Demolished fence replacement (Is this a case of false illusion gone wild?) Part 20 - Road widening in Lubang Lubang Watch, Oct. 1, 2014 Freddie Tividad Tesalona, Convenor New York City (For the benefit of Filipino language-deficient readers, I’ll be writing in Engish occasionally and as appropriate). A social justice advocate takes it from all sides and in all forms. Alongside praises and encouragement, criticisms and opposition pour in aplenty. This is the composite of the feedbacks on my articles and postings on the on-going controversial 2014 road widening project in Lubang. Not really bad considering. Let it be. Something new and “out-of-this-world” is gaining currency within the Tilik community in New York and New Jersey. Reports have it, unconfirmed, that Mayor Juan M. Sanchez has allegedly announced a plan that is intended to placate the raw emotions of property owners caused by the wanton demolition and loss of their home fence. The plan? Through the initiative of the good mayor, a concrete wall could be constructed the length of the road, both sides, that have been widened. This proposal explains why, coming from the side of the project’s implementing agencies, the property owners are not to be paid “just compensation.” It figures that the concrete wall replacement for the demolished fences could be generally similar to the “Sanchez signature” architectural design and color-combination of the now obigitous concrete fence of public schools, public plazas, and public cemeteries in Lubang – all built under the Sanchez administration. Point to remember. The road widening project is municipality-wide in scope. As planned, it will cover and cut through roads within highly populated areas in all barangays of Lubang, except possibly Cabra, like what’s happening now in Barangay Tilik. What can we say? Lest some of our kababayans, especially the road widening victims get carried by the concrete wall replacement scheme, they and other kababayans are well-advised to consider the following: 1) The mandates or requirements of the law have to be followed. Meaning, in part, the affected property owners have to be paid “just compensation” with judicial concurrence. In my layman’s view, “replacement concrete fence” using public funds neither fall within the purview of “just compensation” nor could replace “just compensation.” 2) For the replacement concrete wall plan to happen and be credible, the national appropriations for the road widening must be inordinately huge. In realistic terms, such humongous appropriation is not possible considering the limited available national fund for infrastructure development and that fund has to be spread out to some 1,000 municipalities nationwide. At this point, let me inject this question: Is Looc implementing a road widening project similar to Lubang’s? 3) Argualy, the replacement concrete wall plan is “a false illusion gone wild.” It’s more like a scheme that is highly unlikely to happen. It appears like a mischievious and misleading ploy to get the victims of the road widening, as we know it, to “agree to drop any claim for just compensation” and, by extension, “to admit that nothing unlawful was done to them as property owners.” JUSTICE is what the road widening victims need and demand. It’s all in R.A. 8974 and other laws. What the law says stands.
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 00:33:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015