Tuesday , 25 September 2018
TRENDING NOW

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Compensating Shack Owners II

In the wake of the damage to the Goa coast by Cyclone Ockhi and the proposal to compensate the beach shacks for the losses is completely out of order. The cyclone was an Act of God as defined in commercial parlance and should be covered by insurance that the beach shacks should have taken out. Moreover such damage is like a business risk and the shacks should take it in their stride rather than seeking government hand-outs. The government should also stop this squandering of public money to generate a good image for itself among those affected. In a way it is a kind of corruption where the government is paying out from the public exchequer so that they are assured of votes in the long term. Compensation is also prone to kickbacks which is a more direct link to corruption and hence it is best not done. If at all the government decides in any case to go ahead with the compensation, it should be to the minimum face-saving amount since it has already been hinted at by the Disaster Management Authority. However, it should not be given to non-licenced shacks and those shacks including the licenced ones who are located within that area.

S Kamat, Santa Cruz

Compensating Shack Owners I

The Patron Saint of Goa has once  again protected the state from potential havoc which could have been caused had  the cyclone Ockhi,  hit Goa. My sympathies with those,  including  shack owners who suffered losses due to the wind and the waves. However I see no logic in  vested interests, politicians and government rushing to offer compensation to the shack owners at the  public cost, even before the wind and waves have subsided !!!!! When the shack owners rake in profits, hand over fist, and make windfall profit,  do they share it with the public or taxpayer?? When the trawler owners rake  in huge profits,  sometimes 50 lakh  in one night’s catch, do they share it with  the  public, or even sell  the catch at a reduced price?

Whenever any business suffers a loss,  is it to be compensated by the public? If a professional,  an architect, engineer, lawyer  suffers a  loss, is he to be compensated at public  cost???

There is a possibility   the shacks suffered   damage because the safety of  the CRZ rules had been breached. Are the violators to be rewarded? Surely all these  shacks have or should have insurance coverage and will collect damages from the insurance companies.   Therefore the government    and politicians  rushing to offer compensation to the shack owners  without taking into consideration or verifying  these aspects, may not hold water or meet the  yardsticks  of  logic,  excepting perhaps to boost the vote  banks  at taxpayers cost. Moreover it is known that such bailouts are prone to misuse and abuse. When a vehicle is purchased, it is mandatory to  have insurance cover  before the vehicle is insured.  Government must make it mandatory for shack owners  to purchase insurance cover against losses,  manmade or due to natural calimity, before license is issued. Then  the need to bailout  shack owners at public cost will not arise.

Rosario Menezes, Vasco

 

Please like & share: