Jump to content

Thirteen more Bantayan resorts eyed for demolition


Recommended Posts

musicman666

That is a shame. Beaches should have free access, and a free access policy should be imposed within a reasonable distance from the waterline. Above that zoned area then beach access restrictions can be imposed by land owners. This allows them to maintain their property, equipment, and security of their customers and patrons. I own a small beach lot and would never impose restriction as to access to the beach line. My lot goes to the waters edge but my fence is well off the water's edge. People should be allowed full access to the water's edge and associated beach line.

 

If that was the case, at least in mactan, you would not be able to use the beach as a tourist. You'd have too many people trying to sell you pearls, or sea shells, or whatever kind of bullshit they can think to try to hock off on people just trying to enjoy their vacation.

 

Places like shangri la, hilton, whitesands, etc, all have a huge line of people on either side of the sea wall just dying to sell you something. They'll even follow you out into the water, even if its greater than head deep! I was with someone once who jokingly said to one of these hockers "Do you have virgins? I want virgins!". And the guy starts trying to sell his damn daughter to him!!!

 

If there is not some sort of permit that people can apply for, there really needs to be. Otherwise, tourists will only come once.

 

That is the fault of the local authorities. They should issue vendor's licensing and regulate them by establishing a commerce free parameter zone, restricting vendors so patrons and vacationers can enjoy themselves without the constant bantering of over zealous street hustlers. Unfortunantly if one brings such things to the attention of local officials, it only seems to fall on deaf ears and limited minds. Which is the root of most of the problems here.

 

 

and after they establish this zone then shangrila will need to put up a wall between them and the public beach.. and maybe post gaurds to stop the locals stealing the sand.. and after a while the shang beach will revert to just another low grade macatan beach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jess Bartone

    5

  • JamesMusslewhite

    4

  • Flemming

    4

  • spooks

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If I thought, for even a minute, that the government actions would help preserve shoreline for future generations of filipinos, I would suggest the gov't do what they have to do and compensate the inj

Hi...I agree you, speking for my self only, our place is and has never been blocked for any in matter of access......only seems like they starts with few small once like us who actually has followed t

Someone raised my attention to this thread, thats why the late reply.   You know what? feck them all at these authorities ... I can say it without looking at the resorts and whatever they did. Why t

pete higgins

I think the whole point is lost here in these discussions. Why have they finally decided to take these walls down? One reason, Mr. O.(I think everyone knows his name) filed a case and the judge issued an order based on this case. The funny thing is Mr. Tony O. whom thinks he is a demigod, has destroyed the beaches on Bantayan Island by digging a canal from the sea onto his property on Bantayan Island and built a large lake there so he could drive his boat right onto his property. It is also said that he has other structures in the 20 meter salvage zone. I know there have been several complaints filed against him with the DENR, but nothing was ever done to Mr. O, why? I have lived on Bantayan Island several years not and am aware of these walls and other structures in the 20 meter salvage zone. I can truly say none of these structures have caused any problems with the beaches there but have infact kept the owners land from eroding. The law in fact states the 20 meter salvage zone is for emergency uses only, not for recreational use. Mr Lhuillier won a case in the Philippine Supreme Court several years ago where the decision in his favor stated that people did not have the right to use his beach for recreational use but only to take shelter in extreme conditions such as a storm. People have the right to use the beaches for recreation but not the 20 meters set aside as a salvage zone for fishermen and others that can use this 20 meters in extreme conditions.

 

Now after saying all of this I can say these walls have not prevented people from using the beaches which are below the high tide mark and belong to the Philippine Government. This whole problem was initiated by one man causing noting but millions of pesos in damage to the resorts and later millions of pesos is lost beach front due to erosion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pete higgins

I think the whole point is lost here in these discussions. Why have they finally decided to take these walls down? One reason, Mr. O.(I think everyone knows his name) filed a case and the judge issued an order based on this case. The funny thing is Mr. Tony O. whom thinks he is a demigod, has destroyed the beaches on Bantayan Island by digging a canal from the sea onto his property on Bantayan Island and built a large lake there so he could drive his boat right onto his property. It is also said that he has other structures in the 20 meter salvage zone. I know there have been several complaints filed against him with the DENR, but nothing was ever done to Mr. O, why? I have lived on Bantayan Island several years not and am aware of these walls and other structures in the 20 meter salvage zone. I can truly say none of these structures have caused any problems with the beaches there but have in fact kept the owners land from eroding. The law in fact states the 20 meter salvage zone is for emergency uses only, not for recreational use. Mr Lhuillier won a case in the Philippine Supreme Court several years ago where the decision in his favor stated that people did not have the right to use his beach for recreational use but only to take shelter in extreme conditions such as a storm. People have the right to use the beaches for recreation but not the 20 meters set aside as a salvage zone for fishermen and others that can use this 20 meters in extreme conditions.

 

Now after saying all of this I can say these walls have not prevented people from using the beaches which are below the high tide mark and belong to the Philippine Government. This whole problem was initiated by one man causing nothing but millions of pesos in damage to the resorts and later millions of pesos is lost beach front due to erosion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
after initial inspection and inventory by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources showed these resorts have also violated the Water Code of the Philippines for building structures within the 20-meter from the shore easement zone.

In my research and random net surfing for information on the Philippines, I have seen literally hundreds of photos of resorts with some kind of structures on the beach, some with jettys running out over the water with dining platforms and even sleeping cabins. Are all of these illegal, or can some kind of permit be obtained?

Yup, all of it illegal and the owners knew this was coming. They did the same thing in Malapascua a year or two ago, so it wasn't a secret. I think it's actually a good thing. It's about time the government started protecting the natural resources for posterity instead of looking the other way while while they are plundered.

`

 

 

This is not about the environment. I think Jesse had it right when he suggested the beaches are being cleared for large scale developement. Read Flemming's post. His structures were legal when built. So were everyone else's that are being destroyed. The coastline is eroding. The 20 meter limit is moving shoreward. THAT's an environmental issue. Most of the posters here are well meaning, pro-environment, but clueless. Riding the bus back north after a visit to Cebu I was paying attention to the coastline. The entire coast is lined with structures within the 20 meter limit, whether they were legal or not when built. Why start with a remote, low key tourist destination where the structures were built outside the line, but the line moved in. When looking for answers to questions that make no sense, follow the money.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Flemming for this post to quiet the people who spoke out of turn. What you say tells me exactly what I suspected. You followed all the instructions you were given and were still denied justice. Where exactly is the shoreline when the law was passed? Nobody knows, but I am sure the permits will be granted to the "friends" of the lawmakers when they try to take over.

 

Don't give up, challenge this in a higher court, get a lawyer who will take up your cause.

 

 

Thanks all you guys, for those of you who never been Bantayan and Saint Bernard I just stumbled over a video from 2009. on you tube,We didnt make it...how wide shall the beachfront be when it is not measured after extrem bad weather try look this video

for info, I can tell that the hight in sand level every year change fron a 1,5meter high wall to a 20centimeter high wall, every year the sand go away and return allmost same amount, all depen the HABAGAT (MONZONE)...

Shall that PARADISE be destroyed and for what reason ?

 

Everyone who thinks DENR is doing a good thing here and that the resort owners should just quit violating the law should look at the last scene in the video that can be accessed by the link above. It shows absolute proof that St. Bernard was originally 20 meters or more from the sea, and by inference all the rest of the resorts being demolished were also. This or any other evidence was not allowed to be shown at the hearing. This wanton destruction is a travesty and should be stopped immediately and the owners compensated for damages. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lots of sympathy for those who complied with all the laws as written at the time they built structures on the beach. Perhaps in some cases they should be "grandfathered" in, as someone else mentioned. However, I think the greater good is to preserve beach use and access for everyone, not just those lucky enough to have beachfront property.

 

In Hawaii there were studies done that found that seawalls did more harm than good in preserving sand. Apparently erosion and renewal of the sand is an ongoing process that built up the sand beaches in the first place. Seawall disturb those currents and result in less sand than otherwise would be the case. I can understand how an individual property owner would want to preserve his own piece of paradise, but at what cost to others?

 

You are on the right track but not quite there. The seawalls that have been built (yes, within the 20 meter zone) were built out of desperation to protect the rest of the properties, which were originally built on high and dry land well away from the sea, have been protecting the shoreline.

The problem, according to a professional study which was not allowed to be admitted into evidence at the hearing, is the pier, built in 2003 on fill reaching out into the sea rather than on pilings which would let the water flow under the pier. Since it was built, severe erosion problems have been occuring from the pier around the isand to the rocks at Octong Cave. It was apparently built without adequate professional design services. Saved a few pesos, I guess. The authorities are blaming the resort owners for their own mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Someone raised my attention to this thread, thats why the late reply.

 

You know what? feck them all at these authorities ... I can say it without looking at the resorts and whatever they did. Why the same authorities dont come and see the squatter areas in Cebu or any place else and start demolishing them? Or set some rules for the squatters where to put up their houses and where not to?

I understand they have to live somewhere but if the beach should be protected that much, why not a city center or main roads of it?

 

What a bullcrap!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
musicman666

i think the rule is if you want to push the envelope on costal development you need to make sure its next door to a judge or politician who has already done just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone raised my attention to this thread, thats why the late reply.

 

You know what? feck them all at these authorities ... I can say it without looking at the resorts and whatever they did. Why the same authorities dont come and see the squatter areas in Cebu or any place else and start demolishing them? Or set some rules for the squatters where to put up their houses and where not to?

I understand they have to live somewhere but if the beach should be protected that much, why not a city center or main roads of it?

 

What a bullcrap!

 

 

 

 

 

its always about the money..... say you own beach front you sell it for 10,000 a sq meter and your happy as a pig in shit but as time goes on you hear the same property is now going for 50.000 a sq meter and it pisses you off and you keep thinking if only i can find a way to get MY property back i was ripped off at 10,000 a sq meter yea i was tricked i will file a case.... the difference between a large group of squatters and a beach resort is two things... if you stop a shantie village from being destroyed your a hero and can gain lots of votes... if you find a way to take back the now much improved beach front from a bunch of foreigners your again a hero to the people plus you get a chance to re sell the property at the new price

Link to post
Share on other sites
ArieBombarie
after initial inspection and inventory by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources showed these resorts have also violated the Water Code of the Philippines for building structures within the 20-meter from the shore easement zone.

In my research and random net surfing for information on the Philippines, I have seen literally hundreds of photos of resorts with some kind of structures on the beach, some with jettys running out over the water with dining platforms and even sleeping cabins. Are all of these illegal, or can some kind of permit be obtained?

 

 

a lot of nice beaches have been destroyed with everybody getting closer to the sea untill there was no beach left, I think everybody is aware of the rules but they seldom get enforced, public beaches sort of get turned into private ones

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The law is the law and is made to protect us therefore we shall follow it

 

 

What do we then do once you have followed all present laws and demands to do and secure your actions correctly? For then to be told that even though you did what you should, you are now judged as a violator AND YOU WAS NOT EVEN GIVEN THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN COURT!

 

 

I am Flemming, own together with Eden, Saint Bernard Beach Resort. Thanks to the kind back up I can read here. Thanks also to the negative and sceptical they made the forum and might just not be aware of the facts in this sad story.

 

 

The sad in what the public can read in the news is:

 

We are described/judged as violator. Of illegal construction. Fact is, the law after wich they judge us was started implement in 1995, the same year as (for us) St.Bernard was start constructed. (we bought it in 2000) the law was not start implemented or even known in the Island until year 2002. That was the year DENR came to us and implement us to secure an ECC (environmental compliant certificate) and follow the demands for having it. We did get all certificates that were lucking etc etc. And was among the first to avail the the ECC. By that time DENR assured us that once you have that certificate we are there to help and protect you in any invironmental problem you might have

Link to post
Share on other sites
asiawolfie

so what about the entire "Demolition" - situation now, as of November 2010 ?

as someone else mentioned here, nothing to be found at the wowbantayan-website, most probably because the guy who runs that website is worried to scare away travelers and then lose his own website-business.....

 

which r those 13 additional resorts to be demolished ? and what is the status Quo ? any Court ruling out yet or to expect in the near future ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...