QC’s DIRTY little SECRET

"Woe to QC’s non-poor, who would have to foot the bill for this symbiotic perversion between the city leadership and its majority squatting constituents...Why did politicians—including members of the QC Council—troop to squatter settlements every election year to court their votes by promising them the moon?"

QC’s DIRTY little SECRET

The Quezon City government’s plan to impose another tax on legitimate homeowners so it can raise more money purportedly to fund housing units for squatters is turning out to be a scam worse than a recent land-grabbing incident.

Despite the opposition by 80 subdivision and village associations, the QC Council is hell-bent on railroading the ordinance imposing the so-called socialized housing tax or SHT, with the city mayor poised to sign the measure regardless of the objections raised by those who would be subject to such an imposition.

In arguing for the SHT, the proponents highlight the oppressive living conditions of the squatters, who supposedly suffer the indignity of cramped sub-human quarters that have been the breeding ground of disease and social malaise.

But the SHT proponents forget to add that some of those living in such squalid quarters could afford not only the basic necessities of electricity and water, but also amenities such as refrigerators, microwave ovens, air conditioners, and yes, even flat-screen TVs. At a creekside community on the fringes of the National Children’s Medical Center, school-age children are picked up and dropped off by yellow buses!

No, this is not about class war, but that is what the proponents of the new tax appear to be foisting against those opposed to the measure. In arguing for the new tax, the proponents want to make it appear that the rich don’t want to part with 0.05 percent of the assessed value of their property in excess of P100,000. But not all legitimate homeowners in QC would qualify as belonging to socioeconomic class AB. Some are even hard-pressed paying their annual property taxes.

At the risk of dishonest argumentation, the SHT proponents argue for the new tax by pointing out the blighted state of squatter settlements while admitting the high cost of in-city land. The LGU’s insistence on in-city dwelling for squatters is a travesty if we take into account how middle-class workers have reconciled with the fact that they can no longer afford in-city housing, thus the property boom at the periphery of Metro Manila.

The SHT proponents claim they need a five-year period to build up a fund for socialized housing. But how sure are they that the pooled money—an estimated P300 million— would be enough to sustain their program? Flat out, we contend that the program would fail to muster enough resources for the following reason: moral hazard. The SHT would be an incentive for every potential squatter in the Philippines to move to QC just so they can get a chance at owning a home. The SHT therefore is an open invitation for legalized squatting.

Given such a scenario, the SHT would only worsen, and not solve, QC’s problem of overstretched resources, since the number of residents, especially squatters, would balloon, thus adding pressure to already strained budgets for health, education and other social services.

The proponents of the SHT claim the new tax springs from Republic Act 7279, or the Urban Housing and Development Act—the so-called Lina law named after its main sponsor at the Senate back then. The new tax however would be on top of the idle land tax the LGU already imposes. Given the realty tax levied on homeownes, the SHT is tantamount to double taxation, something the Constitution prohibits.

The LGU claims that only members of a syndicate stand to benefit from the status quo. How true, but the biggest syndicate that will benefit from the new tax is the QC Council. The move underscores the rent-seeking behavior of a locality that ironically prides itself in being the country’s richest LGU. No wonder a “lesser-endowed” LGU like Makati City could afford to grant more perks to its residents.

If it had been serious about uplifting the conditions of squatters, then why did the QC leadership let the illegal settlers mushroom, especially in state-owned land such as the National Government Center and near or at hazardous areas such as creeks, under bridges, and the like? Why did politicians—including members of the QC Council—troop to squatter settlements every election year to court their votes by promising them the moon?

Like the previous national govenrment, the ruling clique at QC had a decade to solve such problems, and yet there was no improvement, only a worsening that made the city the country’s squatter capital.

The LGU’s insistence on the SHT smacks of an arrogance bred by more than a decade reign of a clique that had been swept to power and kept there by the very squatters who stand to benefit from the exaction on legitimate homeowners.

The potentate’s arrogance is reflected in the thankless attitude of its subjects when the legitimate owner of the squatted land finally secures a court order reclaiming the fruits of their labor. Instead of graciously giving up so many years of rent-free accommodations, the squatters have the gall to challenge the court order and demand payment from the real owner.

Woe to QC’s non-poor, who would have to foot the bill for this symbiotic perversion between the city leadership and its majority squatting constituents.

And that is QC’s dirty little secret. (Manila Times editorial)