No trash takers – 2

When I was writing a serial column on Bácolod’s garbage situation ladies prominent in our social circles commented on the problem, which to them is not just a health or social concern but a political issue as well. That needs no saying further because the political opposition to the city government has been harping, and continues to harp on this problem, day and night.

There is no question that uncollected garbage is an issue but more than this is the image of the people and their mindset, the failure of basic education and the inability of public governance.

We are generally a clean people in our persons. Foreigners are amazed that we take a bath daily. We probably are a few people on this planet who perform this daily ritual and yet our public behavior is opposite – we throw trash anywhere even if there are garbage bins. How many educated families throw their garbage into the street, vacant spaces, rivers and creeks and sideways?

We try to get rid of our garbage in similar manner that we clean our persons.  We are concerned of our personal cleanliness but not community sanitation, at least to most.

The garbage problem is not therefore just a collection of discards but also a state of mind mainly. Rightly did Councilor Al Espino speak of education although we have heard this lament before time and again from Mayor Bing Leonardia and others.

However the problem remains as stubborn as ever because we are addressing the effect not its cause.

But that is now being addressed as it were, if the planned mass education is given as much money, time and determined and sustained effort as the desire to collect garbage.

The economics of garbage collection should therefore not be measured on how much the city will save by privatizing it. Government was not instituted to save but to spend for necessary public services.

The facts of our garbage situation should therefore be seen from this perspective and not how much the city will save by letting others do the work.

How can the city expect a businessman to collect garbage at 100 percent efficiency at less expense than what the city collects at 70 percent  efficiency at a higher cost?

The 70 percent garbage collection efficiency the city claims is an understatement of the problem and an overstatement of performance. Thus from here the problem of the economics of privatization arises.

The city’s claim of P154.5 million annual expenditure for 100 percent collection efficiency should be the guide and not its mere estimate that the private contractor could spend only P108,303,200 for the city to save P46,372,800.

The city should explain how 100 percent collection efficiency can be done with P108,303,200 when this level of efficiency can be done only at P154.5 million based on its own 5-year study.

 At 70 percent claimed collection efficiency the city spends P64 million; will not the city then be more efficient by adding P30 million more to attain the other 30 percent for better than 100 percent efficiency?

The city then need not have to worry about displaced city employees, but that is the least of its problem although the data the city presents to justify the economics of this project indicate that what is wrong with its collection program is inefficiency, perhaps due to personnel but I think more of the dilapidated, small and fuel guzzling trucks, some of whose sides and fenders are about to fall apart.

This is not intended to prevail upon the city to abandon the privatization of garbage collection because it probably is the best solution. However, the city should make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

That there is reluctance from the private sector to bid (I hope by this time there are bidders) can be explained by the economics of this project. Who would bid at the terms and conditions as they stand?

The political opposition lambasts the city administration on the suspicions that some people will make money from this project. The reality of the terms of reference tells us nobody makes money here, except the city. The accusation that the privatization will be another venue for a businessman to dole out corruption money to get the contract is simply ridiculous.

Who would bid for a project where one can lose his shirt and pants and give under the table money to boot?

The short period of the contract is another cooler. Just getting organized takes months so that the contractor would be so pressed by time that before he can collect the first truckload, the contract expires.

The city can reconsider the terms of reference, making it attractive so the city can choose from the best; if not consider the city doing it by reforming the present system. 

back to top