The Government has identified 145,000 blocks of land to settle people who are in areas that are prone to landslides. I ask if that land should be given to them, as it is all in areas of low employment opportunities in the same districts that are prone to landslides, and instead give this opportunity, as mentioned in my prior blog entry, to give them a choice of an urban dwelling, a multifamily dwelling, with the head of household and for that matter the other householders, even the wife, who has a better chance of employment, and hopefully improve their economic condition.
There is COMPLETE ABSENCE OF THINKING on this aspect, and our love affair with the terra firma, leaves people living in way off slums with no hope of work, and if work is available a nightmare commute of hours to and from work, and a huge carbon footprint to use various modes of transport, time and effort for employment.
We MUST back to basics and educate those affected people first to think and prioritize about their lives. What is it that they want in life. What it is that the state can practically do for them, and what the state’s responsibility is for them.
They will then make a rational decision, if there are alternatives to chose from. People NOT displaced will NOT MOVE. It is displaced people who are the best chance the State has of moving people to where the jobs are from places where jobs are hard to find. Why is there NO DEBATE on this topic at all? Are our planners so ignorant, that they are unable to make even a suggestion? Are they hamstrung, or is it merely that they are still fixated in the home is where the heart is concept that is so outdated, especially in Sri Lanka, where millions now commute to work and millions more live far away from their homes, due to their employment and ONLY GO HOME AT MOST ONCE A MONTH!
Surely if given the chance to live relatively close to work with your whole family, must be the first choice of a family! Tell me I am wrong and the more irrational approach is the preferred one. These are discussions that must take place immediately. It is not that we don’t want to move.
In most cases I know, the marriage is the catalyst for one member (wife or husband) to move halfway round the Country to live with the new spouse, so we are traditionally mobile at marriage anyway, so why can’t we be in this situation, when prospects offered are better?