hour two days a week. He also raised parking fees and local petrol taxes, with half of the proceeds going to fund the new bus transit system.
Having done all that, he instituted an annual car free day. Successfully? Yes.
Ciao, Neil
Permission to use web site material
Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:
- Credit is given to either the "City of Johannesburg website
(www.joburg.org.za)" or to "Johannesburg News Agency
(www.joburg.org.za)";
- If the article is used online, a link is provided to the original
article on this website;
- The name of the article's author is acknowledged;
-
The webmaster is informed of how and where the material is used (fill
in this brief online form).
Johannesburg News Agency is operated by BIG Media at 011-484-1400 |
