CITICHAT 1/2006 - 23 January 2006
The Effectiveness of the Council under the Executive Mayor 2000-2005
Trust you had an enjoyable festive season and very best wishes for 2006.
Cities are complex organisms and Johannesburg is more complex than many. A population of 3.2 million people (2001 figure increasing @ XXXXX per annum) concentrated over 1 644 square kilometers with over one million households (plus 22% of its population in informal dwellings); a budget of R13 billion plus capex of R1.1 billion and delivering R86 billion GGP (in ’95 Rands) is big in anyone’s language. It’s sheer size is complicated further by the fact that it is an area of great disparities brought about by in excess of a hundred years of separatist, colonial and apartheid regimes leaving some areas greatly advantaged and others hopelessly impoverished.
And the buck for the efficient working of this convolution stops at one door – that of the Executive Mayor’s office. The first Executive Mayor in the city’s history, Amos Masondo, a former Robben Islander, Soweto civic activist and trade unionist, was installed on the 5th December 2000. At the time, for many of us who hadn’t heard his name previously, it was a case of new position, new man – reserve judgement!
His five-year term has almost passed and I saw in the Sunday papers that he is to release a comprehensive report of the period 2000 to 2005 on Tuesday 24th January. Good time, before I read his report, to start this year’s Citichats and to reflect on what Council has achieved under his leadership over this period. In doing so, I realise that my view is admittedly narrowed and coloured by my involvement in the inner city, but I am also a citizen of the larger metropolis and obviously have that interest at heart as well.
Starting with the metropolitan area, one must firstly remember that it required a complex restructuring and amalgamation of many local authorities which I feel has now bedded down well. Secondly, compared to the other metropolitan areas, we have developed into a well-integrated city. Few Mayors of South African cities have been able to achieve this – in fact some have been responsible for polarizing their cities. We are also one of the few SA cities, if not the only one, to have developed a long term economic strategy, Joburg 2030. Whilst it has numerous shortcomings, it provided an excellent long-term foundation and it has lifted our sights beyond the normal five year mayoral term of office. Another positive long term plan that was developed during this period is that for Transportation and its focus on the attainment of a strategic public transport network. We need to adhere to the plan and invest strongly in aspects such as the Inner City Distribution System (ICDS) and the proposed public transport hub around Park Station. My criticisms are that we are not taking the opportunity of 2010 to ‘raise the bar’ and go for a light rail solution to the ICDS nor are we sufficiently committed to bicycles as a viable form of transport – “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. 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."
The past five years has seen significant improvement in many aspects of previously disadvantaged citizens’ lives - the upgrading of public space in Soweto including the tarring of roads comes to mind as also increased access to basic necessities.
The successful hosting of the World Summit for Sustainable Development was a great confidence builder in our ability to host international events. This applied not only to Johannesburg but to the country as a whole and it was also a source of great pride for the ordinary citizens of Johannesburg.
The irritations of electrical outages and defective traffic lights and collection problems – the latter having appeared to have improved quite dramatically recently – need to still be seen, I believe, in context of the lack of adequate maintenance and capex expenditure over many previous administrations. However, there appears to be a definite lack in planning of bulk requirements to meet the current growth. Planning is still taking too long in providng approvals to submissions and land use management does not appear to be efficient. There is a nagging concern that city officials are either not fully accountable or too busy worrying about high level strategies at the expense of on-the-ground implementation.
But, these irritants aside, the ultimate test must revolve around economic growth and metropolitan Johannesburg has experienced massive investment leading to significant economic growth of the order of 4,5% per annum.
Turning to territory I feel more comfortable with, the Inner City, I remember well that my very first reaction to the new Executive Mayor was a positive one. This was due to his recognition of the importance of the Inner City through identifying its regeneration as one of six priorities for his term in office. At last a politician who appreciates the value of the core area, I thought! That this wasn’t going to be merely ‘lip-service recognition’, as was the case with previous administrations, was underscored by his appointment of a single councillor on the Mayoral Committee with responsibility for the inner city. His commitment to the future of the inner city was again accentuated a year later when he agreed to the erstwhile Inner City Office becoming an independent Council entity, the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA). The JDA would be responsible for project implementation in the metro area but specifically, for the first two years of its existence, limited to the Inner City. .
Recognition, responsibility and implementation capability supported by a substantial financial contribution via Blue IQ, resulted in the first major investments in the inner city for decades. And it was correct for the initial investment to be that of the public sector for that initiative sent out a strong message to the private sector that the Executive Mayor was serious about his priorities and that he was determined to restore confidence in the Inner City. Private sector investment followed. It is quite difficult to estimate the amount of investment that has been attracted over the past five years but it is must be in the order of R10 to R20 billion. That excludes probably another R10 billion that has been planned and not yet commenced. At the end of the day, investment is what it is all about for investment reflects stability and confidence.
Downsides? Sure there have been downsides during the past five years!
Top of the list must be the issue of disorder and lack of adequate law and by-law enforcement. That there has been an improvement in this area cannot be denied but we really have a long way to go. Whilst the Inner City Task Force does its best and is responsible for much of the improvement, it needs far more resources to be truly effective. In my opinion, the JMPD have consistently underperformed but this may also be exacerbated by the fact that they are too stretched to be effective. The massive growth that we are experiencing requires equally large growth in law enforcement but we also need attitudinal change. Areas such as Hillbrow and that surrounding Joubert Park are not acceptable and, if anything, these areas have deteriorated over the past years.
Grime remains a massive issue. Those parts of the Inner City that are not covered by CID services are unacceptably dirty. Pikitup appears to concentrate on areas that are reasonably easy to manage and receive remuneration for and then totally ignores others.
Pavements over much of the city are in the most awful condition. Here is such an obvious visual target for improvement – maybe via the Central Government’s Extended Public Works Programme. Decent pavements will facilitate cleaning and will dramatically change the face of the city. Look at Braamfontein and Main Street for proof of the value of such upgrading! We need a programme that will systematically upgrade Inner City pavements be it over the next ten to fifteen years.
Talking of pavements must lead to the vexing issue of informal trading, probably more responsible than any other single aspect for the deterioration of our public space. Hopefully, the experiment of providing rows and rows of informal trading stalls will prove for once that this approach is ineffective unless accompanied by education, enforcement and additional cleaning resources. Even then, maybe it is time to rethink our policy towards informal trading. Whilst many are quick to plead for nothing to impede the marginalized from making a living, or that informal trading is a poverty alleviation approach, the fact of the matter is that a very high percentage of street traders are nothing but fronts for formal sector traders.
Still on the issue of poorly managed public space – Oppenheimer Gardens is disgusting and our prime space, Beyers Naude Square, is surrounded by appalling edge buildings that act as a giant open air urinal – we need to develop new thinking for public space. Dr Enrique Penalosa, previous mayor of Bogota:- "The least a democratic society should do, is to offer people wonderful public spaces. Public spaces are not a frivolity. They are just as important as hospitals and schools. They create a sense of belonging. This creates a different type of society—a society where people of all income levels meet in public space is a more integrated, socially healthier one.” And no, I still don’t think that the proposed new public space offered by the Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct is going to provide such a space!
Our heritage conservation has suffered greatly due to inadequate enforcement and a laissez faire attitude to this important aspect of the city. Just look at the hulks of great buildings that are allowed to stand as monuments to degradation with no apparent intervention. Others are altered and added to in complete contravention of the law. The American conservationist, Donovan Rypkema, points out that “a city doesn’t get its character from brassy new hotels with space capsule elevators gliding up the walls. Nor does character come from Astrodomes or from phallic monuments to architectural egos. Character comes from people, from the past, from tradition, from the interplay of human forces and emotions in the process of daily life.” We need to encourage owners of heritage buildings to refurbish through rates credits on the one hand and heavy fines for non-compliance on the other.
The late American urbanist Dan Sweat once commented wryly that if the city does not deal constructively with the urban poor – the urban poor will deal destructively with the city. Whilst there have been some good poverty alleviation initiatives emanating from the city, there just hasn’t been enough. We have not paid enough attention to dealing with the city’s urban poor, the squatters, illegal occupiers, gangsters and others. Five years should have seen a plan in place that recognises that ‘the poor will be with us always’ and looks at innovative ways of accommodating them.
Over all of these downsides is a concern of a total lack of strategic direction regarding the planning of the Inner City. The planning regime appears to be bogged down in high level strategies that don’t necessarily translate into pro-active implementation on the ground. We need to seriously look at the city’s hopelessly outdated zoning laws; we have been badly damaged as a city by stupid parking ratios, yet these issues are ignored.
Whilst these comments are an honest attempt to review the past five years under the Executive Mayor, it is also worth noting that this year, 2006, is the tenth anniversary of the start of the Johannesburg Inner City Urban Revitalisation Process. It is also the beginning of a new term of political office. It will thus be a good opportunity to set a new strategy for the next five/ten years, a strategy that honestly interrogates and addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the process to date and sets us in the right direction for the future.
For my money, I think the Executive Mayor and his team have done a very good job. I certainly would like to see him lead the city through another term when most, if not all, of the downsides I have highlighted can be addressed. And in passing, the thought of change in order to meet gender ratios made me shudder – it is totally unacceptable and ridiculous. Best regards, neil
Monday, January 23, 2006
Saturday, January 7, 2006
Citichat July 2006
21 July 2006
Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct - Appeal Hearing
Following a number of Citichats written last year in regard to the proposed Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct, I received numerous e-mails asking how people could best make their opposition to the plan known. In Citichat 34/2005 I advised that “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.”
That was duly done in November 2005 when I submitted some 80-plus names in a notice of appeal to the authorities. On Wednesday of this week, the appeal hearing was held. Five appeals had been lodged. One from Herbert Prins representing a group of about 40 persons; another from the South African Institute of Architects; a third from the Parktown & Westcliff Heritage Trust and the fourth from myself representing the Johannesburg Heritage Trust and the group of about 80+. The fifth would have been from the City Council but it had been withdrawn earlier this year. More about that later.
‘Our’ submission was in four parts – part one was a heads of argument regarding (a) the legality of the decision making process; (b) the failure of the Committee to give meaningful effect to the spirit and intentions of the NHRA in assessing the cultural significance of the buildings proposed for demolition and the potential effect of the loss of these buildings as an integral part of the National Estate and (c) the Committee’s failure to understand and/or consider the direct impact of the proposed GPG Precinct development on heritage resources. We, together with the other appellants were advised at the start of the Appeal Hearing by the Chairman that we should not address these ‘procedural’ or ‘technical ’ issues in our presentations as they would be investigated by the Appeals Committee. That in itself appeared to me to be questionable! We (I was assisted by Prof Lone Poulsen and Sue Krige) therefore spoke to the three other parts of our submission. Prof Lone Poulsen on the architectural and urban design issues, Sue Krige on the heritage issues and myself on the economics of the proposal,. Should any Citichat reader wish to have a copy of any or all of our submissions I would be happy to provide.
There are a number of issues that I have found very disturbing about the process and procedures that have been adopted in this whole GPGP issue. But first let me again state my position as I did in Citichat 34/2005:-“ Just to again state clearly that I am highly supportive of the Gauteng Provincial Government’s proposals 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, what disturbs me about the process and procedures? Firstly, as a country, I am concerned that we give birth to some excellent legislation but which is often badly flawed. Either it is highly impractical in its policing or implementation or the same Government that produces the legislation does not provide the means for administration, policing or implementation! The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) is but one example. The Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRA) is hopelessly inadequately funded resulting in it being completely understaffed and not able to carry out its responsibilities under the Act. Another is recent legislation introduced by Government in regard to the construction industry. Again excellent objectives but, as commented on in a recent edition of The Civil Engineering Contractor – “While the intention of the legislation is sound, its implementation and, particularly its policing, are almost non-existent. The situation is akin to the law relating to cell-phones in cars. Everybody knows you should not use them, but every second driver has his hand glued to his ear while driving…. In a developing country such as ours …it’s not helpful to have a plethora of unenforceable legislation moving traditional responsibilities into areas without expertise.”
Whilst the NHRA became law in 1999, SAHRA, as the heritage resources authority responsible for the development nationally of all requisite standards and norms with respect to the protection and management of heritage resources, has failed over the past seven years to develop the necessary system for the grading of places which form part of the National Estate.
Secondly, there appears to be a growing attitude that in cases of what Government perceives as its own imperatives, it is not necessary for them or their agencies to comply with the letter of the law that they themselves have promulgated! Should this particular case end up in Court, as I fear it will do, the many issues of procedural unfairness (which were not allowed to be debated at the hearing) will have to be answered. Some of these were included in our main heads of argument, quoted below:-
i. SAHRA did not afford interested and affected parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations when the matter was being decided. The Long Title, the Preamble and S5(4) of the NHRA make it clear that the management of heritage resources is intended to be a co-operative process. It is submitted that the spirit of the NHRA was not heeded in the assessment of the decision being appealed.
ii. The decision being appealed was not made at a public hearing. It is submitted that a “behind closed doors” assessment of the matter does not embrace the spirit of the NHRA, the principles of natural justice and the principles of fair administrative action. [S5(4) of the NHRA; the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice and the constitutional right to fair administrative action; the provision of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)]
iii. The decision was unlawfully influenced by observers to the decision, who participated in the decision making process. [Paragraphs 4.1 of the Minutes]
iv. SAHRA did not make available a clear statement of the administrative action taken after the decision was made; [S5(3) of the NHRA]
v. SAHRA did not clearly advise interested and affected parties with adequate notice of the right to appeal and request reasons; [S5(3) of the NHRA, the provisions of PAJA ]
vi. When interested and affected parties made repeated requests for guidance from SAHRA as regards the appeal process and procedure to be followed, SAHRA simply ignored those requests for clarity. [S5(3); S5(4) of the NHRA; provisions of PAJA]
vii. From a general point of view, the decision making process was not transparent. [S5(4) of the NHRA: the provisions of PAJA]
Thirdly, the issue of the withdrawal of the City Council’s appeal. As I understand it and as was recorded in the media, the Mayoral Committee was ‘visited’ by two Provincial MECs resulting in Council withdrawing their appeal. They evidently agreed to do so subject to Council and Province meeting as soon as possible to discuss the Council’s difficulties with the proposals. According to the media report this meeting was to have taken place within two weeks. I believe that to date only a preliminary meeting has been held and that eight or more weeks after the withdrawal of the Council’s appeal! However what really concerns me is for Province to pressurize the more politically ‘junior’ City Council to withdraw its appeal – I think that this is scandalous. When I was in Perth a couple of months ago, I looked at their equivalent of Gautrain which is currently under construction. The city official who was showing me around the city, told me that the provincial authorities had wanted the train section through the city to be above ground. They were told by the city in no uncertain terms that this would not be allowed and they have had to tunnel below the city to accommodate the train as a result. Surely that is the way things should be in a democratic society. The City is the responsibility of the Council and they should have been permitted to address their appeal at a hearing in terms of the Act.
Fourthly, the issue of heritage conservation in a country with such a bad history - but as the Premier himself said at the sod-turning ceremony of the Constitutional Court “it is the only history we have.” There is a vast difference between retaining buildings steeped in the history of the city and choosing parts of the buildings to be demolished and building them into into various dispersed parts of the a project to memorialize what has been demolished! These are buildings that the Heritage expert employed by Province described in the Heritage Impact Assessment (which was totally rejected by the SAHRA committee) as of either of ‘considerable cultural significance’ (8 buildings) or ‘exceptional cultural significance’ in one case. The buildings so described are going to disappear. Space does not permit me to reproduce in full the excellent submission to the Appeal Hearing by Historians Sue Krige and Elizabeth Delmont. But here are some pertinent extracts
“The Union Buildings complex is one of the foremost examples of colonial architecture, symbolising Union in 1910 and the exclusion of people of colour from the ruling white regime. Yet it has become a symbol of the liberation of South Africa, forever associated with the inauguration of President Mandela in 1994.”
On the issue of redress:- “The notion of redress is central to the Act. The Preamble of the Act is eloquent in its bringing together of the health or healing of the nation with the notion of symbolic and material redress. Thus we affirm the richness what has been ignored as well as what we have, and come to a more empathetic understanding of our fellow citizens.
Our heritage celebrates our achievements and contributes to redressing past inequities. It educates, it deepens our understanding of society and encourages us to empathise with the experience of others. It facilitates healing and material and symbolic restitution and it promotes new and previously neglected research into our rich oral traditions and customs.
Redress does not mean the destruction of heritage resources on the basis of their association with a particular historical period, regime and/or exploitative and exclusionary practices and painful memories. Indeed it seeks to highlight all experiences and activities, using the existing traces where possible, while foregrounding experiences which have been neglected or silenced in the past.”
“Managing and promoting heritage is not a backward looking pastime. We are dealing with how people see, understand and use past and present practices in the present. As we have said, meaning and significance can change over time and cannot be fixed forever. So, we cannot second-guess what future generations will find significant. We can only ensure that as wide a range of heritage as possible is preserved for their enjoyment and commemoration, and that young people are involved now in finding out about it.”
“An historic site contains the histories of all the people who are and have been associated with it. It is an anchor, a place of departure from which to tell these histories, and to express needs and hopes for the future. The traumatic and transforming urban experience of Johannesburg is common to all its inhabitants, though the experiences were intensified by race, class and gender.”
“Many areas in Johannesburg had both their physical layers and their memories expunged by forced removals and/or by barely controlled expansion. The Johannesburg CBD has been a prime site of these forces of destruction.”
“The existing square is important as one of the markers of the urban experience over time. It still contains the footprint of the original Market Square, and is enclosed in part at least by buildings designed to look upon it. The GPGP would blur and obscure the outline of one of Johannesburg's oldest and most historic public space, namely Dr Beyers Naude Square (previously known as the Market Square and later the Library Gardens). Its associations range from a market site as a cultural exchange/ melting pot to a place of public meetings and political ferment right up until the security workers’ strike of 2006. To essentialise this many faceted history into a symbolic Tswana homestead is to be both narrow and patronising about what has constituted and constitutes urban identities in Africa and the world.“
“The role and responsibility of government entities vis-a-vis protection of the national estate is another major consideration. Under the National heritage Resources Act of 1999, all tiers of government are charged with responsibility for heritage protection. Furthermore, as owners of heritage property, the Provincial Government (in common with other levels of government) bears special responsibility for historic resources which lie directly under their control and ownership.”
“Government should exercise a stewardship role in managing its heritage assets and in the process set appropriate standards for private owners of heritage to follow. In practical terms, this would mean setting aside the proposed demolition of heritage buildings identified in the HIA and considering the sustainable re-use of these assets”
The Appeal Committee has 30 days in which to come to a conclusion - don’t hold your breath! Regards, neil
Neil Fraser is a partner in Neil Fraser & Associates which trades as ‘Urban Inc.’ an urban consultancy dedicated to the revitalisation and regeneration of cities and of the inner city of Johannesburg in particular. He can be contacted at (083) 456 0242 or (011) 444-4895 or by e-mail at neil@urbaninc.co.za Views and opinions expressed in Citichat are not necessarily those of Urban Inc.
Citichat is a free weekly publication concerning cities generally and Johannesburg specifically. Please forward Citichat to your colleagues who may wish to be placed on the subscription list. To subscribe please contact us at info@urbaninc.co.za
Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct - Appeal Hearing
Following a number of Citichats written last year in regard to the proposed Gauteng Provincial Government Precinct, I received numerous e-mails asking how people could best make their opposition to the plan known. In Citichat 34/2005 I advised that “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.”
That was duly done in November 2005 when I submitted some 80-plus names in a notice of appeal to the authorities. On Wednesday of this week, the appeal hearing was held. Five appeals had been lodged. One from Herbert Prins representing a group of about 40 persons; another from the South African Institute of Architects; a third from the Parktown & Westcliff Heritage Trust and the fourth from myself representing the Johannesburg Heritage Trust and the group of about 80+. The fifth would have been from the City Council but it had been withdrawn earlier this year. More about that later.
‘Our’ submission was in four parts – part one was a heads of argument regarding (a) the legality of the decision making process; (b) the failure of the Committee to give meaningful effect to the spirit and intentions of the NHRA in assessing the cultural significance of the buildings proposed for demolition and the potential effect of the loss of these buildings as an integral part of the National Estate and (c) the Committee’s failure to understand and/or consider the direct impact of the proposed GPG Precinct development on heritage resources. We, together with the other appellants were advised at the start of the Appeal Hearing by the Chairman that we should not address these ‘procedural’ or ‘technical ’ issues in our presentations as they would be investigated by the Appeals Committee. That in itself appeared to me to be questionable! We (I was assisted by Prof Lone Poulsen and Sue Krige) therefore spoke to the three other parts of our submission. Prof Lone Poulsen on the architectural and urban design issues, Sue Krige on the heritage issues and myself on the economics of the proposal,. Should any Citichat reader wish to have a copy of any or all of our submissions I would be happy to provide.
There are a number of issues that I have found very disturbing about the process and procedures that have been adopted in this whole GPGP issue. But first let me again state my position as I did in Citichat 34/2005:-“ Just to again state clearly that I am highly supportive of the Gauteng Provincial Government’s proposals 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, what disturbs me about the process and procedures? Firstly, as a country, I am concerned that we give birth to some excellent legislation but which is often badly flawed. Either it is highly impractical in its policing or implementation or the same Government that produces the legislation does not provide the means for administration, policing or implementation! The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) is but one example. The Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRA) is hopelessly inadequately funded resulting in it being completely understaffed and not able to carry out its responsibilities under the Act. Another is recent legislation introduced by Government in regard to the construction industry. Again excellent objectives but, as commented on in a recent edition of The Civil Engineering Contractor – “While the intention of the legislation is sound, its implementation and, particularly its policing, are almost non-existent. The situation is akin to the law relating to cell-phones in cars. Everybody knows you should not use them, but every second driver has his hand glued to his ear while driving…. In a developing country such as ours …it’s not helpful to have a plethora of unenforceable legislation moving traditional responsibilities into areas without expertise.”
Whilst the NHRA became law in 1999, SAHRA, as the heritage resources authority responsible for the development nationally of all requisite standards and norms with respect to the protection and management of heritage resources, has failed over the past seven years to develop the necessary system for the grading of places which form part of the National Estate.
Secondly, there appears to be a growing attitude that in cases of what Government perceives as its own imperatives, it is not necessary for them or their agencies to comply with the letter of the law that they themselves have promulgated! Should this particular case end up in Court, as I fear it will do, the many issues of procedural unfairness (which were not allowed to be debated at the hearing) will have to be answered. Some of these were included in our main heads of argument, quoted below:-
i. SAHRA did not afford interested and affected parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations when the matter was being decided. The Long Title, the Preamble and S5(4) of the NHRA make it clear that the management of heritage resources is intended to be a co-operative process. It is submitted that the spirit of the NHRA was not heeded in the assessment of the decision being appealed.
ii. The decision being appealed was not made at a public hearing. It is submitted that a “behind closed doors” assessment of the matter does not embrace the spirit of the NHRA, the principles of natural justice and the principles of fair administrative action. [S5(4) of the NHRA; the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice and the constitutional right to fair administrative action; the provision of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)]
iii. The decision was unlawfully influenced by observers to the decision, who participated in the decision making process. [Paragraphs 4.1 of the Minutes]
iv. SAHRA did not make available a clear statement of the administrative action taken after the decision was made; [S5(3) of the NHRA]
v. SAHRA did not clearly advise interested and affected parties with adequate notice of the right to appeal and request reasons; [S5(3) of the NHRA, the provisions of PAJA ]
vi. When interested and affected parties made repeated requests for guidance from SAHRA as regards the appeal process and procedure to be followed, SAHRA simply ignored those requests for clarity. [S5(3); S5(4) of the NHRA; provisions of PAJA]
vii. From a general point of view, the decision making process was not transparent. [S5(4) of the NHRA: the provisions of PAJA]
Thirdly, the issue of the withdrawal of the City Council’s appeal. As I understand it and as was recorded in the media, the Mayoral Committee was ‘visited’ by two Provincial MECs resulting in Council withdrawing their appeal. They evidently agreed to do so subject to Council and Province meeting as soon as possible to discuss the Council’s difficulties with the proposals. According to the media report this meeting was to have taken place within two weeks. I believe that to date only a preliminary meeting has been held and that eight or more weeks after the withdrawal of the Council’s appeal! However what really concerns me is for Province to pressurize the more politically ‘junior’ City Council to withdraw its appeal – I think that this is scandalous. When I was in Perth a couple of months ago, I looked at their equivalent of Gautrain which is currently under construction. The city official who was showing me around the city, told me that the provincial authorities had wanted the train section through the city to be above ground. They were told by the city in no uncertain terms that this would not be allowed and they have had to tunnel below the city to accommodate the train as a result. Surely that is the way things should be in a democratic society. The City is the responsibility of the Council and they should have been permitted to address their appeal at a hearing in terms of the Act.
Fourthly, the issue of heritage conservation in a country with such a bad history - but as the Premier himself said at the sod-turning ceremony of the Constitutional Court “it is the only history we have.” There is a vast difference between retaining buildings steeped in the history of the city and choosing parts of the buildings to be demolished and building them into into various dispersed parts of the a project to memorialize what has been demolished! These are buildings that the Heritage expert employed by Province described in the Heritage Impact Assessment (which was totally rejected by the SAHRA committee) as of either of ‘considerable cultural significance’ (8 buildings) or ‘exceptional cultural significance’ in one case. The buildings so described are going to disappear. Space does not permit me to reproduce in full the excellent submission to the Appeal Hearing by Historians Sue Krige and Elizabeth Delmont. But here are some pertinent extracts
“The Union Buildings complex is one of the foremost examples of colonial architecture, symbolising Union in 1910 and the exclusion of people of colour from the ruling white regime. Yet it has become a symbol of the liberation of South Africa, forever associated with the inauguration of President Mandela in 1994.”
On the issue of redress:- “The notion of redress is central to the Act. The Preamble of the Act is eloquent in its bringing together of the health or healing of the nation with the notion of symbolic and material redress. Thus we affirm the richness what has been ignored as well as what we have, and come to a more empathetic understanding of our fellow citizens.
Our heritage celebrates our achievements and contributes to redressing past inequities. It educates, it deepens our understanding of society and encourages us to empathise with the experience of others. It facilitates healing and material and symbolic restitution and it promotes new and previously neglected research into our rich oral traditions and customs.
Redress does not mean the destruction of heritage resources on the basis of their association with a particular historical period, regime and/or exploitative and exclusionary practices and painful memories. Indeed it seeks to highlight all experiences and activities, using the existing traces where possible, while foregrounding experiences which have been neglected or silenced in the past.”
“Managing and promoting heritage is not a backward looking pastime. We are dealing with how people see, understand and use past and present practices in the present. As we have said, meaning and significance can change over time and cannot be fixed forever. So, we cannot second-guess what future generations will find significant. We can only ensure that as wide a range of heritage as possible is preserved for their enjoyment and commemoration, and that young people are involved now in finding out about it.”
“An historic site contains the histories of all the people who are and have been associated with it. It is an anchor, a place of departure from which to tell these histories, and to express needs and hopes for the future. The traumatic and transforming urban experience of Johannesburg is common to all its inhabitants, though the experiences were intensified by race, class and gender.”
“Many areas in Johannesburg had both their physical layers and their memories expunged by forced removals and/or by barely controlled expansion. The Johannesburg CBD has been a prime site of these forces of destruction.”
“The existing square is important as one of the markers of the urban experience over time. It still contains the footprint of the original Market Square, and is enclosed in part at least by buildings designed to look upon it. The GPGP would blur and obscure the outline of one of Johannesburg's oldest and most historic public space, namely Dr Beyers Naude Square (previously known as the Market Square and later the Library Gardens). Its associations range from a market site as a cultural exchange/ melting pot to a place of public meetings and political ferment right up until the security workers’ strike of 2006. To essentialise this many faceted history into a symbolic Tswana homestead is to be both narrow and patronising about what has constituted and constitutes urban identities in Africa and the world.“
“The role and responsibility of government entities vis-a-vis protection of the national estate is another major consideration. Under the National heritage Resources Act of 1999, all tiers of government are charged with responsibility for heritage protection. Furthermore, as owners of heritage property, the Provincial Government (in common with other levels of government) bears special responsibility for historic resources which lie directly under their control and ownership.”
“Government should exercise a stewardship role in managing its heritage assets and in the process set appropriate standards for private owners of heritage to follow. In practical terms, this would mean setting aside the proposed demolition of heritage buildings identified in the HIA and considering the sustainable re-use of these assets”
The Appeal Committee has 30 days in which to come to a conclusion - don’t hold your breath! Regards, neil
Neil Fraser is a partner in Neil Fraser & Associates which trades as ‘Urban Inc.’ an urban consultancy dedicated to the revitalisation and regeneration of cities and of the inner city of Johannesburg in particular. He can be contacted at (083) 456 0242 or (011) 444-4895 or by e-mail at neil@urbaninc.co.za Views and opinions expressed in Citichat are not necessarily those of Urban Inc.
Citichat is a free weekly publication concerning cities generally and Johannesburg specifically. Please forward Citichat to your colleagues who may wish to be placed on the subscription list. To subscribe please contact us at info@urbaninc.co.za
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
