The situation seems to get more curious by the week. In a conversation with one of the staff in Mia's restobar last night, she said that she was worried about her house in San Miguel barrio, in Agan-an, being taken by the government. When I asked why, she said for the development of a new runway to the existing airport. Unsure if any of you know but over 49 houses were dismantled, a couple of weeks ago in Maslog, near the beach front in Sibulan. Official reasons were that the owners, the Bouffard (Ramon) brothers from Bais, wished to reclaim their land, adjacent to their extremely long fishponds. They roughly lie NE to SW, which would be a more sensible direction than the existing runway pattern(W to E), if the Bacong project fails to come to fruition. Anyone else hear of this?

 

My first thought is where are these 2 runways? I have only seen one runway in Sibulan. Do they give it a different number if the plane comes in over the water instead of coming in over the land?

My second thought is that three rich people will be very happy with all this. Those being 1, the guy selling land in Bacong to build a new airport, 2, the guy who will get the contract to build a new airport and 3, the guy who will end up with the land in Sibulan that the current airport sits on. Yep, 3 very happy people out there stirring this up.

I can't imagine it being any cheaper to build a whole new airport than it would be to cut down a tree and expand the existing one into the water further, but its not about saving money, its about rich filipinos getting richer.

 

Exactly! There is a legal remedy. You seem to get it. For those who don't:

The guy probably isn't thrilled with living there anyway after the damage to his house and not getting reimbursed for it. I consider his letting the tree grow, probably fertilizing the heck out of it is an act of self defense of his house.

There is a legal remedy. The house, land and tree owner has done not a d*mn thing wrong just living and conducting his business. But people are b!tching about him. The tree owner couldn't even get them to fix his roof after they damaged it and had to pay for it out of his own pocket. If he couldn't make them pay for damages they caused, evidently he isn't the one with the power to solve things equitably. How about some b!tching for a change about the people who do have the power to make an equitable resolution to the problem and whose job it is who aren't doing their job?

People are really quick to hate on individuals. There were actually people on this forum who were wishing something bad happened to the Ramos family of power outage fame. You people know exactly who you are, as do I but I'm not going to name you. I will merely remind you that as you sow, so shall you reap. You don't have to be religious to see the truth of that.

 

A pal jet just landed from the west at dumaguete airport 10 am Sunday 1st may.

 

I have emailed Congressman Henry Pride Teves on this situation, as it needs someone with common sense to sort out this debacle.



CAAP cited an incident on Tuesday involving a Cebu Pacific Airbus A320 aircraft which was forced to stay overnight at the airport’s parking bay after mechanics found a hydraulic leak on the right side main landing gear and tree leaves on that part of the aircraft, “attributed to tall trees lining up on the runway approach.”

 

I'm not presuming or assuming anything, you wrote take his trees and pay him for them. If you wish to say that is not what you meant, go ahead and say so, everyone can correct themselves if they think their meaning wasn't clear, but up to now all I know is what you have written. What else am I supposed to go by?

You seem to want to minimize the man with the trees problem, I tried to demonstrate a fictional occourence that would give you a similar problem, in which it would effect very few other than yourself, and in which I doubt many would care. I would care though because if you believe in property rights and due process of law, it's not just for people you know, not just for people you like. You don't just take someone's trees and pay him for them because you are taking more than wood, you are impairing his right to do with his property as he sees fit. Then there is the reported reason for the trees being to stop damage to the house, which the reports saying the trees are not giants and the fact that parts of one were found in the landing gear of a jet aircraft leads me to believe that the house may be in danger if the trees are removed. I suppose I object to the tone of your post in that you just need to pay for the trees and take them, as if the man were a peon or a serf. Pay particular attention to where I quoted you below, it's not an excerpt from a paragraph.

" This joker just owns a few trees and is not Del Monte or whatever Mega Company. Compulsory Purchase of a few trees shouldn't be hard to do particularly if the powers can be delegated to City government. "

Your statement above is probably the root reason why the power does reside in the judiciary. Can anyone imagine how it would be if the threshold were so low that city government could do it? Also the size of a company has nothing to with right. I have told the executive VP for land acquisition for KOG a multi-billion dollar corporation that dealing with me is above his pay grade. The next person from the company to call me was Lynn Peterson, president of KOG we had some chats and I decided that we wouldn't do business but at least I was talking to the person with authority and not time wasters. An owner is equal to the president of a multi-billion dollar company. Both have final authority, you can't climb any higher up the ladder and most anything can be worked out if both sides show respect. The man with the tree was not respected when his roof was damaged and he sought recompense.

As for reserving your view on my attitude? It's your view, if you think I'm a dick, you can say it, won't do much but give me a chuckle. You seem offended that I don't agree with what you write. Nothing personal but you write some doozies, like give the city the power to condemn. I note that you don't live in the city. I don't think you truly believe that would be a good idea but I could be wrong.

Feel free to grab a hammer and go after any of my posts, it might improve them. In any case it will give me more opportunities to get my point across. Just do me the courtesy of quoting a paragraph and not half a sentence, spell the name correctly and make sure what you say is true.

 

The thing is I don't think you can just "buy a few trees". If that was all it was you could just buy a few trees, cut them down and he could plant some really fast growing varieties and in 3-4 years you would be back in the same place. It's his land. You either need to come to an accommodation with him because partially impairing the enjoyment of his land ownership isn't going to work.

Suppose someone decided you needed to be kicked out of your house, furniture included, every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month and only pay you 1k php a month for the privilege? Shouldn't you be deliriously happy the 26-29 days of the month you are not kicked out? I think you would find it seriously impairs your enjoyment, so if your property must be taken, it needs to be taken in totality and you be given fair recompense, replacement cost elsewhere. I haven't got the link but I saw something about this in Philippine law on an internet ambulance chasing lawyer site. You sound like you come from a country that is more socialist than not where they can p*ss in your cherios at will. No wonder you left, but you brought the attitude with you.