Comments on: Look at Laguna Lake now

By: Patty

Patty — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:42:49 +0000

“So, when we say we want to save the environment — that we ought to, really — what we’re really fighting for is our own survival and not the preservation of some geographic location. That’s what makes Laguna Lake, our forests and seas worth saving.”

I really agree with you on this one. But that’s the way it should work right? It should be a symbiotic relationship between man and nature. I remember a line in the Matrix where in it was said that man is behaving more like a virus.

I can see Laguna Lake from my home. More than twenty years ago, my gramps said (he lives right next door), from lower Bicutan all the way down to the lake, it was all trees. Development is inevitable but does it have to be so irresponsibly done?? I recently can home from a family trip to San Juan, Batangas. It was a blast until we met some of the fisher folk on our last day there. They talked about real estate development of the area, being evicted and the dying sea.

It just pisses me off that there are solutions to all these problems - environmental and societal - but people are just too lazy to do anything about it. Its always the easy way out. In the end, we all benefit anyway. *shrugs*

By: fernan angeles

fernan angeles — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:33:51 +0000

dear connie, admittedly you’re right. is it safe to say we’re in a hopeless situation? anyway, i really appreciate and glad that somebody like you would spend some of your precious time reading my comment. by the way, we’re religiously publishing a weekly community paper here in rizal. if you’re living in any of the 14 localities of the province, we would be glad to send you free copies weekly. the rizal weekly post is a weekly community paper — in fact, the only local paper that comes out regularly on a weekly basis for the last three years. you may contact us at 344-2241. our editorial office is located at the old concrete aggregates compound, antipolo teresa road, barangay dalig, antipolo city.

By: honey

honey — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:42:39 +0000

In our province, the sea near us is so polluted we’ve been having red tide for around 2 years now. The reason why it is polluted is that many squatters living by the shore are using it as a dumping ground for their garbage and body wastes. And also business like slaughterhouses drain their wastes there.

The local city government, aside from issuing warnings about consuming seafood from there, has done nothing to alleviate the miserable conditions. Not even to build proper bathrooms with proper drainage. Heck, even if a proper bathroom was built, it would be so non-maintained, everyone will be going back to the sea to do his deed. A relocation site has been set aside for the squatters but they refused to move as they will be removed from their source of living. But the longer they stay there, the more the sea will become polluted and the less living they will get. So yes, in this instance, it is the fault of both parties.

By: Connie Veneracion

Connie Veneracion — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:13:15 +0000

Fernan, re “they are the type of people whose school of thought is more on revenue”

And the public is the type to dumb garbage anywhere.

I am so sick and tired of hearing about the government’s fault. Yes, they are many. But for every accusation that the traffic cop collects kotong on the street corner, there are ten instances of jeepney and tricycle drivers disobeying traffic laws endangering passengers and pedestrians.

Same is true with your accusation about the LLDA.

By: fernan angeles

fernan angeles — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:45:23 +0000

dear connie, what i’m trying to imply is that our government agencies in charge of the environment care less of the environment. they are the type of people whose school of thought is more on revenue — noty for the government coffers but for their fat personal bank accounts.

dissolving the LLDA may not solve the problem, but would trim down the number of dinosaurs in the government — that is if they don’t get to be appointed to other positions. they are actually in a corruption galore. i should know, i have been covering that agency for the last 18 years.

insofar as devolving the agency to the local government — who would want to spoil his own backyard? local government units could perhaps be a better alternative than the LLDA. local government officials are not saints, but surely, politicians (most of whom are too sensitive on moves that would adversely affect their political career) would perhaps be lesser evil.