Just came across this article - don't know if it's true. Interesting, anyway. The Philippines: The most dangerous land on the*planet | Opinion | GMA News Online
Its most likely true when you look at the results of natural disasters over the years. But I think that there would have been a lot more casualties if all the houses were made of bricks and concrete (which most people would not be able to affort anyway). I'd rather be hit by some timber or napa flying about in a typhoon than by bricks and steel girders... Building earthquake-proof houses would be out of reach for even more people, so it becomes a matter of hoping for the protection by a higher power and living day-by-day. Vicmico
I read that article too. It is a bit sensationalistic, but some of the points it makes are very true. The point is misses somewhat is the root cause which is the lack of enforcing proper building standards. If things were built the way that they were supposed to be built the loss of life would be less when calamity strikes as would the loss of capital from damaged infrastructure. This would decrease risk and make the area less dangerous to the populace in the event of earthquakes, typhoons, and other natural disasters. Zoning laws would also help. What developed country allows people to build and live in the flood plain of a river? That is just asking for trouble. While some will say that the poor can not afford to build the way they ought to, I would disagree and say that they are the ones that should build the way they ought to as they are the ones who can least afford to lose their home! It all comes down to priorities and common sense, of which there is little here. There is a lot of freedom here, but people abuse it. They are free to make their own mistakes, but don't want to live with the consequences. The recent Bohol earthquake, and the pictures of the resulting damage highlight this. Collapsed bridges, hmm.....I wonder why when little or no reinforcing steel was used? The same goes for some of the broken roads - no reinforcing steel evident. While some of the damage could not have been easily avoided I believe a great amount of it could have been or at least minimized. Will the evidence promote change? I would hope so, but I think not. The Philippines often begs for help, but the money is often poorly spent, only for the cycle to repeat itself down the road. What a waste. And people wonder why good insurance is hard to come by here. What insurance company in their right mind would insure against stupidity? That does not seem like a money making venture at all!
Im pretty sure that, if your daily wages amounts roughly to 150 - 200 Peso, the mere thought of buying a quake-proof or typhoon-proof house is way down your list of priorities. Sadly, a large proportion of the population has to content with the fact that their dwelling will be washed away or flattened by natural disasters on a regular basis. Implementing stringent building standards is a nice thought but I'm pretty certain someone building his own house on his own land will not allow inspectors onto his property when he expects to be told the house is unsafe and he's not allowed to live in it. A recent brown-out was extended unnecessarily because the repair crew needed to get onto someone's property and initially denied them access. Only after officials negotiated with the owner, things were settled and we got power again (probably cost the electric company a few peso, though). Access to private property is limited, even to officials of whatever nature. Things could (and should, common sense dictates) be improved, but the expenses are (currently) simply too high for the common folks. Sure, concrete bridges should contain reinforcement (I'm not familiar with the use of steel in roads, though), but here again is the cost aspect that plays a major role. Rather spend the available money on 5 bridges that hopefully will stay in place and intact for the next decade, than on 2 that will survive the next 50 years come what may. The 5 bridges are blessed and that takes care of all problems. Bahala na..... Vicmico
You are missing the point. It is cheaper to build things correctly and only one time than many times. Even simple procedures that help reduce loss can be inexpensive such as using fish netting to keep a nippa roof from blowing off or locating a building out of the way of a known flood area. These do not take massive amounts of money, but do take common sense and a government that is willing to enforce rules. As far as bridges go, a lot of them were allotted enough funding to be properly built, but due to corruption they were built on the cheap. Engineering is not the problem for the most part, the majority of the problem is greed and corruption. You haven't been here long enough if you haven't noticed that.
