As of this date the tug-of-war between the proponents and the oppositors of the flyover projects is still going on. Attempts have been made to settle their differences in a kind of win-win solution, but so far no agreement has resulted. In fact, the disagreement seems to have widened and the controversy rages on.
The media has joined the fray and these too have taken a bifocal stand – some with a positive point of view while others with a negative one. The whole affair has now morphed into a kind of public advocacy contest, as if the need for an infrastructure project of this kind depends upon the perception of the general public.
I say this because the other day an anti-flyover advocate brought me a thick sheaf of blank forms with the request that these be distributed to students for the latter’s signature. Sorry, I said, the school chooses to play neutral on issues of this kind. Just like in an electoral contest, its mantra is non-commitment considering that as an academic community its constituents have diverse persuasions.
The fellow was one of those church friendly guys whose sympathy, of course, was with the religious sisters who are soulfully against the construction. I am a church friendly guy too – if attending the Holy Mass regularly qualifies me for one. But I have second thoughts about the stand taken by those fervent worshippers of the Virgin Mary. Maybe they fear that their sacred grounds would get constricted with the expansion of the adjacent roadway. But not an inch would be taken away, promised the congresswoman advocate. If so, why the persistent nay saying?
Maybe it’s the eyesore thing. For no doubt with that dragon of a flyover arching mightily right in front of the age-old chapel the latter would be partly hidden from passersby’s eyes. Yet I don’t think the chapel would be less inspiring if a flyover would compete with its presence. I don’t think the prayers from that hallowed edifice would be less pleasing to God.
It could be that as the chapel vibrates with halleluiahs and Marian exaltations commuters could look down and see and hear, albeit briefly, fragments of pious offerings and with this, who knows how many wanton souls would get reminded of something great and infinite beyond the daily commerce of man? The passing men would therefore not be disturbing the praying faithful – it would be the faithful who would be disturbing these men. For what the latter would see and hear would be the gadflies in their quieter moments giving them a restlessness for something no worldly gifts can appease.
Those sisters certainly love Cebu, but they don’t make much fuss about it and instead are doing a marathon rosary. Unlike them other people are loud in their protestations of that love, which they confess, has something us to do with preserving the city’s natural milieu. Beautiful people heady with beauty! How beautiful are they in their comfort parlors of the good life!
Sadly, however, for everyone of those patrons of beauty a hundred or even a thousand Cebuanos are sweating it out daily for survival. These are the ones who direly need the flyovers. Without these structures traffic would continue to delay them – the workers towards their work, the farmers towards their vending stalls, and their children towards their classes. Business too would be lukewarm towards expansion and job seekers would never find jobs. For sure, these structures would be a mote in the eyes of some. But to many it would be a welcome sight.
The ideal thing should have been a city without flyovers. But busy as we had been with political skirmishes in the past (and at present?) we forgot to plan for the future. Now it’s too late. We have to face reality or suffer the consequence.