Informal settlers - an election campaign issue

I have been trying to gather information on the positions of Team Rama and BOPK affecting those settlers who have put up their homes along the banks of the city's rivers and esteros. This is one issue that should define the future policies of those who are presently courting for our votes. There are thousands of our brothers who fall under this category of informal settlers who eagerly await for definitive pronouncements by politicians in much the same way that there are many residents belonging to the middle class (and not informal settlers) who likewise want to know what to expect from future city administrators. Either way, they tell on the outcome of the elections.

Sadly, while I really believe that it should not be difficult for either the Team Rama or BOPK to clarify their stand on the issue, they seem to prefer silence over articulation. Unless there has been a fairly recent change of heart, their past actions, should provide us an idea where either party is heading.

The city administration of His Honor, Mayor Michael L. Rama, several months ago, made it clear that those settling on the banks of the rivers within the city should dismantle their homes. He advocated the side of the law. Claiming that these structures are illegal, the mayor pointed to them as the biggest generators of flash floods. Thus, to him, in order to protect the greater mass of residents from the ravages of rising waters, he directed that these houses be cleared.

When the demolition team members of the city started doing what was ordered of them to do, a known political ally of the former mayor came to their rescue. It was easy for him to commiserate with the poor settlers as it was equally easy for him to get their sympathies. In taking a stand against the city administration, he was the poor settlers' champion. By initiating a case against the city to prevent the demolition of illegal structures, and making it known that it was at the instance of his boss, he wanted to project the image of his benefactor being a knight in shining armor.

Both groups should define their positions clearly.

This is the best time for Team Rama to push this issue in an unequivocal manner. For many years, those who do not own any parcel of residential property in the city have been compelled to squat on vacant lots. Since most private landowners protect their dominion from intruders, the lands that remain vacant are the river banks. These are the objects of squatting.

The plan of the administration of Mayor Rama to clear our waterways is good. In fact, it is long overdue, because general welfare demands it. If Team Rama pursues this line of action, it cannot go wrong. But, its implementation will hurt the affected families.  So, it must be tempered with social justice. However this “social justice” takes its form, is what we want to hear.

On the other hand, the position of BOPK, based on the complainant against the mayor in that contra-demolition case, treads a dangerous line. It is true that by opposing the demolition of the illegal structures, BOPK sits very well with the sentiments of informal settlers. But, this preference is an affront to the sensibilities of law-abiding citizens who think that this position espouses lawlessness. The BOPK problem is to formulate a policy will tend to keep the favor of the informal settlers and yet mollify the sentiments of the general public who believe that it is the duty of government to uphold the law. However BOPK strikes the balance between politicking and good governance remains to be seen.

In fine therefore, we have but few remaining days in the campaign to understand what Team Rama and BOPK intend to do with informal settlers. As it is, Team Rama holds a distinct moral advantage that the BOPK hopes to overcome, if it still can. Indeed, the kind of clear-cut policy either group formulates and explains to the voters should provide us an intelligent glimpse of how, in part, the city government plans for the future.

***

Email: [email protected]