A Fatally Flawed Study
(Part V)

        The subject matter of this column (the proposed P300 million Tacloban City Public Market, Bus Terminal and Shopping Complex at Brgy. Abucay, Tacloban City, has elicited a number of reactions. And since this tackles a debatable subject, then the reactions are both for and against the points raised and arguments presented in the four parts that I have written so far.

        A healthy debate on a topic of interest to all residents of Tacloban City and all those who may pass by or come to this city should be most welcome. The beneficiaries in such a free exchange of opinion that has even been aired over radio station DYVL in Tacloban will undoubtedly be the public.

        These comments should be taken constructively. These are intended to seek ways by which taxpayers’ money can be spent for the greatest good of the greatest number.

        From a general perspective, I have never said the city does not need a new public market, a new bus terminal and a new shopping complex – the kind of facilities proposed in the study.

        There is a distinction between commenting on a study and commenting on a project. A project may be a good idea, but the way it is proposed to be undertaken may not be such a good idea.

        In last week’s column I (with help from two NEDA staff) focused on the technical aspects of the study.

        Now, some comments on the financial aspects will be made.

        An important set of data on the breakdown of the operating expenses is found in the study. The estimated annual operating cost ranged from P2.2 million in year 2004 to P7.3 million in year 2013. For insurance alone some P2 million per year will be needed to ensure that the facilities will be replaced in case it is gutted by fire. Certainly providing lighting to a 6-hectare area, water to a large number of customers, and maintenance works will need funding. But there is no way to evaluate this when data is unavailable .

        The manpower (management, security, utility, etc.) requirements are not stated. The study presents operating expenses which is assumed at 20% of rental fees and terminal revenues. The breakdown of the cost of the physical facilities (e.g. roads, drainage, parking areas, buildings) is not stated. A thorough evaluation is hampered by the absence of data.

          It is even pointless to proceed to comment on other data when these basic data are not presented. Non-disclosure of such important data may even be a transgression of the principle of transparency in government since, once adopted, the study becomes a public document .

         Next week, I will continue to discuss the financial aspect of the study.