Proposed XU Comprehensive Development.

An integral part of this expansive development would be the outright sale of a good chunk of the XU main campus in the Divisoria area, and another sale of another area in the Manresa area. 

It is both unfair and unwise to treat this loaded issue as simply black or white, meaning that you have the stakeholders on one side wanting to sell, versus some of the other stakeholders but mostly non-owners opposing the sale.

Why “some of the other owners”, because a reading of those who oppose the sale will reveal the names of the current archbishop and several past XU presidents/officials, who are all also members of the same Society.

In reality, the issue is rather involved and complicated.

The proposed sale to a third-party developer would involve demolition of many extant and in-use buildings in the old campus and the erection of a few high-rise structures along what is now Hayes St.  Similarly, some existing structures in Manresa would also be demolished.  In other words, not much different from completed or ongoing mixed-use developments around the city.

The only easily discernible difference is that most if not all of those developments are owned and/or undertaken by commercial entities with personal profits as their overriding motivation – like the Ayala, SM, Gaisano, etc.  Not so with the proposed XU development.  It is owned by a revered religious institution deeply rooted in the service of humanity, especially those under-privileged.   It is then assumed that whatever it does, the overarching motivation will always defer to its long-standing motto, “to be men for others”.

My reading is that It is precisely in this one particular and critical regard that those opposed have latched on their movement, albeit indeed they are not owners of the property.

What is being asked is for a more open and comprehensive discussion of the many facets to the issue, for as much time as needed for this very involved process.  In other words, expand the previously noted discernment process which was revealed as having only involved a segment of the community.

I daresay that the NO TO SALE side has neither broadly defined its opposition to any sale of any property nor is such stance one written in stone, but rather that thorough exploration of all options or possibilities is exposed to light of day and assessed.  After all, wasn’t Xavier Estates once part of the vast landholdings of Xavier U?

So let us take a breather and while away some time.  Remember we have future generations to think about.