A Short Sighted Economic Policy
Changes which occur slowly are almost invisible to those who experience them on a day to day basis. The growth of children is perhaps most surprising to distant relatives than to their parents. A frog in a pot of water which is slowly heated to the point of boiling will never jump out to save its life. Similarly, detrimental changes to the environment which occur across generations will often remain unnoticed; their significance or magnitude will not be fully grasped.
If you ask many Puerto Rican senior citizens seventy years or older, they will attest to the richness of Puerto Rico's flora and fauna prior to World War II. Old San Juan's bay used to be turquoise green, and people would regularly swim and sail boats in it. The beaches in Isla Verde were teeming with the kinds of colorful fish one now only sees in documentaries of distant places. In contrast to today's odd attempts at shoreline fishing, yesterday's bounties were plentiful and could be consumed without concern. Art from the time period aptly captures its nearly pristine state.
Yet the rapid urbanization of San Juan this century has quickly destroyed natural habitat and overburdened local ecological systems. Adequate systems of government control were not put in place to moderate this pace of change. Consequently, what was not done in four hundred years has been quickly done in fifty--creating changes which have even altered our urban sense of time and space. In the 1920’s, Rio Piedras, Carolina, and Bayamon were distant towns to one other. (“Blue Line” buses would slowly meander from town to town on their way to Ponce, much as the old pleasant Cataño ferry used to do so.) As these towns became a part of greater San Juan, much of what was in between was destroyed.
The rape of nature is a story which continues to repeat itself time and time again. Nowdays, the government is seriously considering proposals to hand over 2,000 acres of natural habitat in Luquillo and Fajardo to hotel developers such as the Four Seasons parent company. An important center of ecological ‘trade’, it is being ‘bombed’ as a result. Rich mangroves with bioluminescence bays, giving life to countless fish species, will be contaminated. The viability of 25 threatened species, such as the Hawksbill seaturtle which lays its egg on those beaches, will be placed into further danger--so much so that even the World Wildlife Fund has gotten involved. A "blank check" is being written by the government which will freely give away our nation's patrimony.
It may be argued that projects as these are good for the economy because they create jobs, bring money, and help raise the financial standard of living. The construction industry is stimulated, the service sector is improved, and so forth. There is no denying that there are some benefits which Puerto Rico would accrue as a result--otherwise, it would (hopefully) never be contemplated. But benefits of a project always need to be compared with its alternatives. "Value" is not an intrinsic property but rather is relative to existing opportunities.
The actions of PRIDCO, the Tourism Company, and the PR Planning board are similar to those of individuals who, not having any money, decide to sell everything they own to generate cash instead of getting a job. (PRIDCO owns a few of the properties in question.) It has been in this manner which many drug addicts have betrayed family trust by selling hard-earned home appliances or valuable artwork. Rather than making a simple effort, they betray those closest to them. Unless quickly acted upon, the family is often brought to the brink of financial ruin.
Their policies need to be questioned because of their continuation of an all-too predominant status quo. The development of tax incentives and the tourism industry are not paths which establish the island's long-term economic self-sufficiency. Quite the contrary. Although short-term palliatives, they help further a continued dependency on foreign economic actors. The September 11 bombing showed that quick changes of heart can bring down entire sectors, as the economy in the Bahamas where half of its income depends on the travel and hotel industry. An excesive stimulus of this “industry”, as the PR Luquillo-Fajardo proposal does, is not the basis of a sound economic policy. Ironically, it is harmful to both the natural wildlife and the local populace.
Yet these problems had been foreseen. A 1978 study by the US Department of Commerce considered whether to give control over coastal areas to the local government. The US's own Coastal Management Program (NOAA) had recently been established in 1972 due to stateside decay, and analyzed whether there was the local will or the means to appropriately manage these areas. 75% of Puerto Rico's mangrove area had already been destroyed, much of it in the two decades preceding the study. Oddly preminiscent of events to come, the study pointed out that, "Possibly the most serious threat is to the mangroves along the northeast coast, from Boca de Cangrejos to Fajardo, where development pressures are intense. Within this region, litigation has already resulted over the threat to the Piñones-Torrecillas-Vacia Talega Forest, one of the largest and most productive mangroves in Puerto Rico."
Government should not be a pawn of business but rather its monitor, keeping it in check whenever the greater social welfare is placed at risk.