The Cebu City council on Wednesday rejected a proposal to allocate P70 million for the declogging and desilting of some of the city's waterways. Leading the objection was councilor Sisinio Andales, who said the city should not spend good money on something that does not really solve the problem of flooding. And believe it or not, but Andales is actually correct.
Declogging and desilting of waterways will truly not solve the problem of flooding. And so, because of the objection of Andales, and the votes of support by the other councilors, there will be no declogging and desilting done. And because there will be no declogging and desilting done, flooding in Cebu City everytime it rains will continue. And so, the next time it floods, the people will know who to blame.
Declogging and desilting, it is true, will not solve flooding. But it can buy time for city officials like Andales to ponder on real solutions to the problem. As it turned out, Andales merely objected to the proposal but did not offer his own idea on how to solve the problem. And maybe too, he was not aware that the mayors of the three cities of Cebu, Mandaue and Talisay were meeting on the same day with the same problem in mind and were considering solutions.
In other words, other government officials were actually doing something about a nagging problem that has plagued the metropolis for decades. Whatever the three mayors may have decided to do in this regard, a little respite from flooding would have bought them time to put their plans into action. But whatever they may have decided may just have to wait a little while longer because we will continue to swim helplessly in floods without mitigating measures, no matter how temporary.
And by the way, Andales cannot crow about having saved the city P70 million from what he considered a useless expenditure. This city is not exactly known to spend wisely. For many years it has been spending good money on projects that, other than the usual political gains to be derived therefrom, are a great waste of taxpayers' money.
Consider for example the plan to give money to single parents. It would be interesting to find out where Andales stood on the issue. If he was against it, then well and good. Because that proposal is not only a waste of money, it also encourages promiscuity, pre-marital sex, and other immoral acts. Of course there are those who became single parents because of other, unfortunate and understandable causes. But why should they become the burden and responsibility of taxpayers?
When it comes to public spending, it is necessary to understand the purpose and context of the spending. Spending P70 million for declogging and desilting may not solve flooding but what Andales did not consider, especially since he himself has nothing to offer, is that there are problems where temporary solutions are better than no solutions at all. Flooding imperils lives and comes at great economic costs. Any respite, no matter how temporary, is priceless.