A pledge, from the powers that be, that full transparency will be observed in the conduct of one of the increasing number of “urgent” parking buildings – the proceedings will be made available to the public, and the city will “consider” any and all input from the public.
This stems from the recent public consultation of a parking building near the Quezon Elementary School, in a city-owned lot. This is one of a long series of proposed parking buildings – nineteen at last count – to cater to the tourist population (cum menace).
Naturally, the government thrust is to defend this decision – Architect Ellaine Ganga of the City Buildings and Architecture Office said the building design will have a futsal sports area at the roof deck of the building to cater to students; a living wall or plants and greeneries to serve as carbon dioxide filter; a water harvesting facility and water recycling system to run the building; solar-powered facility; and smart system parking using applications to pre-book parking slots before entering the building and avoid waiting in long lines thereby lessening traffic congestion in the area.
Rhenan Diwas of the City Environment and Parks Management Office (CEPMO) talked about carbon emission sequestration by lessening the volume of vehicles going around the city roads looking for possible parking spaces.
However, what the defense will say, we are still allocating open space from a school compound to cater specifically only to parking space for cars. The natural response has been what is expected – vehement refusal to allow this project to push through.
The space is needed for our children, says the counterpitch – we need the open space to evacuate to in case of emergencies; God forbid an earthquake bury us in rubble – and the children also take advantage of the empty lot when it is not in use, as an open space for children to do children things as is needed for their development.
Official government stance is to be as transparent as possible and to consider input of the populace as much as possible, but crucially, consideration does not equal implementation, and word is not act. The government has in its official capacity considered community output in just about every major decision made in the past, and strived to uphold transparency pledges.
The revised Baguio charter. Baguio market. 24,000 slots of parking backlog. Jeep modernization (granted, this one comes from on high). Implementation of fees and festivals in equal measure.
All of these have gone through public consultation – as mandated by the procedures of legislation – but how many have truly passed through the rigor of extreme public scrutiny and beat into the wills of the public? A large part of the conflict between the camps of the congressman and the council regarding the charter – provisions themselves notwithstanding as another can of worms – is that the charter did not go through the rigor of scrutiny at the council and the plebiscite level. The market itself was also a stringent point of contention as so much of it seemed to take place behind closed doors, and now we are but a few steps away from the breaking of ground.
So it falls to us to ensure that words remain value, that there are the appropriate steps between thought to action. The government has pledged full transparency – hold them to their word. Ask the questions, provide your input in as appropriate a level of support or outrage as needed, and ensure that above all else, the final act is truly in accordance with public will.
