Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Osmeña: Public housing for migrants By Antonio V. Osmeña Estatements
Who really cares about the miserable plight of urban settlers?
Changes in social and political attitudes have influenced people to seek shelter where they find the most number of opportunities. Urban centers in Cebu have become a magnet to people from rural areas and neighboring islands. These uncontrolled growth in the population of poor migrants have made urban centers a poverty trap, not an oasis of economic opportunity and cultural diversity.
The urban poor are forced to live on sidewalks, unattended vacant lots, government land, riverbanks or under bridges. The names of these human anthills vary. Most of them are convinced that the urban centers offer, possibly for themselves and certainly for their children, the only chance of better life.
Our congressional representatives and local political leaders should understand the plight of these people. The government’s housing policy allows people to own a home. Why are our politicians not supportive of the move to introduce public housing units for legitimate urban poor families?
Where are the organizations that are supposed to lobby for decent housing for the urban poor? Our local leaders’ lack of political will to implement measures to address the uncontrolled population of migrants who have created blighted areas and slums in urban centers is a civic liability which causes unsound and economic effects on the community.
The people of Cebu should no longer rely on the assistance of National Government agencies in relation to slum clearance and redevelopment programs for the urban poor. Cebu must now find a solution to provide shelter to the urban poor because, within the next 10 years, if not attended to, the mushrooming of miserable huts will be politically difficult to stop.
Public housing has never been the subject of serious discussion by our local and national legislators. Critics sincerely believe that the maintenance of minimum standards of decent housing and the elimination of slums are essential to the preservation of democracy.
Opponents of public housing argue to the point of flagrant abuses of the law, to evidence of affluence by public housing tenants, to political subterfuge, to the use of public facilities for private gain, and the giving of subsidy to those who least deserve it. Opponents further lament the high cost of public home construction and the long-range conflict with private aims, individual initiative, and the philosophy of free enterprise.
Undoubtedly, the truth lies somewhere in between these two opposing views. Slums affect the health, welfare and morality, not only of the occupants, but of the city as a whole.
Urban centers all over the island of Cebu, in the last few decades, have become an attraction to illegal settlers. Thousands of these migrants become sidewalk vendors since local government tolerate the putting up of shanties as their living quarters in public areas.
Financing for public housing projects can be obtained by issuance of local authority long-term serial bonds. To guard against occupancy by other than low income families, the law should provide, among others, a strict penalty clause of imprisonment of 20 years for the violation of its use.
The local community is, however, expected to invest in the serial bonds and be represented in the housing authority.
UNREASONABLE ATTITUDE. This corner’s Social Security System’s (SSS) retirement pension was cut-off in April 2005 on the ground that I failed to prove my existence by visiting the SSS office. The publication of my column is not acceptable to SSS as proof of being alive.
Why has SSS cut off my monthly pension with such flimsy excuse? Many pensioners find it time consuming and expensive to have themselves verified alive. SSS officers should not penalize the living for the corrupt acts of those who get the payment of deceased members. Why don’t SSS people visit pensioners instead to satisfy their requirements?
