|
“Never lose sight of this important truth, that no one
can be truly great until he has gained a knowledge of
himself, a knowledge which can only be acquired by
occasional retirement.”—Johann
Georg von Zimmermann
ON
Tuesday, this paper ran a report that Angeles City Mayor
Francisco Nepomuceno is eyeing the establishment of
retirement villages in his hometown to boost development
in the area. Wise move, we say.
Projects
like these are among the most feasible for local
governments, as these require less capital while easily
generating tangible economic benefits down at the
grassroots. It’s a good thing that the Philippine
Retirement Authority (PRA) has recently included
Angeles
City in its list of “destination havens.”
Establishing retirement villages is like hitting several
targets with one stone. The construction sector and its
affiliated industries would surely perk up. Retirees
usually favor places that are essentially less
urbanized; hence, the jobs to be created by retirement
villages would benefit local rural residents in terms of
increased requirements for labor—not just skilled
caregivers and health and wellness workers, but also
construction workers, plumbers, food caterers,
restaurant workers, masseuses, janitors and golf
caddies, among others.
Currently, many of our medical professionals (nurses,
physical therapists, doctors, medical technologists)
leaving for jobs abroad cite the limited economic
opportunities in the country. Retirement villages would
necessarily need more medical professionals (especially
doctors and nurses), hence, there would be incentives
for them to stay.
Why do
we have to send them abroad if we could just bring in
the retirees from the United States, Japan and Europe
for our nurses to care for? It’s probably one of the
best ways to boost tourism as the retirees here would
likely attract visits from their relatives from their
countries of origin.
What’s
good about retirement villages is that they are
environmentally benign. Retirees would necessarily
desire a very good environment, thus there is an
incentive for the host communities to maintain clean and
safe surroundings. There would be more economic
motivations for communities to preserve and conserve
watersheds, clean rivers and plant more trees.
But it
bears stressing here that developing retirement villages
is not as simple as it seems. Retirement villages should
be planned carefully, taking into consideration the
special needs of retirees. These places, while many of
them should probably be close to the sea and sun, should
have easy access to health facilities, good urban and
cultural centers, sports facilities and other amenities.
They should also be communications-ready, meaning
foreign retirees used to computers and e-mailing or
cyber-chatting would be looking for telco services.
Retirees
should also have good opportunities to mingle with the
local community while ensuring their safety. Many
retirees, being well-educated and having retired from
challenging jobs, would be interested to interact with
other people and, possibly, even do pet projects with
them.
All
these factors suggest that the local governments and the
private sector should delineate their roles well. The
LGUs should assume enabling roles while allowing the
private sector to plan, construct and develop these
retirement villages, based on certain global standards.
An enabling role for the LGUs and the government, in
general, means that local legislators would have to pass
supporting policies (especially on proper land use,
waste management, conservation, improved town
management, traffic, etc.) to ensure the success of
these villages.
Hillary
Clinton liked to drop the African proverb, “It takes a
village to raise a child.” Back here, the motto might
well be, “It takes a [Filipino] village to retire an old
man [or woman].” |
