More Reactions to: A Different Water Deal For LPC HOs

A wise maneuvering by BFHI. Here we are again engulfed in the greediness of who else (BFHI) coupled with the evil designs of some of his cohorts. Our counterpart homeowners from Las Piñas should be enlightened on the ill effects of declaring the LPC portion as an open area. UBFHAI having no control and direct supervision of the aforesaid open area will make us vulnerable to all sort of inconveniences including criminality. Why did and what made MWSI consented to such an agreement with BFHI and LPC which is onerous? I don’t know. Was there no objection or opposition to the aforesaid agreement. It will be the same dog with a different collar for our Las Piñas side homeowners when the ROW takes effect. Cost wise, it does not differ from the Parañaque side homeowners. The biggest winner here is BFHI because it is the beneficiary of the toll on ROW while the losers are MWSI for shouldering the cost of the reticulation system and the whole BF homeowners for declaring the Las Piñas portion an open area. I wonder why there is no uniformity in the application of what was agreed in Congress considering that we are talking here of one subdivision.

***    
I’m not residing in the LPC side. But I’m just curious whether the Maynilad arrangement with the LPC area as an OPEN AREA would consequently and obviously also mean that the roads in those areas will necessarily be at the disposition of the LPC Mayor? BF-LPC residents may be getting a more affordable water deal but effectively forfeit their right to secure this portion of BF Homes with UBFHAI guards. LPC on the whole will definitely stand to benefit as BF roads can now be utilized to ease traffic especially along the Alabang-Zapote road.

***

Why we don’t agree with the proposed Las Piñas model.

1. The P10 per cu.m. or P300/month (average usage of 30 cu.m) will be charged as Right of Way (ROW) for the next 4 years on top of the water consumption. This ROW has been paid for when we bought our lots in BF.

The P10 per cu.m x 30 cu. m. x 48 months (or 4 years) x 4,000 Las Piñas residents is equals to P57.6 million which is almost the amount of the P60 million loss from their investments that BFHI is trying to recover from the residents. Maynilad initially offered to pay BFHI P10 million.

Why should the residents pay for BFHI P60 million losses when their business is water but they do not have water? Why take it from us? Everyone can afford the P10/cu.m. but we are fighting for the principle of fairness and justice and our basic right to have water.

2. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which was drafted by BFHI and their allies for the Las Piñas residents is among (1) Las Piñas Homeowners, (2) BFH Inc. (Aguirre) and (3) Phil. Waterworks and Sewerage System (PWSS)?? The draft of the MOA also included blanks to charge additional fee for the next 4 years after the first 4 years and another blank to charge a certain amount thereafter.

How can we be sure that they will charge only for the first 4 years as BFHI is saying and not charge thereafter?

What we know is that BF water supplier is not PWSS but  PWCC, Phil. Waterworks CC with expired franchise since 2003. How can they supply water with no franchise, no water and no money to pay Meralco?

3. Why pay BFHI for Right of Way, after they have deprived us of water for more than 2 decades? In fact in the past, they billed us even if it is only air that is coming out of our faucets? We were still hoping then.

4. Why is BFHI billing the residents the Right of Way for Maynilad to lay the pipes? Why haven’t they done so for Meralco, PLDT, cable companies and other service providers?

5. If it is legal to charge, why are other developers not charging their residents for the entry of Maynilad, ex. Tahanan and Ayala Alabang?

6. If the developers have the right to charge Right of Way, no prospective homeowner will be interested to buy lots. Specifically, we bought our lots in BF Homes because of the amenities, i.e. well-paved roads, water supply, electricity, church and commercial center.

7. The Right of Way issue is the recourse of BFHI to collect more money from the residents when BFHI actually has the obligation to turn over the roads and parks to the homeowners which they have not done so intentionally considering that BFHI has been our developer for almost 50 years.

With all the above reasons, can we still trust the developer BF Homes, Inc.?

Changing the Script

T

he agreement between Maynilad and the homeowners in the Las Piñas portion of BF Homes is being spun to death by an avalanche of contradictory or confusing statistics and gross distortions. This is being fanned by Maynilad’s mix signals as to who will bear the cost of the infrastructure.

No excavation permit

The truth is Maynilad cannot proceed to lay down the pipes for the water system without excavation permit that city hall refuses to grant.

Right of Way (ROW) Fee

Maynilad’s announcement of pass-on/will not pass-on the cost of the infrastructure to homeowners provides the opportunity for city hall to propose a re-writing of the contract with the BFHI declaration of the Las Piñas portion of BF Homes as an OPEN AREA and a right of way fee of P10 per cu.m. of water consumption of every homeowner payable to BFHI. Maynilad is reportedly agreeable not to pass on the cost of the infrastructure with the conversion from private to OPEN AREA of the Las Piñas portions of BF Homes Subdivision.

Simultaneous pass-on/will not pass-on policy

When Maynilad was seeking extension of its franchise, it made known its policy to fund from the capex budget the cost of infrastructure. Coinciding with approval of its franchise, Maynilad’s President Rogelio Singson justifies the reversal of that policy with the announcement that “…the existing policies of MWSS will still govern the concessionaires.  When we say we are ready to include and assist private subdivisions, what we are doing in BF will continue.  We still cannot subsidize private subdivisions under existing policies of MWSS and under HLURB/PD-1345.”

Of course this is outrageous. The MWSS had installed main water pipes on El Grande, Aguirre and President Avenues, but the residents were not asked to pay for their installation and maintenance. Other gated subdivisions such as Times Village in Las Piñas City and Annex 1618 enclave in Better Living, Parañaque City also had their water system rehabilitated but the repair costs were not passed on to consumers.

Ultimately, homeowners believe the burden of paying for the water infrastructure should not be passed on to consumers. This question will be eventually resolved. For the moment, what is important is to have potable water in our taps instead of a rhetorical battle.

OPEN AREA

Part of the allure of subdivision living is the comparative privacy and exclusivity which the residents enjoy. Otherwise, we might as well have lived along the main road and spared ourselves the expense of paying a premium for our abodes. Perhaps our politicians would not would not think too highly of their idea of general access through subdivision roads if it were they whose relaxation would be disturbed by the constant honking of horns and the screeching of tires, or if they had to live in constant fear of a wayward car plowing through their front doors, decimating the entire household, maids, children and all.

Let’s proceed with the assurance that we are all in the same boat. Let’s not change the script!

Unequal Treatment

Cost comparison between the yet-to-be-finalized LPC model vs. the Parañaque and Muntinlupa Model:                                                  

                                                  

Particulars	Las Piñas	Parañaque
Service Connection Fee	7,142	7,142
Excavation Cost	free	5,980
Water System Cost	free	15,360
Right of Way Cost to BFHI	14,400	-
Total	21,542	28,482

We can punch holes in the arguments proffered to explain and justify the unequal treatment of the concessionaire. But that and the explanatory justifications will not alter the fact that there is unequal treatment.

But it is one thing for a thing to be no longer possible, and another to accept that as a principle, and consequently, no longer seek to level the playing field.

A Different Water Deal For LPC HOs

W

e thank Congressman Roilo Golez for providing us with the information on an agreement in principle between Las Piñas City, Maynilad, BF Homes, Inc. and BF Homes Las Piñas homeowners. Here are the proposed agreements with our concerns/comments:

First, BFHI will declare the LPC portion of BF Homes Subdivision as OPEN AREA, thus it may not be considered as a gated, private community anymore, as such, it won’t be covered by the provision of the IRR of PD1345 which mandates that the costs of construction of water reticulation systems in gated, private subdivisions have to be for the account of the homeowners;

Comments: This seems to be an  incorrect interpretation of the decree as to who will shoulder the cost to render the water system to operate at a desired level. Here is the relevant portion of the decree:

“Section 2. Upon takeover of the water system, the MWSS shall evaluate such system considering the adequacy, potability and other prevailing operating conditions. The MWSS shall thereafter cause the system to operate at the desired level as to provide adequate and potable water supply. The cost to render the system operable shall be chargeable to the subdivision owner/developer provided that the provision of adequate water supply has been specified or implied in the contract of sale or other forms used in offering the housing units within the project for sale. Otherwise, the cost to make the system operational shall be chargeable to the homeowners of the subdivision.” (Emphasis provided).

As marketed and widely advertised in 1969, BF Homes Parañaque was to have been self-contained with open spaces for parks and recreation, a commercial center, a church, a school and a water system touted to be tapped from an inexhaustible water table.

Adequate and stable supply of water is an assurance, among others, made by the BF Homes, Inc. However, this basic necessity and commitment has been denied by the developer to its lot buyers (now residents and homeowners) to the immeasurable detriment of the latter.

Clearly, the  cost to rehabilitate the system should be charged to the developer BFHI as provided by the decree.

This is not quite understood by the public, but the executive order of President Arroyo, which has been touted to finally make possible the takeover of a subdivision’s water system by the homeowners association, is actually only the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the old decree.

The IRR provides that the petition for takeover shall be made by either the developer or the duly constituted homeowners association. But there are other basic requirements for the petition that only the developer can comply with, such as the mandatory pressure tests and the technical data on the pipes and equipment, so that even if the association files the petition, it will not move, until the developer complies with the technical requirements. And in BF Homes, the developer’s intransigence is legend! The problem is thus reduced to a Sisyphean situation, that is to say, endlessly laborious or futile.

“Takeover” does not mean confiscation. It means takeover under the principles of due process and just compensation since BFHI still owns the waterworks system on paper.

But MWSS/Maynilad did not “takeover” the BF Waterworks under PD1345. Instead, Maynilad contracted to provide each enclave potable water system separate from that of BF Waterworks.

For instance, in a letter to an enclave, BFHI threatened legal action for the excavation on the road lots for the purpose of laying water pipes without securing permit from the developer. “The road lots inside the subdivision BF Homes Parañaque are still private in nature as there is yet no donation made in favor of the local government or any homeowners association. Being private roads, no exaction or any construction works may be made therein without the written permit from the developer or owner.”

The cost of the subdivision lots sold include all costs such as roads and parks, open spaces and other improvements. As the Supreme Court stressed in the in the doctrinal White Plains case: “The owners of a subdivision include all costs, such as the setting aside of road spaces and open areas for parks, and possibly the construction of curbs and whatever improvements it may have published entice lot buyers, in computing the value at which all lots shall be sold. If the subdivision reneges on any of its commitments, as exemplified in this case, the lot buyers are short-changed. They are made to pay more for less than what was agreed upon.” Having paid for them when they bought their properties, the homeowners, in effect, are the beneficial owners of these amenities.

A good alternative is for the mayors of the 3 cities to expeditiously, with unwavering political will, pursue the acquisition by the LGUs of the road lots, open spaces, etc. of BF Homes by public auction of these properties for non-payment of real property taxes - as the LGUs can immediately transfer title to the properties in their favor per the LGU code of 1991 and the Issuance of the Land Registration Authority. This suggestion has been gathering dust and dusted every election and conveniently forgotten afterwards.

Second, once declared open area, Maynilad seems to have agreed to underwrite the cost of construction to be funded from its CAPEX budget, thus, unlike in the  Parañaque and Muntinlupa areas, MWSI seems to have agreed not to pass on the burden to the homeowners-consumers, subject to the approval of MWSS and the availability and prioritization of MWSI’s CAPEX funds;

Comments: After Maynilad’s President Rogelio Singson statement that “…[we] still cannot subsidize private subdivisions under existing policies of MWSS and under HLURB/PD-1345”, it is pertinent to ask what are the existing policies of MWSS that allows Maynilad (under its charter?) to charge private subdivision homeowners for the cost of construction of water system.

In BF Homes Parañaque, the construction cost of the water system is equally divided among the  homeowners in the enclave. What is unfair is that the commercial establishments along the main roads where the main pipes are installed do not have to pay for the construction cost but only connection cost and charged the commercial rate of the water consumed as compared to the lower residential rate for homeowners.

What is disgusting is the requirement that not only homeowners have to pay for the water system but also “donate” it to Maynilad. The homeowners have to pay 48 monthly installments so they obviously do not own the water system. How can they legally donate the system they don’t own?

To top it all, the tertiary pipes (black pipes) are temporary installations on the sidewalk. After 48 months, a new tertiary pipes will be (permanently?) installed. Since Maynilad “cannot subsidize construction cost in private subdivisions” (except BF Homes Las Piñas?) so BF Homes Parañaque homeowners will have to dig into their pockets again for another round of installation cost of the tertiary pipes.

Third, in consideration for its declaration of the LPC portion of BF Homes Subdivision as open area, there shall be, for  four years only, an add-on charge of P10.00 per cubic meter of actual consumption as a RIGHT-OF WAY (ROW) toll fee in favor of and payable to BF Homes, Inc. Assuming an average consumption of 30cu.m. /month, the cost to the homeowner is P300/month for a total of P14,400 in 4 years. This ROW toll fee shall be billed as a separate line item and included in the monthly water bill /SOA of Maynilad which MWSI has agreed to include, subject to the approval of the MWSS-Regulatory Office. MWSI, however, clarified that if the customer won’t pay this ROW toll fee item in the bill/SOA they will not disconnect.

Fourth, the homeowner has the option to accept or reject this ROW toll fee, but it would seem he/she really has no viable option as rejection means no potable water service connection.

Comments: This arrangement is beneficial to both Maynilad and the developer but not to the homeowners. Maynilad avoids the cost of due process and just compensation for the system and the developer gets to charge P10 per cu.m. used by the homeowners by way of compensation for the system that Maynilad is supposed to pay when it acquires the system. This tantamount to tolerating and rewarding the utter misrepresentation and dereliction of duty committed by the developer while penalizing the residents and homeowners in continuously depriving them of much needed potable water.

At the risk of being repetitious, there is no sense of personal honor of keeping one’s word anymore. We have become a society of Pontius Pilates, washing our hands of responsibilities as he did. Yet a man who does not keep his promises is not a man; he is a weasel.