Two important policy directions

I had mixed emotions upon reading, few days ago and within the holiday season, about the plan of the administration of His Honor Cebu City Mayor Michael L. Rama, to build two evacuation centers. As the mayor would have it, when completed, these projected structures shall answer the need of the city residents in times of calamities. Considering that the city is composed of two congressional districts, the mayor wants to put one such center for each district.

I like to believe that the mayor must have envisioned putting up a haven for the safety of his constituents during catastrophes. This project could not have escaped his administrative view. For all we know, he might have thought about it before he entered government service. But, because the list of projects that require his attention is rather lengthy, the construction of the evacuation center was not cast with extreme urgency and has to be need-driven in order for it to earn its higher priority ranking. 

Indeed, my first emotional reaction to the mayor's plan was one of, as we Cebuanos would say it, "kalipay". It warmed my heart to learn of such direction of the mayor especially that I remember having written quite a number of times, in this column, the necessity for it. Even before the October 15, 2013, 7.2 intensity earthquake that brought incalculable damage to many areas in Bohol and the November 2013 super typhoon Yolanda, that devastated numerous parts of our country, I already sounded like a proverbial broken record in broaching the idea of putting up a sanctuary.

Yes, I recall adopting the word sanctuary rather than the mayor's preferred term - evacuation center. There may be an insignificant difference in the terminology used but the objective is, to a certain extent, similar. An evacuation center is a place where people, who are either threatened with or actually already reeling from any form of danger, may be transferred to. Considering that a sanctuary, is also a place of refuge or protection, the mayor can take one for the other.

The way the news of this plan of the mayor was written humbled me even more. Mayor Rama was quoted as saying that the kind of evacuation center he has in his mind should withstand the gravity of the Bohol tremor and the enormity of Yolanda, which coincidentally, are the factors I suggested in my write-ups. To maximize the structural strength of the projected edifice, the mayor may also import the aerodynamics technology Florida engineers are using in erecting their cyclone-resistant buildings.

Maybe the news reporting was not accurate. It seemed to me that on account of the magnitude of the disaster inflicted by the said natural calamities, the urgency of the construction of the evacuation centers must have been so highlighted that the mayor's earlier project of clearing the waterways in the city of all forms of impediments would, not could, be set aside. The seeming policy change disheartened me.

In retrospect, the policy of Mayor Rama, in ordering the demolition of illegal structures built on the banks of the city's rivers and creeks was correct. He was, after all, just enforcing the law the violation of which has been tolerated by his predecessors.  That he was undaunted by the cases filed against him by affected parties showed his leadership resolve many of us, conscious that the ultimate beneficiaries of the policy was (still is) common weal, silently admired.

He should not abandon that earlier policy. In essence, it was a necessary preventive measure. When settlers are not allowed to put up structures along the waterways of the city, they are removed from the hazards of rampaging waters. We are aware of the deaths that the floods generated by typhoon Senyang recently caused.  That bitter lesson has to be learned. More importantly, when our rivers and esteros are cleared of any obstructions, flooding in the city, of which we have had our destructive shares, would be minimized.

The construction of evacuation centers is without doubt, a remedial measure. It provides a sanctuary to those whose homes may be destroyed by man-made or natural disasters. It does not erase, not even diminish, the importance of the policy of removing structures that impede the flow of water. Both of them can and must be pursued.

[email protected]