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?
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment