Nimby

It's a phrase oftentimes connoted with new development proposals which residents of a certain area oppose, for the reason that these carry some negative effects, and thus, should not be close to them.  More often than not, these nimbies (as what these residents are often called, especially in the West) actually believe the new development projects are needed by the society but should be done further away from them.  Thus the term NIMBY - "not in my own backyard."  There's an opposite well, I just don't know whether it has a name.

We see these reactions often enough, and we can actually enumerate already many of these projects.  The most common are sanitary landfills and cemeteries.  We remember the move to transfer the Inayawan landfill a few years back.  Two sites were identified in 2 barangays in Cebu City.  We would remember the intense reaction of barangay residents then, primarily through their officials.  Most barangays wouldn't want to host waste disposal systems.  And the ones which do have them already can only grumble their disappointments.

Same as cemeteries, even when these maybe actually of high economic potential such as memorial parks.  One was proposed in Banawa years ago and it was vigorously objected to, by all means, I think it never got off the ground.  Other examples are sewage treatment plants, electric power plants, jails, and some kinds of hospitals.  These draw negative sentiments often resulting to resistance.  Other projects are exactly the opposite - people fight for them tooth and nail as if their very existence depends on them.  The rest of development projects are so-so, oftentimes attractive or not, depending on a lot of factors.

But we need to go back to the basic premise - these projects that residents, nimbies, oppose, are actually good for the society.  Usually, they're not actually only good, but essential, and must be built somewhere, only that people don't want them in their areas.  At the end of the day, these will be built, and some communities have to accept them, usually with enough explanations which are not only logical, based on evidence, and convincing.  In other words, all decisions must be products of complete analytical studies.

These are the same for everything else, especially the attractive ones.  Take for example, the much-reported proposed Third Mactan Bridge.  I already wrote about the technical nuances of this "link" (not yet "bridge" because tons of studies are still required to determine that) last March and April.  What we need to emphasize is the need to weigh those technical nuances.  Of course, the politicians of Cebu and Talisay have all the right to say what they want - to connect to the "bridge" to their respective LGUs.  But so do the leaders of Mandaue and Consolacion.  After all, they do have residents who will use the bridge(s), too.  Not to mention Liloan, Minglanilla and the rest.  "No, they have fewer users," you say.  But then you are starting to analyse … which should have been done technically and thoroughly in the first place.  Experts can surmise - because they're experts, but even they, like doctors, will always assert, "let's do the studies (laboratory tests) first ..."

A lot of other projects are similarly situated - almost all cities want airports built in their area.  And those that host them already will resist any move to transfer.  From Bacolod to Silay, Lumbia to Lagindingan, Mandurriao to Cabatuan - transfers always carry heated arguments.  NAIA to Clark is currently the flavor of the day.  Surprisingly, it's the opposite in more developed countries - to these countries and cities, airports are NIMBY and should be located somewhere else.  When the old Itami Airport in Osaka was proposed to be relocated, all the 3 cities served by it (Osaka, Kobe, and Kyoto) didn't want the new airport to be built within their areas.  They finally decided to build it offshore, reclaimed in the middle of Osaka Bay, and is now called the Kansai International Airport.

Whether desirable or a NIMBY project, we need to do thorough evaluations first.  As to the "third bridge/link," let the private proponent finish their studies.  After all, they are the ones who will finance it and carry the risks.  They have an added consideration - "profitability" and they will never place it where the margins are less or worse, non-existent, which will then demand very high toll fees from the users.  By then that project, instead of being hotly-contested might become another NIMBY.

The Marcelo Fernan Bridge, which was studied in 1991, underwent such rigid studies, and 5 alignments were actually evaluated, including those that are re-proposed now.  After consideration of the technical, land use, transport, financial, and economic aspects, the present location was decided and concurred by the leaders at that time.  I just hope that the present crop of leaders can wait and will agree on the most viable and beneficial option to the people and the economy, instead of suggesting something upfront sans the number-crunching required.