Responsible Development for Ma-a Shrine Hills

Brgy Ma-a Federation of Home Owner Associations presented its case for responsible subdivision development on Maa Shrine Hill to Acting Mayor Sarah Duterte Friday (Jan.25) afternoon.

Sides of Shrine Hill are unstable and not suitable for subdivision development. We believe the soil layer, a mixture of sea-bottom sand and small pieces of broken coral, three to 30 meters thick overlying the steep sides of Shrine Hill cannot be stabilized and maintained over the years; It represents real danger of landslide and other mass movement to residents and those now living below in older subdivisions. The risks are just too great.

Great Cities and great subdivision are built not only for the present but also for the future, our posterity, our children and great grandchildren and beyond. Let us not mortgage the future to the profits of the present. Let us NOT make our green emerald jewel, Shrine Hills, become another Cherry Hills disaster.

Short term, short sighted current-profit-only subdivision developments combined with inherent climatic and geologic risk have resulted in disasters and loss of life all over the Philippines. Let us learn from history. This is an inherently dangerous situation.

What would happen, for example, if we had several days of monsoon rain and a nearby intensity 6.5 earthquake, as we are prone to have? The hillside with its houses could slide down on residents below like caked sand on the side of a beached banca.

The Maa Shrine Hills range in height from about 100 meter - the length of a Soccer field - to more than 160 meters above our heads. Hillside subdivisions must be clearly and manifestly safe in construction and phsyical location. Hillside slopes above nine degrees or 18 percent with sea-bottom sand and small pieces of broken coral lying on the sides of soft slate do not qualify even remotely. The over-all angle of the slopes along Ma-a road probably average more than 45 degrees. Just look the next time you go by them.

Constructions like these do not provide shared benefit to neighboring subdivisions below. They create high risk and loss of property value. Who wants to buy a house or live below the over-burden of these developments and their monsoon rain run-off

Still, if developers can offer environmentally sound, clear and convincing, tested safe solutions, friendly to natural beauty and without adding unfunded impact on infrastructure, we will certainly review them in earnest. We clearly do not believe they can, but we will certainly listen so long as any further construction movement except remediation is halted.

- Teodorico T. Tinio
Chairman, Brgy Ma-a Federation of Home Owner Associations, Inc.
President, Dinaville Home Owners Association
Tel: 244-1857

For the Federation's Position Statement, please click here or navigate Official Steps Taken at the right side bar. For more photos of what 1999 Cherry Hill disaster was like, click here.

Rampaging Datu Loho Creek Destroys Fence Wall in Spring Village, Maa

The pictures show the damage and impact of rampaging Datu Loho Creek in Ma-a's Spring Village at the foot of Pink Street. Not shown are the large deep cracks in the river bank which is about to collapse into Datu Loho Creek, possibly blocking it and causing rising waters and flooding of lower lying areas.

-Author / Photographer
J. Stacey Baird
35 Vermillion Street
Spring Village, Ma-a
Davao City
244-0676

BEFORE HEAVY RAINS

AFTER HEAVY RAINS

Of Water Run-off and Flimsy Barriers

-Photos were provided by Ms. Norma Javellana while text was provided by JMango.

We want transparency!

Finally, January 10 at 1:30PM, the dialogue was convened at the Fuschia Room of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Davao City.

However, DMC-UPDI’s Engr. Nora Gutierrez begged off from presenting their plans. She said it was not possible for her to prepare the powerpoint presentation because the materials are still in Manila.

Crown Communities was ready to discuss their plans but the powerpoint material was of poor quality and the company's representative (his name escapes me now) was ill-prepared. Thus, after several minutes into the presentation, retired Ateneo Grade School teacher Mrs. Moreno suggested that the presentation be deferred to another day. She also requested that the Homeowners be provided copies beforehand to give them ample time to study. This will ensure their participation in substantial discussion.

Note: provision of copies was the agreement between the two parties in the November 28 dialogue.

Engr. Gutierrez further informed the body that she will only present their plans when these are approved by the mandated bodies. Of course, the Homeowners howled NO. This was contrary to what they have been demanding of the developers, in pursuit of their collective right to person and property. Her stand negates responsible development:

1) transparency – we want to know what you will exactly do to the hill for these will affect thousands of lives and millions of properties at the foot of the hill,
2) environment friendly – will your structures and activities be environment friendly, and
3) beneficial to everyone – landslide cannot benefit us Homeowners. What are your measures to prevent this? – Norma Javellana


Transparency it is, Transparency!

The agreement for the plans' presentation was sealed November 28. More than a month had passed and yet, the Project Officer cannot present these to the Homeowners. It is unlikely that she does not know the plans by heart. Can she have missed the point and extent of the complaint against their project?

This is the nth dialogue and still, the Homeowners at the foot of the hill are left in the dark. This is deprivation of right to informed consent. Why is DMC-UPDI not willing to assuage this fear by the simple expedience of transparency? If it is absolutely sure its project will not bring harm, why the refusal?

When is the promised nth dialogue?

The holidays are officially over. The City Planning and Development Office is expected to have come up now with the schedule for another dialogue among the homeowners, the developers, government agencies and the CPDO. This was agreed upon last November 28. The big question is WHEN? Calling Engineer Luis Jacinto, sir!

Now that Engr. Dataya, who was charged with our issue, has moved over to the City Assessor's Office, will Engineer Jacinto assign Architect Tuquib to take over attending to our issue? Or will Engineer Jacinto assign another equally competent person?

WHEN will the dialogue take place? Hope they will not drag their feet on this.