Jump to content


Photo

Propose A Law


  • Please log in to reply
1226 replies to this topic

#41 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 05:39 PM

Repeal that "Stupid Lina Law".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it should just be amended to clearly exclude privately owned real properties.

#42 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 05:41 PM

I think it should just be amended to clearly exclude privately owned real properties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Then what about public land taken over by informal settlers?

#43 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 05:44 PM

Then what about public land taken over by informal settlers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I think, the government is duty bound to provide housing for the poor. The purpose of the law was meant to apply to squatters in lands belonging to the public domain. I can only remember some of the law's salient points. One of which is to provide for a relocation area for the slum dwellers, when subject real properties are "reclaimed." In a way, the government is therefore obliged to provide low cost housing for the homeless.

#44 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:02 PM

I think, the government is duty bound to provide housing for the poor.  The purpose of the law was meant to apply to squatters in lands belonging to the public domain.   I can only remember some of the law's salient points.  One of which is to provide for a relocation area for the slum dwellers, when subject real properties are "reclaimed."  In a way, the government is therefore obliged to provide low cost housing for the homeless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But that does not fully address the headache that squatting has now become. Presently, squatters put up shanties without making distinctions between public and private land.

Granting that private properties are now excluded, how then will government explain to the hundreds of thousands of would-be displaced people, who, facing immediate eviction by private land owners, are sure to descend on government land, that it will also be removing them sooner or later? That will just put the government in a deeper bind.

Despite the obligation, which I agree with somewhat, government must not be blackmailed into putting up low-cost housing just to satisfy law-breakers who employ a bad law as their shield. Their getting away with it is not right at all.

Edited by Podweed, 10 March 2005 - 06:18 PM.


#45 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:06 PM

A way to repeal the "Lina Law" is by merely amending the voter registration laws... di dapat pwede mag-register ang hindi legal resident... hirap kasi, mayors often tolerate squatters kasi ang dami ng boto ng squatters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the policy behind the law is to protect the homeless, to make the government provide housing for them. amending the voter registration laws is non sequitur, I'm afraid.

#46 mary_antoinette

mary_antoinette

    Chaser

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:14 PM

but the provision of housing for the displaced squatters gave birth to another problem. these people has turned it into a 'business'. many of those who were given units sold the ones they got and returned to squatting. (one of the reasons is that their new location isn't practical - malayo daw sa trabaho - and the utilities are well set-up)
when the gov't announced compensating for those families who will be displaced because of the rehabilitation of the PNR, more squatters started to sprout along the riles. i wonder how this problem could be addressed effectively.
the option that I see to this is to strengthen business and education in the countryside so people wouldn't have to move and squeeze into urban areas. that would definitely take a lot of effort.

#47 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:17 PM

But that does not fully address the headache that squatting has now become. Presently, squatters put up shanties without making distinctions between public and private land.

Granting that private properties are now excluded, how then will government explain to the hundreds of thousands of would-be displaced people, who, facing sure eviction by private land owners, are sure to descend on government land, that it will also be removing them sooner or later? That will just put the government in a deeper bind.

Despite the obligation, which I agree with somewhat, government must not be blackmailed into putting up low-cost housing just to satisfy law-breakers who employ a bad law as their shield. Their getting away with it is not right at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yes, hence, no distinction was made in the law. However, the capacity of a private individual whose property was taken over by the homeless may not equal that of the government to provide for an alternative/relocation site. Furthermore, he is not obliged to provide for their housing.

See, the law compels the land owner to provide such a relocation site before he can effect an eviction. What should have simply been an unlawful detainer case becomes totally convoluted, and not completely without reason, after all the issue involved is a basic need (as to the homeless), shelter.

Well, in a way, by providing for relocation sites, the government is able to deal with the congestion in the city by transferring them. I know that it seems impossible, but I think there are public lands of which the government can make use, for this purpose. It may appear to be a form of blackmail, but at present, I see no other compulsion that would move the government to proactively deal with this great problem, the absence of decent housing for the poor.

#48 mary_antoinette

mary_antoinette

    Chaser

  • (03) Newbie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:22 PM

*and the utilities are well set-up

aren't :D

#49 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:27 PM

but the provision of housing for the displaced squatters gave birth to another problem. these people has turned it into a 'business'. many of those who were given units sold the ones they got and returned to squatting. (one of the reasons is that their new location isn't practical - malayo daw sa trabaho - and the utilities are well set-up)
when the gov't announced compensating for those families who will be displaced because of the rehabilitation of the PNR, more squatters started to sprout along the riles. i wonder how this problem could be  addressed effectively.
the option that I see to this is to strengthen business and education in the countryside so people wouldn't have to move and squeeze into urban areas. that would definitely take a lot of effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


You're right. The long term goal should be to provide them with a decent livelihood and uplift their standard of living. However, what should be done in the mean time? The fact remains, the government is duty-bound to provide shelter for the homeless.

#50 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:31 PM

Yes, hence, no distinction was made in the law.  However, the capacity of a private individual whose property was taken over by the homeless may not equal that of the government to provide for an alternative/relocation site. Furthermore, he is not obliged to provide for their housing. 

See, the law compels the land owner to provide such a relocation site before he can effect an eviction.  What should have simply been an unlawful detainer case becomes totally convoluted, and not completely without reason, after all the issue involved is a basic need (as to the homeless), shelter.

Well, in a way, by providing for relocation sites, the government is able to deal with the congestion in the city by transferring them.  I know that it seems impossible, but I think there are public lands of which the government can make use, for this purpose.  It may appear to be a form of blackmail, but at present, I see no other compulsion that would move the government to proactively deal with this great problem, the absence of decent housing for the poor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Is it a blessing in disguise then, however which way? Finally, here is the problem to move government to solve it?

Where is the logic in a law saying a land owner, whose hard work enabled the acquisition of such property, prioritize the welfare of the squatters by arming them with the final say regarding relocation? There is none, and by the same token, government's hands must not be tied by that provision as well.

#51 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:34 PM

but the provision of housing for the displaced squatters gave birth to another problem. these people has turned it into a 'business'. many of those who were given units sold the ones they got and returned to squatting. (one of the reasons is that their new location isn't practical - malayo daw sa trabaho - and the utilities are well set-up)
when the gov't announced compensating for those families who will be displaced because of the rehabilitation of the PNR, more squatters started to sprout along the riles. i wonder how this problem could be  addressed effectively.
the option that I see to this is to strengthen business and education in the countryside so people wouldn't have to move and squeeze into urban areas. that would definitely take a lot of effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will not deny that there are unscrupulous people who have taken advantage of the law, by benefiting from it then violating it. However, their grievances to a certain extent are valid. Imagine making P250 a day and spending P50 on transportation? How will they survive? Because really, the issue here isn't simply that the homeless are bothersome and their shanties an eyesore. The issue here is survival.

You're right. The long term goal should be to provide them with a decent livelihood and uplift their standard of living. However, what should be done in the mean time? The fact remains, the government is duty-bound to provide shelter for the homeless.

#52 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:37 PM

Is it a blessing in disguise then, however which way? Finally, here is the problem to move government to solve it?

Where is the logic in a law saying a land owner, whose hard work enabled the acquisition of such property, prioritize the welfare of the squatters by arming them with the final say regarding relocation? There is none, and by the same token, government's hands must not be tied by that provision as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You won't get any arguments from me about the case of the privately owned lands, Podweed. However, the government did not acquire lands of the public domain by hardwork. They hold these lands in trust for the benefit of their constituents, by Constitutional fiat. Hence, the resultant obligation.

Edited by batibut, 10 March 2005 - 06:39 PM.


#53 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:45 PM

I will not deny that there are unscrupulous people who have taken advantage of the law, by benefiting from it then violating it.  However, their grievances to a certain extent are valid.  Imagine making P250 a day and spending P50 on transportation?  How will they survive?  Because really, the issue here isn't simply that the homeless are bothersome and their shanties an eyesore.  The issue here is survival.

You're right.  The long term goal should be to provide them with a decent livelihood and uplift their standard of living.  However, what should be done in the mean time?  The fact remains, the government is duty-bound to provide shelter for the homeless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Many of these shanty colonies are topped by a sea of TV antennae. Some even have air-conditioning. And here's something I cannot understand, there are a lot of vehicles parked right in front. Imagine that? They can afford all those luxuries, meaning they can definitely afford to channel their energies into improving their lots in life instead of waiting for promised housing, at our expense, of course. That breeds laziness. All they have to do is wait for government "manna from heaven".

#54 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:56 PM

Many of these shanty colonies are topped by a sea of TV antennae. Some even have air-conditioning. And here's something I cannot understand, there are a lot of vehicles parked right in front. Imagine that? They can afford all those luxuries, meaning they can definitely afford to channel their energies into improving their lots in life instead of waiting for promised housing, at our expense, of course. That breeds laziness. All they have to do is wait for government "manna from heaven".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I don't know where these shanty colonies are. The TVs I can understand. Really, its the cheapest form of entertainment. Airconditioning? Really? The ones I have visited are veritable disaster areas. A breeding ground for disease and what not. An area as big as 2 or 3 squaremeters fitting a family of 8. I mean, our pets live better than that!

I'm not saying that they leave everything to the government. Don't get me wrong. I am just saying that the "Lina Law" is not unnecessary and redundant. If you read the policy of the law, it is obviously a form of welfare legislation. Entitlement to government assistance is automatic and non-discriminatory, in the sense that the government can not ask a beneficiary whether they deserve it or not. Government is just obliged to provide for all who are qualified.

Edited by batibut, 10 March 2005 - 07:05 PM.


#55 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:57 PM

You won't get any arguments from me about the case of the privately owned lands, Podweed.  However, the government did not acquire lands of the public domain by hardwork.  They hold these lands in trust for the benefit of their constituents, by Constitutional fiat.  Hence, the resultant obligation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I see your point, batibut. My argument was that simply amending that law by excluding private properties won't work. It will put government at a severe disadvantage, its obligation notwithstanding. Hence, it will be beset by an even bigger problem, and it needs all the help it can get.

#56 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 07:02 PM

I don't know where these shanty colonies are. The TVs I can understand.  Really, its the cheapest form of entertainment. Airconditioning? Really? The ones I have visited are veritable disaster areas.  A breeding ground for disease and what not.  An area as big as 2 or 3 squaremeters fitting a family of 8.  I mean, our pets live better than that!

I'm not saying that they leave everything to the government.  Don't get me wrong.  I am just saying that the "Lina Law" is not unnecessary and redundant.  If you read the policy of the law, it is obviously a form of welfare legislation.  Entitlement to government assistance is automatic and non-discriminatory, in the sense that the government can not ask an beneficiary whether they deserve it or not. Government is just obliged to provide for all who are qualified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Okay, counsellor.

#57 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7,362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 07:02 PM

I see your point, batibut. My argument was that simply amending that law by excluding private properties won't work. It will put government at a severe disadvantage, its obligation notwithstanding. Hence, it will be beset by an even bigger problem, and it needs all the help it can get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And let me also add that such a proposal will open up another can of worms. Free for all na yan pag ganyan ang naging patakaran... Ilalim ng mga flyovers siguradong magiging "apartments" na... dahil government property.

#58 Podweed

Podweed

    What, ME worry?

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Location:Nowhere near
  • Interests:Interested in everything.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 07:09 PM

And let me also add that such a proposal will open up another can of worms. Free for all na yan pag ganyan ang naging patakaran... Ilalim ng mga flyovers siguradong magiging "apartments" na... dahil government property.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That can of worms is even now continuously spawning maggots. Ang dami ngang flyovers na bahay na iyung mga ilalim.

#59 batibut

batibut

    BUYERS BEWARE! NOT FOR SALE!

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,284 posts
  • Interests:Deep breathing....

Posted 10 March 2005 - 07:20 PM

And let me also add that such a proposal will open up another can of worms. Free for all na yan pag ganyan ang naging patakaran... Ilalim ng mga flyovers siguradong magiging "apartments" na... dahil government property.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That can of worms is even now continuously spawning maggots. Ang dami ngang flyovers na bahay na iyung mga ilalim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If I may be permitted to indirectly reply to these comments. Do you really think, the homeless enjoy living under flyovers? The conditions they live in are inhuman. They are there not because they want to make our lives miserable. They are there because, they are living miserable lives.

Again. The Lina Law is a form of social welfare legislation. The government enacted that law because it recognized its obligation to provide shelter to the homeless. We should celebrate that recognition. At least, by some token, the government is able to live up to their duties and obligations to the poor.

#60 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7,362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 07:21 PM

bawal mag-anak ng di kayang sustentuhan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I think this should qualify as child abuse. An amendment to that effect should be made.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users