Four city barangays found violating 93-1 law

Violations on the provisions of Ordinance 93-1 were observed in a survey that the National Housing Authority conducted on 93-1 lots in four Cebu City barangays.

Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia said the survey report showed lucrative commercial establishments on certain areas that were supposed to be occupied by the urban poor.

Garcia met with NHA representatives to see their complete report on the socio-economic survey that they conducted in barangays Kalunasan, Busay, Capitol Site and Camputhaw.

Garcia said the report showed a complete picture of the actual situation prevailing in the four barangays.

The survey verified the actual status of the occupants to determine if they are actual beneficiaries.

“Also, (the report showed) whether or not they in fact belong to the underprivileged and the urban poor of the society or they are just privileged to call themselves underprivileged,” Garcia said.

She said in a press conference the report also have pictures of the big business establishments in the area.

Capitol will formulate a possible solution on how to address the “hugely disparate and contrasting situations” in the report.

The survey also showed that there are 2,025 households occupying the 879 lots in the four barangays that they have surveyed.

The survey only included those who have partially paid and those who haven’t paid for the lots they are occupying.

Further study will be made to identify the actual areas occupied by the present occupants.

Those who will qualify under the socialized housing program will also be identified.

Garcia will invite a representative from Cebu City’s Division for the Welfare of the Urban Poor (DWUP) to apprise them of the the direction of the Province to resolve the 93-1 issue.

Ordinance 93-1 was passed by the Provincial Board in 1993 and the beneficiaries were asked to pay a minimal amount for the province-owned lots they are occupying.

However, most beneficiaries failed to pay their dues while others put up businesses in violation of he ordinance’s provisions that the lots should only be for residential purposes./Correspondent Carmel Loise Matus