Unified Manila Bay reclamation master plan no solution to MM’s woes

THE INQUIRER, in its Sept. 8 issue (“Unified Manila Bay reclamation pushed,” Business), reported that the chief urban planner of Ayala Land Inc. said that the government should consider a unified Manila Bay reclamation master plan to address Metro Manila’s problems—flooding, continuous settling of the reclaimed land, heavy traffic and many others. That is not too difficult to do for the government has the propensity to create agencies in addressing whatever problems it perceives. It can easily create the Manila Bay Reclamation Authority to prepare the master plan and supervise its implementation, but like many government agencies that duplicate the functions of other agencies, it will become moribund in no time at all.

Why create more land in Manila Bay for land developers to build on when Metro Manila is already overcrowded and overpopulated that its public infrastructure (roads, transportation system, drainage system, sewage system, etc.) are bursting at the seams due to overuse?

That the only way to solve Metro Manila’s problems is to decongest it is so basic. But this continues to be ignored. There must be a way to check the never-ending migration to Metro Manila from the provinces of people looking for jobs and a better life. The right thing to do is to create jobs elsewhere so people will go there instead.

Thirty-four years ago, I recommended to the then Ministry of Human Settlements to develop Batangas City as a “twin city” of Manila. This was offered as a short term solution to decongesting Manila: Make Batangas a counter magnet to Manila.

Batangas, while close to Manila, is located in a different watershed area. It has its own harbor and other resources independent of Manila’s. With a solid economic base, Batangas would then be ideal for development into an industrial community with a secondary seaport, while Manila will continue to grow as a commercial city. These two cities will be tied to each other by an umbilical cord consisting of a system of high speed highways and railways and various means of communications. Thus, they will support each other in their growth in some kind of a symbiotic relationship. The area between can then develop into a “bedroom community” and, maybe, even an international airport complex could be built to serve these two cities.

For whatever reason, political or otherwise, this strategic twin city proposal never received much attention. Maybe it is because Manila is the center of everything, the center of the nation’s politics and economy, that the government and the private sector prefer to continuously pour money into it. It is where governments are made and unmade. For this lack of vision, the government is now forced to look at Batangas City as an alternate seaport to the heavily congested Manila seaport.

In the light of the above, I strongly say: Stop the further reclamation of Manila Bay that impacts negatively on the people and environment of Metro Manila and its environs, whether under a unified master plan or under the aegis of the local governments of the towns and cities along Manila Bay.

—RODOLFO dR. MONDONEDO,
mondorudy@gmail.com