Was The Subic Dumping Just More Anti VFA Spin?

There is no evidence that any waste, toxic or not was actually dumped inside Subic Bay, in fact the harbor master says it was outside the bay but whether it was treated correctly or not is still unresolved and probably never will be.

There is certainly no evidence that anything toxic ever existed, but for Subic Bay stakeholders we want to be sure nothing was released inside the bay toxic or not and nothing will be dumped in future regardless of whether it’s from a Navy ship or any other type of ship. If you observe the Glenn Defense Marine ships on the live map ( http://marinetraffic.com ) you can see that they do this work every day for many ships, mostly in Manila not Subic Bay, calling it a US Navy problem is obfuscation. Someone either tried to gain political or commercial gain from spinning the story as “US contractor dumps toxic waste”.

As I am writing this piece, I can see the Glenn Enterprise at the Manila Port next to a Cambodian freighter and this is the way it is every day, this has NOTHING to do with the US government.

Samples taken from the Glenn Defense boat where held overnight by the company’s biggest competitor making any form of prosecution based on those samples impossible anyway but the issue will have placed SBMA on their toes so we can hope that this is never be an issue again. Probably the worst thing Glenn Defense Marine can be charged with is for not having a coast guard permit, hardly an international incident!

It astonishes us that radical groups want to spin this into anti American propaganda, let’s face it if a garbage truck that is servicing the Philippine embassy in Hong Kong (as well as 500 local businesses) dumped its waste in a nearby park is it the fault of Philippine foreign policy or the ignorant failing of a local contractor? Should the HK government place sanctions on the Philippine government for the actions of the Chinese dump truck driver? It really is TRASH talk.

The people of Subic Bay had to go through all this VFA propaganda nonsense once before during the “Subic Rape Case” which all boiled down to not really happening in the first place yet we had to painfully live through the minority agendas spinning a spat between two teenagers to be something that it was not. Didn’t the anti VFA lobby get enough egg on their face that time? They were so convinced that a rape occurred and that the US was to blame, well the stakeholders of Subic Bay are sick of being your pawns. Stick to your issues and don’t involve us because we have a coal power plant to stop and you’re not helping us with our agenda, are you?

If there is good reason to cancel the VFA make your case based on its own merits, we agree that US foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired, but trying to drag Subic Bay into that agenda because a local contractor dumped some sewerage is not debating the issue. If the VFA is wrong prove it wrong for LEGITIMATE REASONS. It seems the anti-American, anti-VFA lobby doesn’t have any legitimate claims or they would stop making stuff up.

Stakeholders Slam DENR And RP Energy at Public Meeting

RP Energy never got to show their first Powerpoint slide in todays failed "public consultation meeting" when stakeholders and residents took over the floor asking why the DENR once again only invited "friends" of RP Energy not stakeholders who had heard about the meeting on Facebook, gave no notice of a meeting, did not provide materials and told everyone the question time would be limited.

The Vice Governor of Zambales asked why is this project being pushed in Subic Bay when AES who runs the Masinloc power plant is offering to pick up the extra MW requirement amongst cheers from stakeholders.

One of the most exciting moments was when a representative of the Olongapo Mayor quoted an RP Energy executive as saying "if the public doesn't want us we will just leave", he went through the list of stakeholders in the LGU sector that have unanimously rejected the project then turned to the executive and said "sir now is the time for you to leave", bringing cheers from the audience.

A former pilot and local resident came prepared to show that the Plume from the smoke attacks was in violation of international standards for airline safety and when DENR were challenged about their own studies they said revealed that they did not do any study on the subject, they relied on RP Energy to provide the studies, meaning of course they based their decision on biased materials.

Eventually DENR closed the meeting after the audience voted 98-54 that the meeting should not proceed without being properly organized. Strangely enough even though it was RP Energy staff who counted the vote and RP Energy executive got up and started screaming that they didn't accept the vote and that they will have the meeting even if everyone has gone.

The DENR and RP Energy roadshow has suffered another direct hit, now it will be seen if they try to organize another public meeting.

Poor Enforcement by SBMA LED

Comment from a reader on the story "Subic Bay - Stop Sign Hell":

Why are bicycles allowed to go through stop signs without stopping or even slowing down without ever getting ticketed by the police?

Several times when I leave a stop sign when it is my turn to go a bicycle goes right in front of me without stopping at his stop sign. Don't they also have to make a full stop like vehicles? I am not referring to when there is a bike rally, I mean just people riding their bikes to work.

 

THE SUBIC BULLETIN:

Yes we have also observed the poor enforcement of bicycles in the Freeport. They are not ticketed for:

· Running stop signs

· Riding on pedestrian crossing

· Overtaking vehicles on the left that are queued at stop signs

One of the most dangerous breaches is when drivers are turning right from Aguinaldo Street into Rizal Highway suddenly have bicycles race up the right hand side and swerve around the front of the turning car, I can just imagine the bicycle rider blaming the car when he gets knocked off but the LED don’t lift a finger to ensure this doesn't happen.

Many residents of the Freeport are not aware that the road rules of the Freeport include the compulsory wearing of helmets for cyclists. But it seems that as the SBMA bicycle cops don’t like wearing helmets so they overlook this rule...

 

SBMA Keeping us in the Dark Again....

Comment from a reader:

And what about the non-working traffic lights on the busiest crossing in town, Rizal Avenue and Argonaut Highway. The two posted policemen are just waiting for an accident to happen instead of controlling the traffic.

And what about the turn off to Tipo on the Rizal Highway? Again the traffic lights stopped working some weeks ago. As there are no traffic signs, the majority of the road users have no clue what to do now.

Please fix these traffic lights before a serious accident happens!



It’s hard to believe that any organization could have such a bad maintenance record, but yes the majority of traffic lights in Subic Bay Freeport DON'T WORK!

How can it be that the very place designed to be an Oasis of modern development and international technology can't even maintain its traffic lights?

Clark has many new sets of traffic lights but maybe that’s possibly because Clark has a fraction of the employees. All that dead wood and no one to fix a traffic light....

SBMA Needs Traffic Management Plan

Comment from a reader on "Subic Bay - Stop Sign Hell":


I fully agree with the comments in respect of STOP signs.

But can we go back a page.

Who decides these rules and regulations.

Surely it can't just be left to the Traffic Police to decide these things unilaterally they must get instructions to place the signs and where they are to be placed from the highest authority who in turn must have discussed the topic and studied the grounds for implementation and then voted on it.

Or as it seems here a new shopping mall comes into operation and suddenly new Traffic Signs and STOP signs appear this is NOT a democratic process in that the mall dictates what it wants and the Traffic Police agrees that is wrong!! I am sure and hope that this is not correct. New signs should not be erected purely for the commercial gain and convenience of Locators.

So, who initially makes the original decision and they should at all times make the public aware, and plain, to ALL residents why they have decided to erect STOP signs where NONE are sensibly required or traffic lights, which are as in the case in question so very close to each other or to shut down traffic lights which still causes massive confusion when vehicles STOP at switched off traffic lights THIS causes accidents it does not prevent them. There is NO communication at all. When changes in the road system, the rules regulations, signages are changed, SBMA should notify all residents and an explanation given.

The splendid Subic Bulletin is the perfect vehicle for such communication.

Sleeping Policemen as road HUMPS are called in many cases are simply and mostly illogical, they cause damage to vehicles, damage to your body, your back in particular as many studies in developed societies have clearly demonstrated, and they are incredibly inconsistent some smooth and relatively flat some are like running over a 6" pipe on a slight incline where the road surface has been slightly raised.

They are totally inconsistent not two the same. In most countries now where they are used to slow traffic outside schools they are regular with an even slope and not with a sharp 'bump on top' as they do here they are well seen and there is no complaint.

Many are unseeable at night in SBMA because they are not clearly marked, unless you know where they are, and ALL of them are a serious hazard to emergency services, like the Ambulance, Fire and Police services.

KEEP IT EASY!!! Why make simple things so complicated and difficult.

My major gripe, at the moment, is at the 'old' Main Entrance there are two sets of Pedestrian Crossings and police in waiting should a driver not stop but the problem is that few if any pedestrians show any respect toward the drivers who have stopped, if anything they walk across the pedestrian crossing much slower than they normally walk. They should NOT run, but they should be brisk and prompt and not dawdle and so irresponsible as many are and do.

Those pedestrian crossings need traffic lights or Police Control, yes the police are there in numbers all waiting for the errant driver, which is frustrating because they are there NOT there to organise and to get the traffic moving efficiently and SAFELY they are only interested in fines and taking money BUT they don't manage the traffic as they should and that includes foot traffic.

And NONE of the official SBMA vehicles are ever stopped and they are the worst offenders of traffic violations why is this. If you don't believe this then how many SBMA vehicles have rear lights, not many, and the drivers generally have little respect for traffic codes at all or am I wrong. Finally why are there different codes of conduct after sun down than in the day time I have always wondered this.

So many Traffic Police Officers hide behind trees and then run out into the middle of the road to stop an errant driver I am greatly surprised that there are no fatalities this is negative and only serves to alienate residents, yes we know it but it is an embarrassment.

YES we all agree and accept motorised and foot Traffic needs to be controlled but it has to be planned and well managed for it to be respected, efficient and SAFE.

Subic Resident.


The Subic Bulletin:
We think you are saying that there is many problems in SBMA's traffic management, and we agree, a coordinated plan and consistency of policy seems to be missing. Maybe they are just depending on the vehicle volume leaving when the CUSA gets enforced...

Subic Bay - STOP SIGN HELL!

Letter from a reader:

I am concerned that SBMA's desperation for revenue is the objective behind the huge amount of stop signs placed along Rizal Avenue, is this the only way they can generate funds?

 

SUBIC BULLETIN:

We share your concerns that SBMA seems to have illogically placed stop signs on one of the Freeport’s busiest road for no apparent reason we find it hard to believe that they revenue generation is the purpose but certainly the situation seems mismanaged.

Here is what we see as wrong:

Corner Labitian St and Rizal Hwy.

There is very little traffic coming out of Labitian so the new stop signs are not warranted.

The stop signs at Labitian Street intersection should be removed on Rizal Hwy and the two nearby pedestrian crosswalks brought up to the corners of Labitian Street and install pedestrian crossing signs and good street lighting at night. The LED should then pull over and ticket every car that fails to stop when a pedestrian is trying to cross. Pedestrians from the school and Regulator Building can then cross with safety.

Corner of Sta Rita and Rizal Highway.

The problem with this intersection is that it is to wide and open and some collisions occur mainly because it is a big are to observe when passing.

The answer here is to reduce the area that vehicle paths cross and install pedestrian crossings.

This can be done temporarily as a test and made permanent later by the use of concrete blocks.

While decreasing the size of the danger zone it will also be possible to install "turn right at any time with care" lanes thus greatly improving the overall traffic flow.

What’s been done with stops signs is an absurd and childish attempt at traffic control and is already causing accidents?

Just like the CUSA poor management and narrow foresight is choking us.

CUSA Draconian, BCDA

The locators and residents of Subic Bay had such high hopes for the leadership of SBMA with the new board and appointment of Chairman Garcia, but so far it’s been a string of disappointments. Now even former SBMA chairman and now chair of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) has been added to those disappointed in Chairman Garcias decision making capacity citing the CUSA as Draconian.

The below article is from the inquirer:
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—The top official of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) said the state-run Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) should reconsider its plans to impose a controversial fee because it might trigger an exodus of locators in this free port and worsen its financial woes.

BCDA Chair Felicito Payumo said the SBMA, which is planning to impose the Common Use Service Area (Cusa) fee, should get all business locators involved in the discussion on how to address problems faced by the agency.

“Providing an investor-friendly environment should be [the priority in the free port]. This is done through working with locators,” Payumo said.

The Cusa fee intends to recover SBMA’s expenditures for municipal services such as street cleaning, street lighting, fire fighting and law enforcement inside the free port.

Under the scheme, locators would be charged 2 percent of the appraised value of their leased land, or 20 percent of their monthly lease rental, whichever is higher. Free port residents would be charged P1,200 monthly, which would also cover garbage fees that the SBMA has been collecting.

But the free port’s business community protested the Cusa fee collection and warned they would file charges against the SBMA to prevent its implementation.

SBMA Chair Roberto Garcia earlier said only a court order would prevent the SBMA from enforcing the fee.

“The SBMA’s Cusa fee will affect only the direct lessees, meaning those who have direct lease agreements with the SBMA. But of course, they can pass it on to their sub-lessees,” he said.

Garcia said objections from locators had forced the SBMA to modify the fee structure.

Payumo, a former SBMA chair, said policies that impose draconian measures, like the Cusa fee, might force locators to leave the Subic free port and “make it difficult to attract new ones to replace them.”

Asked if BCDA would intervene in the conflict on behalf of locators, Payumo said: “Although BCDA has oversight capacity, we cannot interfere with decisions made by the SBMA management.”

He said he was confident that Garcia and the SBMA board could address the problem. Robert Gonzaga, Inquirer Central Luzon

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/276098/reconsider-new-fee-bcda-tells-sbma

OK Administrator Garcia What Now?

The staff of the Subic Bulletin was very optimistic for change when SBMA Chairman Garcia and the new board came into power, but we are still waiting...

So far we have been disappointed to see:

• Senior SBMA Administrators entangled in smuggling and a Senate investigation
• Worsened security including a severe spate of burglaries in residential areas
• Locators and residents lumbered with a new, possibly illegal tax called CUSA
• Increased paperwork for investors in violation of the "anti red-tape act", now requiring locators to do 3 times the paperwork for their permits

What we were hoping for was:

• Cancel the biased and unfair agreement with RP Energy that has no social acceptance
• Negotiation with the National and Local Government for some share of tax revenues
• Repair or replacement of the perimeter fence to secure the Freeport
• Cost reduction campaign in SBMA including the phased and planned reduction of SBMA employees and redeployment where possible into the private sector
• Restructure the loan with the Japanese for the underutilized port facility after all it was their idea.
• Improve the quality of the law enforcement department.
• Reduced red tape and more transparency

We are trying very hard to continue to be optimistic and supportive Chairman Garcia but you are not giving us much to hold on to.

At very least Chairman Garcia have the fortitude to cancel the Coal Fired Power Plant agreemnet completely so the Locators, Residents and local communities can see you have something to give rather than everything to take?

DOE Sec Attempts To Suppress The People

Sec Almendras, the former employee of Aboitiz now Sec of the Dept. of Energy says Govt. LGU's should be ignored.

http://www.interaksyon.com/business/41765/doe-pushes-insulation-of-power-projects-from-local-politics

We Say:

Has Sec Almendras forgotten what our national heroes fought for? Has he forgotten that the Philippines was given to the people? How dare he suggest that the will of the people be overridden so that he can better serve his former employer in pushing through their projects? He should be charged with treason!

The suggestion that the LGU’s, who, in this case, the voice of the people should be suppressed and by-passed is something one would only expect in a communist country, not a country that has already fought for its freedom! Did Sec Almendras not notice that we just celebrated National Heroes Day while he is dancing on their graves?

In the case of Subic Bay, the residents of the area have strongly opposed the construction of a Coal Power Plant, the governor of Bataan has kindly offered an alternative site with social acceptability bad Sec Almendras and his Aboitiz cronies are determined to squeeze the life out of Subic because of a suspiciously bias agreement they got signed while the former president was in Power.

If the issue was as described by Sec Almendras, about national interest, Aboitiz and Meralco would be going ahead and already building the plant in Bataan, where they have acceptance, but no it’s not about National Interest it’s about GREED. Shame on you Sec Almendras, shame on you.

RP Energy Fakes Social Acceptance (Defrauds Local Government Officials)

The latest move from the corrupt bowels of the RP Energy dirty tricks department was a fake social acceptance meeting staged last Friday and Freeport stakeholders were definitely NOT invited.

It was Subic Bays best kept secret to business leaders, residents and stakeholders while RP Energy put on a road show reminiscent of Presidential election time.

The night before this façade, organizers spilled the beans to The Subic Bulletin that RP Energy had already “organized” 5,000 attendees to be brought in by busses from the province at a bounty of 300-500 Pesos per person! Added to this free food, popcorn machines and free drinks and the unethically acquired crowd would have cheered at anything.

When SBMA held REAL social acceptance meetings last year with residents and stakeholders present RP Energy didn’t even show up. In an attempt to convince government leaders there is social acceptance RP Energy perverted the social acceptance process by buying a crowd.

Paid visitors had to sign in, but uninvited residents who heard about the secret meeting were told that they CANNOT sign in. We are assuming that these purchased signatures are what RP Energy will use to falsify public acceptance.

Some of the paid crowed were given a little more money to read out questions to prompt the canned answers RP Energy had prepared, but laughter fell upon the auditorium when some “interested persons” had trouble reading their RP Energy provided questions. Clearly many of this crowd did not even understand the questions, did not understand or care about the issues but simply cared about their payment.

Of course for this dubious occasion SBMA and local government leaders were invited to witness the overwhelming acceptance of the project, but did they see through this disgraceful misrepresentation? Why did SBMA not pass on an invitation this time?

The deception and dishonesty of RP Energy has now reached a new level, President Aquino is riding on a platform of transparency and honesty in government yet here is the biggest political deception in the country, so why is the President failing to stop it. Why is the President allowing the DENR officials to join the RP Energy “roadshow” like little RP Energy puppets without questioning their motives (or bank accounts).

President Aquino, Do you support deception and fraud or do you support the people who elected you?

Choose your side Mr President.

SBMA Aligns with Local Community on Coal Plant

SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—Top officials of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) have asked President Benigno Aquino to relocate the 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant project of an energy consortium out of Subic due to the potential danger it poses on the freeport and mounting opposition from stakeholders of the economic zone.

“This is the official position of the board [that was arrived at on May 4], which I have communicated to the President, and [RP Energy Inc., a consortium of energy companies Aboitiz Power, Manila Electric Co. and Taiwan Cogen Corp.],” said SBMA Chair Roberto Garcia on Wednesday.

Malacañang has yet to respond to the SBMA position.

“There is no indication [from President Aquino that he has decided on the proposed Subic plant’s fate]. But in a recent meeting with [Energy] Secretary Jose Rene Almendras], I told him [about

SBMA’s position],” Garcia said.

In a 2011 energy forum in Baguio City, Almendras described the Subic project as a new facility that would sustain Luzon’s power supply in the near future.

In an interview, Garcia said: “In summary, because of the widespread opposition to the coal plant, we have requested the President to relocate [the facility] somewhere else … because, for obvious reasons, major tourism projects will be downgraded. [The value and attractiveness] of Subic will be downgraded. [Besides,] there are many other places [that RP Energy] can locate the coal plant, so why here?”

Garcia said the abandoned Bataan nuclear power plant is a good alternative site for the RP Energy coal-fired plant. “[The government] has infrastructure there. Four hundred hectares [are] developed, [so] all they have to do is build the jetty,” he said.

In his May 2 letter to RP Energy chair Oscar Reyes, Garcia said “locating the coal plant in [Subic’s] unique forest and marine environment … would adversely compromise the freeport’s significant tourism potential.”

“There are many other places to locate this coal plant. There is only one Subic Bay,” he said.

In a report that SBMA submitted to Malacañang, the agency said the project was rejected by freeport stakeholders in a 2011 social acceptability process.

About 155 representatives of the area’s local governments, the zone’s business and tourism locators, freeport residents, landowners, including the Aeta indigenous communities, and freeport workers took part in the consultation process from Dec. 7 to 9.

RP Energy, however, did not join the consultations.

In a statement he made earlier, Raymond Cunningham, first vice president for business development of Aboitiz Power and member of RP Energy’s steering committee, said: “If we are convinced that the overwhelming majority of people in this area do not want the project, we would go away.”

Garcia acknowledged the need to improve power supply. But he said, “We don’t need [to build the coal plant] here in Subic. If that happens, then we might need to rethink major tourism projects for the freeport.”

He said SBMA has reservations about allowing RP Energy to proceed with the coal plant project because of “the highly disadvantageous contract that they have [with the SBMA].”

“Anybody that I talked to, when I tell them RP Energy will only be paying P1 million to SBMA every year, [they react by saying] ‘That’s outrageous,’” Garcia said.

“RP Energy cannot hold me to that contract. I will not allow it,” he added.

Should Malacañang decide to keep the RP Energy project in Subic, however, Garcia said SBMA was “willing to defer to the Office of the President with four or five conditions.”

These conditions were outlined in a June 7 letter to the newly formed Subic Bay Chamber for Health and Environment, he said.

He said RP Energy and the government should adhere to clean air standards to be set by SBMA based on World Health Organization requirements and that they should acquire the certification of an independent engineer stipulating the viability of ash ponds that could withstand climate change and geological calamities.

The coal-fired project must execute a power purchase agreement, compensate for the public health costs of communities near the plant, and integrate a working greenhouse gas emission reduction program, he said.

On June 5, members of the Zambales Electric Cooperative petitioned the Iba Regional Trial Court to restrain SBMA from issuing permits to RP Energy, arguing that the consortium had abandoned its plan to provide the province with cheap electricity. Robert Gonzaga, Inquirer Central Luzon

We applaud the SBMA board for its actions; we also believe that SBMA's requirement to meet W.H.O. standards instead of local Philippine standards will make the cost of operating the power plant unreasonable and the option of moving it the plant somewhere else move viable. Well played Chairman Garcia, nice to know you have an Ace up your sleeve.

SBMA Garbage Collectors The Prime Suspect

Letter from a reader:

Dear Subic Bulletin,
I have a problem here in Kalayaan that I would like to discuss.
We bought a nice dog for our children and within days it was stolen, about 6 months later we got another dog and again within days it was stolen.

What I find very suspicious is that both dogs were stolen from our front yard and both within a 20 minute window during which the garbage truck was the only vehicle seen in our quiet cul-de-sac.

Is it possible that the SBMA garbage collectors are also dog thieves?
The dog stolen yesterday was a really cute little "sausage dog" puppy called speedy.
How can we find out whats going on?


the subic Bulletin:
Has anyone else had this experience?
If anyone sees the little puppy please email the Bulletin we will connect you with the reader.

SBMA Must Suspend Winstar Today

It was reported in the local Tagalog press last Friday June 1 that Winstar Transport services was deregistered by the SEC 9 years ago.

Obviously, the first question we all must ask is how did SBMA continue to accredited and register as a locator a company that does not exist?

Even more concerning is the possibility that responsibility for a serious or fatal accident involving an illegally accredited vehicle could land right in the lap of the SBMA board, especially now that they know that Winstar is a nonexistent entity?

We are not going to delve into the politics of how this has been allowed to occur, nor the morality of the Windstar directors to operate without any legal right but for the sake of the uninformed and most certainly UNINSURED passengers Windstar services must be stopped immediately pending an investigation.

Here is the article: Click Here

SBMA Can Profit From The Forests

From a reader:
I just returned from attending the public hearing at the Convention Center on the new common use fee. It was explained at the hearing that the fee was needed largely because SBMA's principal source of revenue---lease payments---had dried up. Exisiting leases have been paid in full in advance, and SBMA has run out of land to lease, 60% of the Freeport being forest protected from development. However, SBMA could cash in on the 60% of the Freeport not open for development.

A number of companies have sprung up to sell "carbon offsets". Go to: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/top-carbon-offset-companies.html. These companies engage in reforestation projects, planting trees for the purpose of capturing carbon which would otherwise contribute to global warming. Individuals, companies, and governments purchase "carbon offsets" from these tree planting companies to compensate for the carbon generated by their activities. For example, an individual might buy a carbon offset to compensate for the carbon generated by an airplane flight.

Over the years, SBMA, its locators, and others have engaged in reforestation projects in the Freeport, but SBMA has not sought to market it's tree planting opportunities. With it's competitive labor rates, and fecund soil, and hothouse climate, SBMA could sell rights to reforest cut over areas in the Freeport to these carbon offset companies. By selling carbon offsets, these companies generate cash "up front"--before the trees are planted and grow to maturity--and thus could be a source of up front payment to SBMA for reforestation rights.

This would provide a new source of revenue for the Freeport and obviate the need for common use fees.

Is SBMA in the Red or Just Crying Poor?

From a reader:

SBMA is publicly claiming, as justification for imposing a Tax called CUSA that it’s projected P1.2 Billion to P1.5 Billion annual revenues are insufficient to meet its expenses, and haven't been since 2005. However, at the meeting of the Kalayaan residents and locators on May 27th, SBMA representatives disclosed, under questioning, that P800 Million of their claimed expenses are "depreciation expenses". When asked what property was being depreciated, they answered that it was the property acquired from the U.S. Navy in 1992, although adding that depreciation on some property acquired since then was also included in the depreciation figure. The SBMA representative admitted that the property acquired from the U.S. Navy in 1992 was "fully depreciated", meaning that it had reached the end of its useful life, for depreciation purposes, when acquired. Yet twenty years later hundreds of millions of depreciation "expense" on this property is still being recorded on the books of SBMA, every year.

At the May 27 meeting, and at the CUSA meeting for Locators at the Convention Center on May 22, SBMA representatives indicated that SBMA's expenses had been exceeding revenues since 2005, but SBMA had been able to "get by" in ways unspecified.

 Since the representatives claimed SBMA is entirely self-sufficient, I was wondering how SBMA was able to "get by" for so long without borrowing money to cover operational expenses.
Now that SBMA has disclosed its P 800 Million annual "depreciation expense", I believe I have my answer. It appears that, when the claimed depreciation is NOT taken into account, SBMA has not been in the red since 2005 at all. This means that SBMA's out of pocket expenses have not exceeded revenue since 2005 as presented, and SBMA is NOT in as bad financial state as portrayed.

True, the obligations to pay on the port loans only commenced in the last year or so. I don't know if this additional expense finally pushed SBMA into the red. However, it does appear that up to P 800 Million of SBMA's justification for the CUSA is bogus.

How Can SBMA Survive?

Last week SBMA called a meeting with Locators in Subic Freeport to tell them that SMBA was broke and could not meet their obligations.

SBMA's answer to their problem, TAXES disguised as services fees!

Yes it now seems a regular event to struggle through the COLR or CUSA or whatever other name SBMA officials can find to create a new tax and each time SBMA is given categorical thumbs down by the locators and residents, why?

What is it that makes Locators and Residents unwilling to help SBMA in their time of need?

SBMA is after all is in the blood of everyone in Subic so why Locators and Investors should so strongly rejects SBMA's cries for help?

For us here at the Subic Bulletin the answer comes from an old saying:
"God helps those who helps themselves"

During the presentation the SBMA representative put up slides that showed SBMA's greatest expense was MANPOWER. SBMA has around 3600 employees to administer Subic Bay Freeport and has only been able to reduce this number by 1% per year.

In another slide the SBMA representative showed that SBMA was spending P6M per month in Street Cleaning! By our calculations SBMA could potentially have 1 employee per street?

For benchmarking purposes let’s look at Clark Development Corporation that administers the Clark Freeport, which has no seaport but a thriving Airport.

CDC administers the Clark Freeport including Luzon's budget airline airport with 700 employees.

So why does SBMA have 4 employees to 1 in Clark, if you ask people inside SBMA they will say Politics. SBMA was foundered by thousands of volunteers who were then given jobs; Dick Gordon ruled the Freeport with a strong hand and showed great potential for the development of Subic. Unfortunately, a personal argument between Dick Gordon and Joseph Estrada saw EA-1 under the Estrada government removing Dick Gordon from the Freeport which then opened up the Freeport to a string of political forces that wanted their own people employed and something in it for them coupled with low accountability and very poor business decisions. This has proven to be SBMA's recipe for disaster.

The new administrator and the new board of SBMA seems to be the best administration since the Gordon times and give us the most hope for SBMA to recover, but is it too little too late?

The current administration is faced with a daunting task of fixing something that’s been broken for a long time; obviously all those who are employed by SBMA don't want to lose their jobs so they again want to push the problem onto Residents and Locators.

One thing is for sure, if eventually one of these politically disguised taxes is ever implemented it will just put a band aid over the real problem and without a doubt the problem will fester and rise up again and again. We know the SBMA response to the festering problem will be INCREASE THE TAXES, after all they will find a way to be exempt so let’s just keep hitting up the investors and residents for problems we choose to ignore. As the taxes go up the benefit of the Freeport reduces and the investors go away, so what then, raise the taxes again and again will be their only solution, that’s why it’s a solution doomed to failure from the beginning.

So, as civic minded people how do we assist the new SBMA administration to resolve this problem?

We believe the SBMA board should make a resolution to outsource the placement services for people currently employed by SBMA into the Private and local Government Sectors. By doing this they will not unduly effect local unemployment, reduce costs, provided much needed employees to the private sector and most of all SAVE SBMA.

Hanjin alone wants 10,000 employees right now, although there won’t be a match on all of those position there is a golden opportunity to kick off the staff cost reduction program, then as SBMA gives 2% of taxes to surrounding local governments the local government units should be strongly encouraged to take SBMA employees to fill any vacant positions.

Once SBMA has reduced its staff by 60% spend a little of the saved money on training and higher salaries for the employees chosen to carry SBMA back to glory.

So back to my comments about helping those who help themselves, we believe that attitude of locators and residents to paying a little more in to SBMA would change dramatically once they saw SBMA doing something to solve their own problems long term.

It has been said that if SBMA can't get the locators and residents to pick up the bill then SBMA will be bankrupt and disbanded, so then all the SBMA employees will be out of a job, our option has to be better. Can the SBMA board have the strength both morally and politically to fix SBMA and give it a secure future?