Misery: New island norm

Reflection provides clarity on issues and grants us the opportunity to reset our buttons in hopes of moving forward. But this doesn’t seem to be happening. We’ve seen families struggle to meet medical expenses of loved ones needing special attention in medical facilities outside the CNMI.

Many more are caught trying to navigate the 25-percent pension cut. Still others are slammed with what’s known as “underemployment” where one has a job but falls within the federal poverty income level.

As we reset family expenses daily, we get hit with power bills that keep increasing like there’s no tomorrow. Moreover, there’s an announcement of shipping cost increasing; it means the costs of basic goods would also increase soon.

The combined madness and insanity in the unbridled cost of living has forced the multitude into hopelessness corner. Yes, each family is asking when would there be some tidings that the combined cost would be domesticated so it subsides into granting families some respite of strength in their meager income. No matter where you turn, most folks are trapped by the high cost of living.

The window of opportunity to begin taming the unbridled cost of living is the privatization of CUC so we quickly stop the filial purse from bleeding profusely. Families deserve the best option from their leaders. We trust they could see familial hardship through our lenses.

Bankruptcy translates into hopelessness. It annihilates meaningful opportunities. It hog-ties most people here languishing in misery land. I’m still optimistic policymakers can collectively do something most constructive to ease the misery in the villages.

We had the opportunity to rein in a power purchase that is both reliable and affordable for consumers—residential and business. But the entire calculus shifted to returning to conventional wisdom—paying whimsically more for less—when the top gun at CUC recanted on his story about the negotiated deal.

Truth: The deal was for $70 million power purchase plus a 10-percent cut in power bills for all consumers. It isn’t $190 million erroneously repeated in poorly written news stories that ignore verification of information. Deleting truthful information isn’t double standard but substandard altogether.

Under the contract, CUC was going to purchase power from the firm delivered to it at $.20 per kilowatt-hour. I understand the head of CUC encouraged the former governor to sign the contract because there’s nothing out there that offers such inexpensive rate.

The deposition of players ought to reveal the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!” I should have a field day when this unfolds.

A “land tenure system” is simply the traditional way we dispose of private land. It’s the system of “individual landownership” that has been in place for more than 500 years. We’ve never had any problems with it over the centuries.

It’s important to know the history of Article 12. The genesis of this constitutional provision is found under Section 805 of the Covenant Agreement. The intent was to prevent land exploitation by huge U.S. corporations for 25 years, during the formative years of the CNMI government.

This provision has achieved its intended purpose. Therefore, it is fitting to restore the land tenure system once more. After all, the right to own property is a “natural right” that is unalienable.

What happened to our land tenure system under Article 12? 1). It nullified the right of landowners to own their land 100 percent and it is for this reason that you are denied final disposition of your land. 2). It substituted “individual” landownership with “communal landownership.” It means the current arrangement (under Article 12) leaves disposition of your land in the hands of the government and could do anything it wishes, including its redistribution.

Furthermore, proponents of Article 12 have taken the intent of Section 805 beyond exploitation. They have turned it to mean limiting land to the indigenous people. This warped view is wrong and it’s vital to institute discussion with a sense of intellectual integrity so we restore the land tenure system sooner than later. It’s our land tenure system!

Beyond the hyperbole, is the espoused position of preventing loss of land by the indigenous people? What about local to local land sale? Isn’t it true that the minute a land deal is consumed the local seller loses his land? So what’s the point? I’ve seen this form of land sale where the seller ended up squatting on public land.

Moreover, what’s the fear of Article 12 proponents returning full ownership to landowners? Isn’t this a local form of paternalism used cleverly to control the minds of the multitude? Did you forget that over the last 35 years we’ve secured education and maturity? Since when did any of us allow you direct disruptive role in the disposition of our private land?

There are two other silent though woefully egregious provisions under Article 12: 1.) Central Planning: It’s a socialistic method of planning used in communist countries to control the livelihood of the multitude. 2.) Paternalism: It’s power used by the powers-that-be (including political dinosaurs) who wish to keep telling us what’s good for us for ALL the wrong reasons. These mindsets run against the grain of our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” inherent under the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

How interesting too the deafening silence of our government as the agent of protection of our right to privately owned land. Its use of the term “protection” has never been defined so we secure clear understanding of what Article 12 protects. Or is it mired in its confused definition to mean protecting landowners from owning their land? What protection is there when you instantly alienate landowners from their land? Exhausted political dinosaurs must rest right here and now! Let’s restore our land tenure system by repealing Article 12.