Cape Town - Responding to economist Dr Roelof Botha's assertion that e-tolling is pro-poor, the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) has challenged him to a public debate to settle the matter.
READ: Give Sanral a medal - economist
Botha, who was commissioned by the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) to research the impact of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP), praised the toll roads and their contribution to the province. Sapa reported that he was effusive in his praise, suggesting the agency ought to "get a medal for what they have done".
Botha has retracted his statement that “those who don’t pay taxes should shut up about e-tolling”. However, Outa feels he should engage with his critics to "turn down the heat, and redirect the energy to generating light instead".
“Dr Botha has re-charged the debate with emotion, projecting his frustration in a grossly misdirected manner. Quite frankly, he has done Sanral’s case for e-tolling more harm than their critics ever could,” said Outa spokesperson John Clarke.
Sapa earlier reported Botha maintained that the improved road network saved people commuting time, which translated into productive time where people could earn more money, or leisure time, which allowed people to get home earlier, leaving them more rested, and more productive for the next day.
However, Outa slammed the logic provided in the argument on economic benefits put forward by Botha.
“It is an argument as irrational as trying to place a rand value on love, dignity or altruism,” said Outa chairperson Wayne Duvenage.
"Adding further concern to the argument, Dr Botha expects those salaried individuals to not only put a rand value on their time outside of working hours, but to also pay a compulsory tax on it, even if the benefits don’t materialise," said Outa.
Clarke has written to Botha to invite him to a public debate on his ‘pro-poor’ and economic benefit convictions.
“South Africa stands in desperate need of a public discourse on controversial issues that is both intellectually rigorous and respectful of the human dignity and constitutional rights of all, especially those with whom we disagree,” said Clarke.
“Roelof has shown some guts to champion a very unpopular cause. If he is convinced that e-tolling is ‘pro-poor’ and economically viable, let’s debate that proposition."
READ: Give Sanral a medal - economist
Botha, who was commissioned by the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) to research the impact of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP), praised the toll roads and their contribution to the province. Sapa reported that he was effusive in his praise, suggesting the agency ought to "get a medal for what they have done".
Botha has retracted his statement that “those who don’t pay taxes should shut up about e-tolling”. However, Outa feels he should engage with his critics to "turn down the heat, and redirect the energy to generating light instead".
“Dr Botha has re-charged the debate with emotion, projecting his frustration in a grossly misdirected manner. Quite frankly, he has done Sanral’s case for e-tolling more harm than their critics ever could,” said Outa spokesperson John Clarke.
Sapa earlier reported Botha maintained that the improved road network saved people commuting time, which translated into productive time where people could earn more money, or leisure time, which allowed people to get home earlier, leaving them more rested, and more productive for the next day.
However, Outa slammed the logic provided in the argument on economic benefits put forward by Botha.
“It is an argument as irrational as trying to place a rand value on love, dignity or altruism,” said Outa chairperson Wayne Duvenage.
"Adding further concern to the argument, Dr Botha expects those salaried individuals to not only put a rand value on their time outside of working hours, but to also pay a compulsory tax on it, even if the benefits don’t materialise," said Outa.
Clarke has written to Botha to invite him to a public debate on his ‘pro-poor’ and economic benefit convictions.
“South Africa stands in desperate need of a public discourse on controversial issues that is both intellectually rigorous and respectful of the human dignity and constitutional rights of all, especially those with whom we disagree,” said Clarke.
“Roelof has shown some guts to champion a very unpopular cause. If he is convinced that e-tolling is ‘pro-poor’ and economically viable, let’s debate that proposition."