Quezon City and Cebu City councils-study in contrast

Time was when people who occupied vacant lots without the knowledge, much less, the consent, of their owners were called squatters. Squatting, referring to the act, was a very accurate word and squatters, as regards the actors, an exacting label. But, “squatting” and “squatters” were both derogatory and hurting. It was humiliating for a decent man to be called a squatter even if that was a fact as it was derisive for him to be identified with squatting.

Public relations officers, publicists and social activists, in identifying people or their causes make sure to use words or phrases that skirt away from hurt and insult. So, they have continually evolved acceptable terms. In the case of squatters, socially minded individuals have introduced the nomenclature “informal settlers.”

Quezon City and Cebu City are both saddled with hordes of informal settlers. Did I hear correctly a televised report that in Quezon City, there are some 235,000 such families? I may not have specific data on the number of informal settlers in our city, but various accounts from the DWUP and the Real Estate division of the province show they are not few.

Quezon city, if more recent reports are valid, is trying to address this concern with a lot of logic. The city council is reported to have submitted two very definitive measures aimed at curing this malaise.

First, the Quezon City Council is proposing to impose a certain real estate tax on owners of land valued at not less than P100,000. The tax is reportedly in small percentage and it is supposed to be collected for a definite period of time only. Their idea is to raise, from this imposition, some P120 million every year for the next five years. This fund is to be used exclusively to relocate informal settlers, to places they can call their own.

There are varied objections raised though. Landowners point out to vast reserves of the city. According to them city officials have announced themselves that these huge funds are available. It is their contention that these tax monies first be used in the planned relocation. Only when more funds are really necessary may the city add to the tax weight of landowners. Opponents of the measure claim that taxing them now for the purpose of generating funds to help informal settlers while other sources are available is a skewed form of reverse discrimination.

Second. There is a move in Quezon City to disenfranchise informal settlers. It is harsh and fraught with the perils of violations of democratic rights. But, designed to rectify an imbalance of representation, it is, arguably, realistic. The proponents would like to disallow these informal settlers from voting because their numbers often decide who the winners in electoral contests are although ironically, they contribute the least, if any, to the coffers of the city. In others words, only a few of the chosen leaders represent those who pay the kind of taxes needed to run the government.

This article today is not about the validity of those twin measures. Quezon City is far from us. We are so removed from relevant data as to be able to judge the merits of these propositions.

This column however, attempts to make a comparison. These two councils obviously differ in their direction. We note the fact that the Quezon City councilors seem bent on looking for ways to cure a particular social blight similar to Cebu City’s. They use imaginative legislative measures to grapple with a social volcano.

In contrast, we do not hear our City Council adopting substantive measures to address this serious concern. Of course, we are aware of an expense authorized by our city councilors to pay for their luxurious spa care, which to me is a kind of an impertinent Bacchanalian entertainment. My search for specific comparable legislative outputs yielded negative results.

But, it is not too late, yet. I hope that our councilors do better and outperform their Quezon City counterparts in the remaining one and half years of their term.