Thursday, January 10, 2008 2 from Capitol suggest resuming swap talks By Linette C. Ramos Sun.Star Staff Reporter
SINCE the proposal is “discriminatory and oppressive” to the Province, Capitol officials opposed yesterday the proposed Cebu City ordinance that will rezone provincial lots in the city into a socialized housing zone.
Capitol consultant on information and revenue generation Rory Jon Sepulveda said the City Government would in effect be taking away from the Province its properties if the council approves the measure.
Instead of going through the legalities of rezoning Capitol lots in 11 barangays in the city, Sepulveda and Provincial Board (PB) Member Juan Bolo suggested going back to the negotiation table for the land swap deal.
Besides, the proposed ordinance is insufficient and runs counter to existing laws that provide for socialized housing sites and promote the welfare of the urban poor, Sepulveda said.
“Restricting the use of the property amounts to taking it away from the owner... and taking away the property for socialized housing purposes will require just compensation... But this ordinance smacks of taking without just compensation,” he told the council.
Restriction
Sepulveda spoke for Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia while Bolo represented the PB during the City Council’s public hearing on the proposed ordinance yesterday.
“Don’t forget that all lots that will be rezoned are Provincial Government properties. No other taxpayer or landowner will be affected. We feel it is imposing restrictions only on the Province. The ordinance is discriminatory and oppressive only to the Province,” the consultant said.
Last August, four councilors proposed the inclusion of a new land use classification called “socialized housing zones” in the zoning ordinance, and identified the Capitol-owned lots in the city to be designated as such a zone.
Amendment
The councilors want to amend the 1996 Revised Zoning Ordinance of Cebu City to include the new classification, which will result in the rezoning of Province-owned lots in Barangays Apas, Luz, Busay, Camputhaw, Capitol Site, Kalunasan, Kasambagan, Lahug, Lorega, Mabolo and Tejero.
If approved, areas previously declared as socialized housing sites in 11 barangays under City Ordinances 1684, 1772 and 1866 will be used solely for socialized housing.
It will also keep the Province from evicting some 5,000 families occupying their properties and developing these for commercial purposes.
Compensation
But citing a Supreme Court ruling and Republic Act 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, Sepulveda said owners of land that will be used for socialized housing have to be compensated.
“The establishment of socialized housing zones, in the guise of a rezoning ordinance, without just compensation will suffer Constitutional infirmity,” he warned.
For his part, Bolo invited the council to convince Mayor Tomas Osmeña to resume negotiations for the land swap agreement with Governor Garcia, instead of passing such ordinance.
He believes the ordinance was proposed because the land swap negotiations failed.
“If that pushed through, I don’t think this ordinance would come up... It’s sad to say the talks between the Province and the City did not end on good terms and I didn’t like it because it became personal for the officials involved,” he said.
Persuasion
“And since all of you here are friends with the mayor and we at the PB are friends with the governor, maybe we can help convince them to go back to discussing the land swap. It’s better to talk than go through this rezoning because to me, the issue has become personal,” Bolo added.
Vice Mayor Michael Rama said the comments of the Capitol officials will be considered as the proposed measure goes into second, third and final reading.
In an interview after the public hearing, Sepulveda said the Province has not closed its doors on the Cebu City constituents occupying Capitol-owned lots.
“There is no need for a rezoning because it will only further create a rift. The establishment of a socialized housing site is covered by RA 7279 and a zoning ordinance will not achieve that purpose,” he said.
