Campus Resident October 2011

Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

Volume 2, Issue 10 OCTOBER 24, 2011


This illustration shows what UBC expects its Wesbrook Place residential neighbourhood to look like if its neighbourhood plan is amended to meet new housing projections. Some residents are upset. For story please turn to Page 6.

Densification of Wesbrook Place Draws Ire of Residents

Directors DeferSelection of Chair

To November Board

Both secret ballots for chair at October meeting were

ties; third ballot is put over to November board meeting

Speculation about who will lead the University Neighbourhoods Association through the next twelve months contin-ues into November after UNA directors failed to resolve the issue at their Octo-ber 11 board meeting. Hampton Place resident-director Prod Laquian remains favourite to be chosen board chair. Meanwhile, Thomas Beyer has become the first Chancellor Place resident to sit on the UNA board. Mr. Beyer gained the most number of votes in the September 28 election of two resident-directors in his first campaign for UNA office. Meanwhile also, Erica Frank gained re-election as a UNA director for the second time. A Hawthorn Place resident, Ms. Frank will become UNA chair at the November UNA board meeting if Mr. Laquian doesn’t. Unintentionally, Mr. Beyer set the stage for the failure of directors to choose a chair at their October meeting by being absent for his first board meeting. The Campus Resident understands Mr. Bey-er, a businessman, was unable to get out of a long-standing prior engagement in Alberta where he has business interests. The absence of Mr. Beyer meant that the other six directors at the meeting might split three-three when voting for the chair in a secret ballot, which is what they did. Twice! Directors considered a number of ways out of the impasse with-out luck. Mr. Laquian indicated Mr. Beyer had left him with a proxy vote in his name. He acknowledged, however, the UNA had obtained legal counsel earlier in the day advising that the UNA constitution did not allow use of proxy votes in the election of chair. Directors briefly considered switching to a show of hands instead of voting by way of secret ballot. However, no great appetite materialized for this, and the idea evaporated. Finally, Ian Burgess, a UBC appointee to the board, proposed the vote of chair be put over to the November meeting. With a show of hands, all six directors concurred. Almost 3,000 campus residents belong to the UNA, which is registered in Brit-ish Columbia under the Society Act, and about 21.1% voted in the September 28 election of two resident-directors.

DIRECTORS continued on Page 7.

The sensitive issue of “fat cat” residents of the University Endowment Lands (UEL) profiting from the sale of water to UBC residents arose at the Univer-sity Neighbourhoods Association annual meeting September 28, and as a result, the UNA may commission a study of the issue. UNA members at the meeting greet-ed the idea of engaging a consultant to study water rates in the UEL and at UBC—as suggested by director Nancy Knight—with a measure of approval, and the UNA board of directors must

UBC Residents May Review

Water Fee Paid to UEL Neighbours

Water purchased by the UEL from Metro Vancou-ver is sold to UBC; UBC

residents are unhappy about UEL ‘profiting’ from this

sale of water

now decide whether in fact to hire such a consultant to pursue the study. Should this action be taken, it will come after years of grumbling on cam-pus about the way UBC receives it pota-ble water from the UEL, which receives this water beforehand from Metro Van-couver. The transfer of Metro Vancouver water from the UEL to UBC takes place over a short pipeline between the neigh-bouring communities, but over the years, this transfer has resulted in millions of dollars in ‘profit’ going from UBC and its residents to the UEL administration for expenditure in its neighbourhood. In its most recent financial statements, the UEL reports a sum of $3,029,035 was spent buying water from the Greater Vancouver Water District (Metro Van-couver) in 2010-2011. In the same year, it reported revenues of $3,316,211 from the sale of water to “residents and UBC” without itemizing separate revenues from residents and UBC. In February, The Campus Resident reported that by either agreement or long-standing custom, the UEL added a ‘mark up’ of 10% on the cost of water it purchased from Metro and then sold to UBC. We have received no notification of any errors in this report.

RESIDENTS continued on Page 2.

November 19 Elections Pages 4, 5 & 10

- Electoral Area A

- University Endowment

Lands • Community Advisory

Council (CAC)

• Advisory Design Panel (ADP)

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT OCTOBER 24, 2011page 2

Iva Mann, who has died at the age of 95, played a pivotal role in the establish-ment of Pacific Spirit Park. In honour of this, a series of trails in the park have been officially designated as the ‘Iva Mann Walk’. Ms. Mann campaigned vigorously for establishment of the park, initially raising funds and coordinating work teams who cleared the first public paths through what was then the University Endowment Lands forest in the 1970s. To further this cause, Ms. Mann ran for public office and served for 17 years for Greater Vancouver Regional District di-rector for Electoral Area A and on the GVRD park committee—retiring only

Iva Mann (1916-2011)Park Pioneer Passes after the park was safely established.

Ms. Mann, who was born in Renfrew, Ontario, moved to Vancouver with hus-band Kenneth Mann after the Second World War. The couple built one of their first homes on Acadia Road in the UEL.Among her many contributions to the UEL community, Ms. Mann raised funds and planted the original flowering cherry trees on Acadia Road. She was a founding member of St. Anselm’s An-glican Church on University Boulevard. A memorial service will be conduct-ed by the Reverend Robert Fraser at 11 AM, Saturday, November 12 at St. Anselm’s. Anecdotes and memories of Ms. Mann would be welcomed via e-mail to her daughter Shelley at [email protected] or in writing c/o St. An-selm’s. Iva Mann

In the event the 10% mark up figure is correct, the UEL earns roughly a net income of $300,000 a year from sell-ing water to UBC—and its residents. However, a UBC manager recently stated publicly that UEL earns a sum of roughly $100,000 from selling water to UBC—which makes water available to campus residents. Two developments would seem to ex-acerbate the water issue, one is the price of housing in the UEL where the average assessed value of a home is now above

$3.5 million, and the other is the cost of water purchased from Metro. The ad-ministration of the UEL reports, “Water costs are tied to Metro Vancouver’s wa-ter pricing which has increased signifi-cantly.” One speaker at the UNA meeting ob-jected to “campus residents subsidiz-ing the water bills of fat cat residents of the UEL.” This speaker then suggested UBC explore the possibility of building a separate pipeline to carry water from the western edge of Vancouver directly into UBC along 16th Avenue rather than by the long-in-use (but short-in-length) pipeline across the UEL.

RESIDENTS continued from Page 1.

The Old BarnCommunity Centre

Keep up to date with all of the latest news and events that happen

around your community!

Join us on FACEBOOK!

The University Neighbourhoods

Association

and the

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT OCTOBER 24, 2011 page 3

Letters to the Editor

Editor & Business Manager

University Neighbourhoods Association

#202-5923 Berton Avenue,

Vancouver, BC V6S OB3

Published by:

John Tompkins

604.827.3502 [email protected] Page

I find the large new ‘No Parking’ signs around my neighbourhood (Chancellor Place) appear intimidating and ugly. A ‘police-state’ atmosphere is surely not necessary in the refined environs of UBC. In the five years I have lived here, there has been no problem with rowdy church-goers on a Sunday morning – in fact it is a pleasure to see such happy people enjoying for a short time the pleasant surroundings. I suggest a compromise as found in many other neighbourhoods – some spaces designated for 2 hours parking

Parking Compromise? (metered if necessary). Then, it would be possible for visitors to enjoy our lovely area for a restricted time. The issue of parking on Iona Drive filled a large part of your September newspaper. Perhaps we should try to find out the opinions of the majority of residents in the area. I believe most people would not mind putting a couple of dollars in a meter in order to be able to relax and enjoy their visits.

Elizabeth HawthorneUBC campus

LETTERS continued on Page 9.

At the recent All-Candidates Meeting and University Neighbourhoods Asso-ication annual general meeting, it was clear to me that many residents are in-creasingly concerned about the relative powerlessness of the UNA and a cor-responding lack of accountability on the part of UBC for decisions affecting residents. Despite the best efforts of some very dedicated and hardworking people, the UNA and the unique governance model it represents have struggled to achieve the degree of influence over local af-fairs that many residents desire and feel is warranted. As the resident population expands, the voice of people who live in campus neighbourhoods is growing louder and more strident. This has been most evident in the furore over the loca-tion of the hospice, concerns expressed about the impact of changes to the Land Use Plan, and ongoing frustration about bylaw control and enforcement. UBC vice-president Stephen Owen has made some very public commit-ments to the principles of cooperative governance underlying the UNA model and pledged to work with residents in partnership to create a community we can all be proud of. Against this background, I feel that the UNA has reached a degree of matu-rity that now needs to be reflected in en-hanced powers, and increased account-ability for matters that are currently UBC’s responsibility. The prime exam-ple of this is neighbourhood planning. There have been, and will continue to be, situations in which UBC’s goals are not compatible with the needs and inter-ests of residents. In the past, resolution of these conflicts has favoured UBC. It is time to redress this imbalance. I am proposing to the UNA and to UBC and the broader community that the UNA should be given veto power over any developments in existing and new residential areas. This might, at first glance, sound radi-cal, but it deserves serious consider-ation. Briefly, here’s why I think it is a good idea:• It would be a demonstration of trust on UBC’s part in the efficacy of the UNA and the underlying governance model.• It would force UNA to develop truly balanced positions on developments, reflecting both the needs of residents

By John Dickinson, Hawthorn Place Resident

Neighbours Need VetoOver UBC Developments

and the goals of UBC.• It would, therefore, bring a lot of pos-itive pressure on UNA and UBC to em-bark on full, comprehensive and open planning processes and consultations. • It would be an indication of UBC’s commitment to a true partnership with UNA and its residents, rather than the current paternalistic approach.• It would be a source of positive pub-licity for UBC and help to deflect the negativity of other government agen-cies and the representatives of the sur-rounding communities toward the uni-versity.• It would attract more community minded people to become involved in governance processes, as it offers the potential for involvement in real issues in a very meaningful way.• It would give the UNA some real teeth. I understand that this is not a simple question to resolve or negotiate. From a practical viewpoint, careful consid-eration would be needed to determine how and when in the planning process a UNA veto could be exercised and I de-fer to those with a better understanding of the process on the details for imple-mentation. Two final points:It is my sincere hope that UBC does not reject this proposal out of hand. UBC must recognize that residents will no longer put up with limited involvement in planning, or be happy to discover that our taxes have been collected but our input has been discounted. We, the residents, care about OUR neighbour-hoods. While we appreciate the fine job that has been done by UBC in creating them, we now want to take responsibil-ity for their future development. Although our primary focus is devel-opment within the residential neigh-bourhoods, we cannot ignore univer-sity lands immediately adjacent to our homes. UBC has made a commitment to consult with residents on projects on these areas. Hand in hand with my pro-posal, I would also like to see a much more robust UNA and resident involve-ment in decisions affecting projects ad-jacent to residential areas. I cannot claim any kind of formal mandate from residents to make this proposal, but I have discussed it with many. I know that it has the support of a wide cross section of people. I now ask that the UNA board and staff give this proposal further consideration, open discussions with UBC, and report back to the residents. This is the time for change.

A new set of ‘No Parking’ signs has gone up along Iona Drive in the Chan-cellor Place residential neighbourhood. Residents may reasonably expect this network of new signs to rid Iona Drive of improperly-parked cars—which an

Useless old signs have been ripped out; Sunday church-

goers in particular are called upon to adjust

‘No Parking’ Signs Set New Rules on Iona

earlier set of No Parking signs failed to accomplish for years. The earlier signs had lots of linguis-tic bark to them—‘No parking’, ‘Cars will be towed’, Towing will be done at ‘owners expense’, etc. However, they lacked much in the way of bite because the signs were not officially recognized by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. In sharp contrast, the ministry rec-ognizes the new network of ‘No Park-ing’ signs, and this gives the RCMP a measure of comfort about enforcing the restriction. None of this bodes well for those who would ignore the new signs.Sunday morning church-goers in par-ticular will need to take note of this new regime of ‘No Parking’ signs and rules along Iona Drive. Located in what was once called ‘the theological precinct’, the residential neighbour-hood now called Chancellor Place lies beside several churches, and residents driving along Iona Drive on Sunday mornings—while services are held—will attest to considerable disruption to normal traffic flow due to dozens of cars improperly parked outside these churches. Perhaps members of the clergy will consider passing along a message to their congregations about the advent of the new parking signs. Better that a member of the congregation finds a proper place to park his car on a Sun-day morning than come out of church to find his/her car towed because it had been left on Iona Drive.No Parking sign in Chancellor Place


Clockwise from top left: Maria Harris, Mischa Makortoff, Scott Andrews and Alexandria Mitchell. Photo of Colin Desjarlais not available at press time.

Electoral Area A Votes on November 19

Five Candidates Come Forth for Election to Metro Board Post - Alas, None from U Town

Campus residents will have a list of five candidates to choose from when voting on November 19 for who should repre-sent them on the board of Metro Van-couver regional government. However, none of the five will come from campus residential neighbour-hoods such as Hampton Place, Haw-thorn Place, etc—the first time in a decade that no campus resident has at least run as a candidate for the position of Metro director for Electoral Area A, which includes both UBC and the Uni-versity Endowment Lands (UEL). Two candidates come from the UEL (incumbent Maria Harris and Mischa Makortfoff) and one comes from a UBC student hall of residence (Alexandria Mitchell). Meanwhile, two candidates come from the city of Vancouver (Scott Andrews and Colin Desjarlais). Mr. Desjarlais said in a telephone in-

Election is for post of Metro director for Electoral Area

A; this regional government area includes UBC and

the University Endowment Lands (UEL)

terview he studied law at the University of British Columbia and “maintains ties to faculty there.” Though he has not worked in the capacity of a lawyer, “I have done lots of non-profit (legal) work.” Mr. Desjarlais outlined a list of non-profit organizations he has helped, many of them in the Mount Pleasant area of Vancouver, where he is a member of the board of the Mount Pleasant Com-munity Association. Earlier this year, he ran unsuccessfully to be a candidate for one of the political parties contesting the Vancouver municipal government elec-tion November 19. On his website, www.votescott.ca, Scott Andrews refers to himself as “a so-cial justice and environmental activist” who has worked on a number of projects internationally and in his community—the first activist network in which he im-mersed himself in being Oxfam Canada. More recently, he says, he chaired the organizing committee for the Vancou-ver People’s Summit on behalf of Make Poverty History and Oxfam—a summit which took place in June 2010 in con-junction with Canada hosting the G8/G20 summit in Toronto.

CANDIDATES continued on Page 5.


Currently, Mr. Andrews reports he is completing his Masters of Arts in In-ternational Studies at Simon Fraser University. He also reports serving in the role of Community Support Worker with the Spectrum Society for Commu-nity Living. At www.votealexandria.com, UBC student Alexandria Mitchell refers to herself as “a Vancouver based commu-nity catalyst, advocating for citizen en-gagement and sustainability initiatives across the province of British Colum-bia.” Ms. Mitchell says her work on local and regional boards of governance has allowed her to advocate for social and economic issues pertaining to smart growth and economic development in small communities. After being a delegate at the UN Cli-mate Conference in Copenhagen in De-cember 2010, Ms. Mitchell says she was inspired to look specifically at energy issues in Canada and other parts of the world. She currently holds positions on the Fraser Basin Council’s Air Quality/Climate Change Task Force, and the BC Rural Network Board of Directors. In a news release, Mischa Makortoff said he was running for the post of Elec-toral Area A director on the Metro Van-couver board to give the unincorporated areas of Metro Vancouver “a stronger voice.”

In the release, Mr. Makortoff (www.mischamakortoff.ca) pledged to fight for improved community services, ac-countable governance, regional park improvements, and affordable housing. “Electoral Area A must be part of the regional planning process,” he said. “Just because we are not a city does not mean that we do not have the same needs as other urban areas.” Born in the city of Vancouver and edu-cated at Simon Fraser University, Mr. Makortoff lives in the UEL and works in administration at UBC. In an update on events the last 12 months at Metro Vancouver, Maria Har-ris, director for Electoral Area A, notes rapid development throughout many parts of the Metro Vancouver region, including UBC, poses challenges and opportunities. “We need to build livable communi-ties with plentiful green space and social amenities,” she says. “We need to incorporate agriculture, employment opportunities, affordable housing and better mobility into the re-gion. Our challenge is to manage change while fostering a sense of community that respects the environment and per-mits us to build compact and vibrant communities. (For more on what Ms. Harris reports has happened at Metro in the last year, please turn to Page 11.)

CANDIDATES continued from Page 4.

Electoral Area A Votes on November 19


DENSIFICATION from Page 1.

The planned scale of development in the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood at UBC has grown, and so has the concern of resi-dents about what they see as “the massive influx of development.” Ten years ago when the original plan for this leafy neighbourhood south of 16th Avenue was unveiled, projected popu-lation stood at 5,000 residents, In com-parison, amendments to this plan—now in the midst of debate—call for 10,000, maybe 15,000, residents. Hold on, say a group of residents who bought their properties on the strength of the original plan. The residents include 44 from the Keenleyside condominium complex, which—three years ago—be-came one of the first housing develop-ments to open in Wesbrook Place. Backed by a sizable group of fellow-owners, Claire Robson, chair of the Keenleyside strata council, petitioned di-rectors of the University Neighbourhoods Association at their October 11 meeting after the UNA directors had heard from UBC planning director Joe Stott, who re-ported that the UBC board of governors has set a target of 6.28 million square feet of housing in Wesbrook Place. Ms. Robson said, “Keenleyside residents are deeply concerned with the massive influx of development this represents. We were told there would be three to five high-rises in Wesbrook Place when we bought our homes here. Now, it’s ten to 12 high-rises.” As well as crowding in on homes al-ready built and those proposed under the original plan, the increased number of homes under the proposed amended plan will throw ‘infrastructure projects’ out of kilter, Ms. Robson said. “The infrastruc-ture (schools, shops, parks, community centres, etc) will not support this level of residential development. We are angry there has been so little real public discus-sion about this.” An opportunity to see the way UBC en-visages the future of its largest residential neighbourhood came prior to the UNA board meeting when the University held a September 20 ‘Open House’ on pro-posed amendments to its South Campus Neighbourhood Plan. UBC campus and community planning department staff put up a dozen or so display boards to inform members of the public of their vision of the future south of 16th Avenue—subject to approval of the UBC board of gover-nors at their December meeting. Unquestionably, the display board which drew the most attention portrayed in three dimensions what the community of Wesbrook Place could look like once it is completed. The board (see illustration 10 b on Page 1) shows a dozen high-rises more than previously planned—most of them standing sentinel-like in a line north-south immediately adjacent to the western edge of Pacific Spirit Regional Park. As well, Mr. Stott and his staff of plan-ners explained that low-rise condos and rental-apartment buildings previously de-signed to rise four storeys above ground may now—thanks to recent changes in

Five years ago, population projection for Wesbrook Place was 5,000; today, UBC is looking to house 10,000 residents there -

maybe 15,000

the British Columbia building code—rise to six storeys. All this development—more high-rises and new medium-rise buildings in place of low-rise ones—contributes to the significant change to-wards a greater population projection of 10,000-15,000 residents on build-out over the next 20 years. Actual construction of the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood in South Campus commenced five years ago. The Campus Resident understands a population of 1,000-2,000 people live there today. Proposed amendments to the neighbour-hood plan come about in large part due to events of the past few years regarding UBC Farm adjacent to Wesbrook Place. By agreement with Metro Vancouver un-til 2008, UBC considered the 40 acres of farmland ‘future housing reserve’, but when the UBC board changed its policy on the farm, the fundamental issue arose of where to put those future residents ‘displaced’ by the change. In part, to the chagrin of residents, the answer has become Wesbrook Place. Meanwhile, other policy changes regard-ing land use on campus may put another block of density into Wesbrook (i.e. if the UBC board prohibits market rentals in an area called ‘Gage South’ adjacent to the Student Union Building and shifts this density to Wesbrook Place). A broad number of concerns have emerged among Wesbrook Place resi-dents regarding UBC intentions to amend their neighbourhood plan. The neigh-bours say they need answers to a raft of questions, including the following: • Will the new community being found-ed south of 16th Avenue be sufficiently environmentally sensitive? • Will the planned ‘village-in-the-woods’ concept for this neighbourhood be crushed by the onslaught of massively increased urban density? • Will there be enough places such as parks for members of the community to gather? • Will the protection of six-storey wood-en-frame residential buildings against fire be as good as four-storey buildings? • Will the residents of Wesbrook Place be blessed with an effective storm-water management system? • Will the proposed raft of high-rise homes result in shutting out sun-light from existing low-rise buildings? UBC planners say they will present a list of final amendments to the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan for public input shortly. The planners will then pres-ent those final amendments to the UBC board of governors. After reporting UBC governors have set a goal of 6.28 million square feet of housing in Wesbrook Place, Mr. Stott explained to the UNA board that while replacing proposed four storey buildings with six-storey ones will help, “all the four storeys going to six storeys will not get us to 6.28 million square feet.” Hence the radical increase in the num-ber of tall buildings. Mr. Stott did not see gloom in the pros-pect of tall buildings, however. “Tall buildings at the edge will cast shadows on trees, and should not affect people’s homes.” UBC invites you to attend a pair of meetings relating to the proposed South Campus Neighbourhood Plan amend-ments: • an Information Session Thursday, Oc-tober 27 6-8 PM MBA House, 3385 Wes-brook Mall, • an Open House and Q&A session No-vember 1, 4:30 - 7:30 PM, MBA House.


The number of students living in resi-dence at the University of British Co-lumbia continues to grow. On October 6, UBC officially opened a new wing of the Totem Student Resi-dence with 566 students installed in resi-dence there. This brings to 1,757 the number of students in residence at Totem at the western end of Thunderbird Boulevard (across West Mall from, and slightly north of, the Hawthorn Place residen-tial neighbourhood). It also pushes up to about 9,000 the number of students living on campus (this compares with about 8,000 residents currently living on campus). Andrew Parr, managing director, Stu-dent Housing & Hospitality Services, told The Campus Resident that UBC has concrete plans underway to increase the number of students residing on campus by 2,500 over the next few years. The Totem expansion represents the first phase of this ambitious building pro-gram. “We are 23% towards our goal of 2,500 more students with opening of the Totem addition,” he said.

Totem Addition Augments Number of

Student-Residents566 more students are accommodated in resi-

dence at UBC; meanwhile, more growth is planned for neighbourhoods occupied

by campus residents

The second phase of the program in-volves construction of a student hous-ing ‘hub’ at the site of the old Ponder-osa building on West Mall at University Boulevard. Demolition of part of the Ponderosa building has begun, Mr. Parr said. UBC built the original parts of the To-tem student residential complex in the mid-1960s. Mr. Parr told guests of the University at the Totem expansion open-ing ceremony that only 23 ½ months ago, Totem expansion “was just an idea.” He said that while the construc-tion of infrastructure projects such a student residences usually takes a long time, construction of the Totem expan-sion was done “quickly”—on time and under budget. “Bricks and mortar have come to life,” the UBC executive said. “Statistics (re-lating to construction) have become a home for students.” Under a strict policy of the University, only first or second-year students may reside in the Totem expansion. This poli-cy allows UBC to offer first-year student accommodation on campus to all gradu-ates of British Columbia high schools who meet its entrance requirements. Meanwhile, UBC continues to an-nounce plans for its newest residential neighbourhood. Please see story on Page 1, for UBC plans to increase housing density in the Wesbrook Place neighbourhood.

Andrew Parr, UBC

Larry Grant, Musqueam First NationThe names of the two new houses in the Totem Park Student Residence at UBC honour heroes from Musqueam past—one a real-life warrior, the other a ‘trans-formational figure’ from the annals of mythology. At a UBC ceremony officially launch-ing the two new student houses, where 566 first- and second-year students have in fact lived since start of the school year in September, Musqueam elder Larry Grant explained the origin of the names of the houses and how to pronounce them using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The name həm’ləsəm’ (‘hum-le-some’) for one of the houses describes a site of transformation (south of Wreck Beach) where the Musqueam ‘transformer’, who oversaw social behaviour’ in the band, punished a greedy person for being pos-sessive and wasteful of fresh water from the natural spring, Mr. Grant said. “While bent over to drink and unwilling to share this vital resource, he was turned to rock. His chamber pot spilled and became the smaller rock beside him.” Mr. Grant offered a lesson to be learned here in the context of UBC today. He said, “Resource, which is information, intelligence, all the different knowledge of the world that comes together at the University, should be shared freely so that people move through life together and grow together.” In an amusing play on words that brought a burst of laughter from UBC people and their guests at the ceremony, Mr. Grant said if “you want to be a pillar of society, don’t be turned into a rock.” The name q’ələχən (‘cul-le-hon’) for

Houses Honor Names From

Musqueam PastOne house is named

after real-life warrior: other house is named after figure

from mythology

the other new house in Totem Park de-scribes a strategic fortification site (on Point Grey) where Musqueam warriors and their families resided, including the warrior well-known by the name of ‘Cap-ilano’. “Capilano is widely celebrated for lead-ing war efforts to protect his people from invaders,” Mr. Grant said. “As well, he welcomed the first Spanish and English explorers, led by Jose Narvaez (1791) and George Vancouver (1792) to Mus-queam territory and initiated trade with them.” The Musqueam elder reminded those unfamiliar with the history of the ‘cul-le-hon’ site that during the Second World War, it became the most heavily armed site in the Port of Vancouver. “Remnants of the gun emplacements can be seen be-low the UBC Museum of Anthropology to this day.” To come up with names for the new houses, UBC Student Housing and Hos-pitality Services employed two alumni of the First Nations Studies Program, Sarah Ling and Spencer Lindsay to chair an ad-visory naming committee of Totem Park residents, Musqueam cultural advisors, Student Housing and Hospitality Servic-es, the First Nations House of Learning, and UBC campus and community plan-ning. UBC built the original houses in To-tem in the mid-1960s, and with the re-cent addition of 566 students, the student population at the residence—located be-tween West Mall and Southwest Marine Drive—rises to 1,757.

Out-going chair Sharon Wu called the voter turn out (634 residents casting over 1,000 ballots) “awesome.” How-ever, Mr. Laquian, acting chair follow-ing the departure of Ms. Wu, gave the results a more sober reading. In a report to the October board meeting, Mr. La-quian said, “This is higher than the vot-ing turnout of 13.6% in the 2010 election but still significantly low for democratic

DIRECTORS continued from Page 1. governance.” The UNA manages local governance for UBC in five residential neighbour-hoods (Hampton Place, Hawthorn Place, Chancellor Place, Wesbrook Place and East Campus). Four resident-directors sit on the seven-person UNA board (the other directors being two UBC appoin-tees and one AMS student appointee), and elections for two resident-directors take place annually with successful can-didates sitting for two years.


Sustainability Corner

UNA Community News

Ralph Wells, UNA Sustainability Manager

In my September column, I wrote about the implementation of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of British Columbia to advance joint sus-tainability objectives as part of the UBC Sustainability Initiative (USI). In that col-umn, I referred to six initial areas of focus for the MOU, and in this and upcoming col-umns I’d like to discuss each of these focus areas in more detail. Since October is Power Smart month in BC (and I’m writing this while attend-ing the annual BC Hydro Power Smart Forum), I thought I’d start with a relevant focus area: Community Energy Conserva-tion and Efficiency. The primary objective for this focus area is the development of a Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) for the campus residential commu-nity (including UNA neighbourhoods and UBC student and staff residences). We are developing (and co-funding) the CEEP in partnership with UBC and BC Hydro. So what is a CEEP and what does it mean for the UNA? The CEEP is intended to provide short (5 years) and long (30 years) term strategies for reducing community energy consumption (electrical and natural gas) and green house gas (GHG) emissions. The plan will focus on building strategies, providing direction on new building tech-nologies and designs and advise on retrofit strategies for existing buildings. Alterna-tive energy sources will be explored, spe-cifically opportunities to use institutional waste heat to provide home heating and hot water though a ‘district energy’ system. There will also be a focus on transportation strategies, and other innovative strategies, such as those related to waste and energy and emissions (e.g., reducing GHG emis-

UNA BUDGET CONSULTATIONThe University Neighbourhoods Association is in the process of formulating the UNA budget for fiscal year 2012-2013. In order to get residents’ inputs on the budget, the UNA is holding a Budget

Consultation as follows:

Date: Tuesday, November 22 Time: 7 to 9 pm Place: The Old Barn Community Centre

Residents interested in participating in the budget consultation may download budget documents from the UNA website by November 10.

During the recent elections for the Univer-sity Neighbourhoods Association (UNA), some UBC residents had questions about the taxes and levies they pay. To clarify the unique situation in the University resi-dential neighbourhoods, here is a brief summary of how money is calculated, col-lected and spent. To understand the situation at UBC, you need to know the history of the campus. “The Endowment Lands were given to the University almost a hundred years ago, with the intention that the University build market housing on a portion of its lands to develop an endowment to support its academic mission,” explains Ian Burgess, comptroller for UBC and a UNA director. “That process only got going actively in the ’90s. At that time the province insisted that the total property tax burden UBC res-idents pay be equal to what people pay in the City of Vancouver—that is, a resident would pay the same amount of property tax if the property value is the same regardless if he/she lives in the City of Vancouver or at UBC—and that the monies paid be used to provide services to residents equivalent to those provided in Vancouver.” This is still true today—the University is mandated to ensure that the total property taxes paid by campus property owners is the same as the City collects from com-parable properties as property tax in Van-couver. “You pay the same ‘property tax’ as you would if you lived in Vancouver,” insists Mr. Burgess. However, UBC prop-erty owners pay their dues in two parts: a rural tax and the Services Levy. The rural tax, which makes up 55 to 65% of the total tax burden, is paid directly to the BC government. “It pays for services the province provides to rural areas such as police and schools and the BC Assess-ment Authority, as well as services that are unique to the Lower Mainland such as TransLink,” explains Jan Fialkowski, executive director of the UNA, the soci-ety which provides services to residential neighbourhoods on campus. The Services Levy is more complicated. First of all, it is called a levy rather than a tax because UBC is on unincorporated land and therefore not a municipality. The Services Levy is collected by the Univer-sity and is held in the Neighbours’ Fund, a separate fund in UBC’s accounts that is audited annually. The University also de-posits General Municipal Services Levy collected from rental housing projects in neighbourhoods to the Neighbours’ Fund. A portion of the money collected (5.6% in 2011) is deposited into the Neighbours’ Fund Reserves, which are held to meet fu-ture needs. The rest is used by the UNA to provide municipal-like services for the UNA neighbourhoods. Reserve funds are required to ensure that long-term replacement of capital infra-structure does not result in “rate shock.” Reserve funds are common practice in municipalities and many other organiza-tions and are required under the Neigh-bours Agreement between UBC and the UNA. As of March 31, 2011 the reserve funds total $8.19 million. They are divided

Follow the UTown Money - How it’s Raised and

Where it’s SpentBy Scott Steedman into five reserves: infrastructure, capital

replacement, rate stabilization, operation contingency and community access. Any spending from these reserves must be used in direct support of the UNA and approved by the UNA board. The remaining Services Levy money goes to the UNA, which spends it accord-ing to its Operating Budget. (The total is topped up by money the UNA generates, mostly through fees for activities and classes it provides through its community centre: $341,700 in 2011–12). The budget is approved by the UNA board of directors and is also submitted to the University, though for information only. The 2011–12 budget—a total of $2.92 million—is ear-marked for recreational services (34%, split equally between community program-ming and community access), including running the community centre and athletic and cultural facilities; engineering services (34%), mainly maintaining public spaces and infrastructure; operations and admin-istration (26%); special projects and com-munity support (3%); sustainability (2%), notably the composting, energy-saving and recycling programs; and a small contin-gency fund (1%). When homeowners get a property on campus they sign a 99-year ground lease. This document details all the obligations the University has to residents—things like providing landscaping and engineer-ing services—virtually all of which are ac-tually performed by the UNA. Again, some history helps clarify the situation. “The UNA was created back in 2002, by agreement between UBC and Metro Vancouver,” explains Sharon Wu, the outgoing UNA chair. “Before then, the University provided all those services. In 2002, there was one neighbourhood, Hampton Place, and about 2,000 residents. Now, we have five neighbourhoods and 8,000 residents, and it’s growing fast.” The UNA Board includes four members elected by the residents, two UBC ap-pointees, and one student appointed by the AMS. Membership in the UNA is volun-tary, and about 3,000 adults are currently UNA members; a total of 5,200 residents have UNA Community Services Cards that provide eligible residents access to UBC facilities and membership in the Vancouver Public Library. In a nutshell, the UNA delivers municipal services to residents and receives all of the residential or related tax-like monies raised from residents. It then uses this money to maintain parks, operate a community cen-tre and repair roads, just like any municipal government. And like any municipal gov-ernment, the UNA works with UBC to cre-ate bylaws to manage parking and noise, for example. It also does some extraordi-nary things few other municipalities bother themselves with, like running a compre-hensive composting program for its multi-family housing. “There are people who say, why buy ac-cess to pools or skating rinks that I don’t use?” says Ms. Fialkowski. “But the prin-ciple behind the UNA is that everyone will have equal access to all these services, just like in Vancouver, where people who have no children still pay the taxes that pay for schools.”

MOU Focus Area: Community Energy and

Emissions Plan

sions through increasing participation in composting). Finally, what will the CEEP mean for you? First, you will have an opportunity to participate. A key component of the CEEP is community engagement and you can ex-pect to hear about innovative opportunities to participate in the CEEP development us-ing innovative techniques, such as ‘world cafes’ and through the use of UBC’s newly commissioned BC Hydro Decision Theater. Second, you can expect to be asked to be part of the solution. Behaviors at home are an important part of the energy and emis-sions puzzle, and the CEEP will identify ways the UNA and UBC can support you and your families efforts to engage in en-ergy conservation and emission reduction at home. The CEEP development is scheduled to begin in November and be completed by fall 2012. Be sure to watch future columns and articles in The Campus Resident for more details and ways you can engage in the development of the plan.

“I can’t think of anything we don’t pro-vide that you would get in the City of Van-couver,” continues Ms. Fialkowski. “We’re about to discuss the feasibility of a skate park, for instance—it’s on the agenda for this month, we’re going to investigate that.”

“Some would argue that we have better access to things like the Museum of An-thropology, the Botanical Gardens, the ath-letic facilities,” adds Mr. Burgess. “There are way more of those sorts of amenities per capita here than you would find else-where. And at rates that are reasonable.”

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT OCTOBER 24, 2011


Advertise with us! email - [email protected]

page 9

Je vous remercie pour votre vote

Thank you for your vote

感谢你的投票

Vielen Dank für Ihre Stimme

Muchas gracias por su voto

투표 감사합니다

Please feel free to phone or email me with any issue that you think the UNA should address, change or improve in 2011/2012. My in-box and voicemail is open 24/7, and I’d love to meet you in person for more complex discussions. I will also use the UNA’s facebook page for commentary on current issues and I encourage you to do the same. Facebook also allows for a decent blogging/discussion facility on a topic so we can have open, online debates about pro’s and con’s of often controversial issues. UNA also has a great website (www.myuna.ca) that lists all agenda items for the next board meet-ing and I encourage you to email me or phone me if issues are not on it that you feel are relevant ! Thank you again for your vote to strengthen the residents’ voice! Thomas BeyerT: 604-564-7673E: [email protected]

Letters to the Editor (continued from page 3)

I was surprised to hear that at the UNA Executive meeting on October 11, 2011, a UNA member expressed dismay that not one resident of UTown had served nomination papers to Metro Vancouver for the elected position of Director of Electoral Area A. The concern of this member was that the UNA would not be very well represented unless the Director of Electoral Area A was from the UNA. This seemingly parochial statement is simply not true. As the holder of this po-sition for six years and at the same time a member of the UNA as well as a UBC affiliate, I had no inclination to represent one area of Electoral Area A better than another. I did not have a favoured area or one that had more importance than a other. The electoral area is too small and

Fair Treatment for All lightly populated to have that kind of at-titude. The job of the Director of Electoral Area is to fairly represent, on Metro Van-couver’s Board of Directors, the con-cerns of all constituents from Passage Is-land to Barnston Island with UBC, UNA and UEL in between. The constituents need to remember that Metro Vancouver is concerned with bringing regional is-sues to the regional population. It is not a government of individual areas within greater Vancouver. So on voting day in November, vote for the person who you feel is best able to bring the issues of the region to the at-tention of UTown residents and who will work for the Electoral Area on the Board of Directors to help address the large re-gional issues that affect us all.

Gary Gibson, Hampton Place

In sharp contrast to the “happy commu-nity” images in the glossy UNA Annual Report distributed at the September 28 AGM, the mood of AGM attendees was anything but happy. There were polite but heated complaints about the UNA’s lack of response to issues raised at last year’s AGM, delays in passing the park-ing, noise and animal control bylaws, the latest increases in services levy, the rise and fall of water charges, and the lack of clarity in the UNA budget, community access and the Neighbours’ Agreement with UBC. After the AGM, a number of residents, who were dissatisfied with the UNA’s performance over the years, came togeth-er to discuss their concerns. They felt it was time for the UNA to change its way of serving the community. To ensure that their voices are heard, they organized an informal group called the Residents for Change (RFC). The RFC’s objective is to make UTown a better place by ensur-ing that the UNA is responsive to the res-idents’ needs and interests. For starters, the RFC is making public, for the benefit of those who were absent at the AGM, the following recommendations made by the residents: 1. That the UNA look into the annual $100,000 surcharge levelled by UEL on UTown’s water supply and that UBC devise a more efficient water billing sys-tem. Perhaps, the feasibility of a pipe connection that bypasses the UEL can be jointly funded by the UNA and UBC. 2. That the UNA hold a town hall meeting on the budget so residents can indicate how they want their tax dollars spent. For example, are the residents getting their money’s worth when the UNA spends more than a million of their tax dollars for community access and landscaping? 3. That the UNA make use of the many talents and skills of its membership by keeping the residents informed about UNA policies and concerns so they can contribute their talents through commu-nity involvement. UNA must employ a more effective way of communicating – more personal and less technology-based. After nine years, it is apparent that email blasts, newsletters, the Cam-pus Resident and the UNA website are inadequate as tools of community en-gagement. 4. That the UNA use the issuance of community cards as a means to get quali-fied residents to become UNA members. The current two-step process where resi-dents have to apply separately for the community card and UNA membership is redundant and inefficient. 5. That the UNA email to all members the agenda, minus the attachments, for the Board’s monthly meeting one week in advance so concerned residents can plan to attend if the topics are of interest to them. In addition to the recommendations

Letter Lists Set of Recommendations to

UNA Board

made at the AGM, the RFC recommends the following measures to the UNA Board: 1. That the UNA send to all residents the basic documents to be considered at each upcoming AGM at least 21 days before the AGM (as per the BC Soci-ety Act). A printed copy of the minutes of the last AGM and the financial report should suffice. There is no need to dress up the documents with celebratory pho-tos which delays the distribution and in-creases the cost. The current practice of distributing the Annual Report right at the AGM does not give residents ample time to review the materials. 2. That the UNA save time and resi-dent tax dollars by scrapping the fancy format of the UNA Annual Report with its glossy cover and colour photos. Resi-dents are more interested in what the UNA is doing as a governance body. The UNA Board should note that feel-good photos of social activities are poor sub-stitutes for concrete information on what the UNA is doing to make our commu-nity better. While free burgers and fiestas may contribute to community building, they do not a community make. 3. That the decisions made by the UNA Board in its monthly meetings be thor-oughly reported in the Campus Resident. An analytical report on the monthly meeting should be a regular feature of this newspaper to inform the community about how and why the Board directors arrive at their decisions and who voted for or against an issue. The residents have a right to know how their represen-tatives are exercising the power that the voters had vested in them. The RFC has observed that while the Campus Resident regularly highlights UNA social events, it seldom carries substantive reports on issues which impact the residents’ lives and their pocketbooks. 4. That the UNA Board’s monthly meeting be completely open to residents and not have “in camera” segments un-less absolutely necessary. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, delib-erations and decisions at such meetings should not be hidden from the public. In camera sessions should be held only for truly sensitive issues. 5. That the UNA have a clearer state-ment of its vision, mission and goals. The platitudes listed in the “UNA’s Working DNA” in the 2011 Annual Report are meaningless; they are a bunch of clichés masquerading as goals with no specific means to achieve them. The RFC is seek-ing views from the community on what they want their UNA to be and will pass this information on to the UNA Board. The RFC hopes that the new UNA Board will take its comments and sug-gestions in the spirit that they are given – to help the UNA build a community where residents are engaged and elected leaders are accountable, consultative, re-sponsive, transparent and supportive of measures that that benefit the majority of residents.

Eleanor R. Laquian, on behalf of Residents for Change (RFC)


The controversial 15-storey St. Andrew’s apartment-rental building in the Chancel-lor Place residential neighbourhood at the University of British Columbia will go ahead more or less as planned. On September 20, the UBC permit development board decided the project should proceed despite both opposition from a board member on account of its parking features and strong criticism from neighbours on account of a variety of design features (including parking). Strongest criticism came from Chan-cellor Place resident Thomas Beyer who was a candidate for election as a direc-tor of the University Neighbourhoods Association at the time of the permit board meeting. Mr. Beyer, who was later elected UNA director, called for the per-mit board to delay consideration of the 178-suite rental project for six months pending a review of recent zoning chang-es in Chancellor Place. “I propose the 178 suites be reduced to 120 in line with the old density plan.” He said the change of Chancellor Place density in June of this year to allow for project design “was not what I expected when I bought (my suite at UBC) four years ago.” Mr. Beyer voiced his op-position to the St. Andrews project on a pair of fronts. “It has too many units and

Plan for St. Andrew’s Tower Proceeds despite Critical

CommentsParking is raised as a prob-lem; project is perceived as ‘step into future’ for UBC

there’s a parking issue.” Board member Jim Taylor—at vari-ance with three members of the permit board—also voiced concerns about the proposed parking arrangements at St. Andrew’s. Mr. Taylor, a campus resident who was UNA chair for six years, directed his ire at the plan of developers Concert Proper-ties and St. Andrew’s theological college to have only 40 car-parking spaces in the buildings for 200-300 residents (plus 18 spaces for visitors). He suggested this arrangement would create problems for the whole of the Chancellor Place neigh-bourhood when St. Andrews’s residents and/or visitors seek extra parking locally. “What we’re doing about parking here is wrong. You have got to have a place for people to park.” For UBC, the St. Andrew’s tower rep-resents a step into the future of campus planning on two fronts. Firstly, as UBC director of planning Joe Stott said at the permit board meeting, the St. Andrews project “is the first proposal under the Land Use Plan (approved earlier this year) to provide affordable housing” on campus, and secondly, the building is de-signed in response to a UBC survey that showed 60% of its faculty and staff are single with many living far off campus. St. Andrew’s design documents show all apartments in the tower—a mix of stu-dios and one-bedrooms—ranging from only 400 square feet to 500. While the St. Andrew’s tower may lack

for car parking spaces, it does not lack for spaces where residents and visitors may store a host of bikes. Architectural plans show the 300-plus number of stor-age spaces for bikes outdoing car-parking spaces roughly five to one.Concert Properties and St. Andrew’s pre-dict that construction of the tower—open only to renters affiliated with UBC—will take a couple of years.

As a condition of granting St. Andrew’s Tower the go-ahead, the permit board ruled the co-developers must file an an-nual report with UBC campus and com-munity planning department identifying the tenant occupancy mix by unit count according to the following categories: faculty, staff, student and employees of on-campus employers.

Residents of the University Endowment Lands (UEL) will have the opportunity to vote in three elections November 19—one more than their neighbours at UBC. While residents of both UBC and the UEL will vote to elect a director to the board of Metro Vancouver for Electoral Area A and trustees for the Vancouver School district, UEL residents will also vote to elect seven members of their Community Advisory Council (CAC) and eight members of their Advisory De-sign Panel (ADP). The CAC and ADP represent a measure of local governance on the UEL in con-trast to UBC where the University Neigh-bourhood Association (UNA) serves as

UEL Neighbours Note Nov 19th Date for Three

ElectionsLocal governance at UEL is different than at UBC; ward system is in effect on UEL

the local governance body. While the election of CAC and ADP members—along with Vancouver school trustees and Electoral Area A director—takes place locally every three years, the election of (two) UNA directors takes place every year, and the last election of two UNA di-rectors took place on September 28. In further contrast between the UEL and UBC residential communities, the election of CAC and ADP members takes place on a ward basis—there being four wards there with each ward assigned a specific number of members; for exam-ple, one of the wards has both two CAC members and two ADP members, while another has three and two. Meanwhile, voting for directors of the UNA takes place on a campus-wide basis.

Please go to www.uelcommunity.com for more information about the UEL election and list of candidates.


Metro Manages Busy 2011 Agenda

中侨社区、语言与安顿服务部的专业工作人员为不同文化背景的人提供移民安顿服务。广泛的移民安顿服务让移民获得所需的知识和资源，得以适应加拿大的生活方式。

通过电话预约或者亲自前往，我们将对您提供一对一的协助。服务包括: 提供有关房屋，医疗，教育，考车牌，税制，加国福利, 就业市场介绍，具体行业分析等信息和转介服务。填写新移民所需申请的表格：医疗卡，牛奶金，成人英语学习（ELSA）等；定期开办新移民讲习班，讲座，以及联欢会。

从11月7日起，中侨互助会社会外展辅导员会在每周一Old Barn社区中心办公室办公。全天服务分两个时段：1.）预约时段：早上10点 - 下午1点；以及下午4点 - 5点，欢迎预先致电预约。电话： 604-408-7274分机2072 ，或者电邮到： [email protected].）自由时段：下午2点 4点，无需预约。

SUCCESS Settlement, Languages, and Community (SLC) Services Division provide services for new immigrants from diverse cultural backgrounds. The comprehensive settlement services help immigrants gain the knowledge and resources necessary to adapt to the Canadian way of life.We provide: One on one enquiries (drop in/appointment) on immigration, citizenship, housing, customs, medical and health, education, legal, family, employment, social benefit, transportation, and travel documents… etc. Assistance in form filling, making referrals and connecting to services and resources in the community. Conduct new immigrant orientation sessions, workshops, and welcoming parties.

Outreach program at the Old Barn Community Centre start on November 7, every Monday. 1.) By appointment: 10:00am - 1:00pm; and, 4:00 - 5:00pm. To make an appointment, please call 604-408-7274 ext 2072, or, Email: [email protected].) Drop-in: 2:00 – 4:00pm.

In the last 12 months, a lot has hap-pened at Metro Vancouver and the Mayors’ Council for Regional Trans-portation that affects the UBC area. Metro Vancouver adopted a 30-year Regional Growth Strategy that provides a process to consider and meet land use and transportation needs in all parts of the region, including the UBC lands. In a related development, the May-ors’ Council for Regional Transporta-tion adopted a transportation plan that provides funding to meet some of the region’s immediate needs. Also, Metro Vancouver also adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan to reduce solid waste, an issue on which the UNA has been leading the way. Regional Growth Strategy The new Regional Growth Strategy

By Maria Harris, Metro Vancouver director for

Electoral Area A

triggers a requirement for all member municipalities to prepare a Regional Context Statement as part of their Of-ficial Community Plan, demonstrating how their local plan helps meet regional objectives. These Statements need to be prepared within two years of the new regional growth strategy coming into effect- by July 29, 2013. The Region-al Context Statements require Metro Vancouver Board approval. In the case of UBC and the UEL, their Regional Context Statements are approved by the Minister rather than the Regional Board. Transportation The transportation plan proposes a se-ries of expansion projects that will be funded by $70 million in additional an-nual revenue. The plan is contingent on the Province introducing a new 2 cent/litre gas tax in Metro Vancouver. This is expected to happen in the next two months. One component of the plan is increased bus service to UBC on 4th, 41st, and 49th Avenues.

The Mayors’ Council is actively en-gaged with TransLink and the Province to establish a sustainable long-term funding strategy for new transportation projects, including public transit along the Broadway corridor. Since June 2010, the Electoral Area Director of Metro Vancouver has been a non-voting participant on the Mayor’s Council. Although this is an important first step, I have been pressing for full voting membership so that residents in Electoral Area ‘A’ are represented on the body that makes important funding and taxing decisions. I am hopeful that full membership will be obtained this fall. Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan The Integrated Solid Waste and Re-source Management Plan calls for Metro Vancouver to work with munici-palities to increase recycling, including recycling of organic waste. Organic waste is a major component of solid waste. Metro Vancouver’s Board agreed

in September on a strategy to divert large amounts of organic waste away from disposal through a mixture of reg-ulation and economic incentives. The goal is to divert an additional 265,000 tonnes per year of food scraps, yard waste and soiled paper from homes and businesses throughout the region away from disposal by 2015. Local institutions will be involved in developing the details of regional initia-tives to reduce solid waste. Consulta-tions have already started. The UNA, UBC, and UEL were invited in early October, at my request, to participate in a Metro Vancouver government staff workshop on regulatory mecha-nisms to increase recycling. All three entities have local responsibility for, and experience with, aspects of solid waste and resource management. This area has much to offer the region. The UNA’s success in engaging multi-fami-ly participation in recycling efforts and UBC’s success in local organic waste recycling are obvious examples of this area leading within the region. Academy for Sustainable Food Production Metro Vancouver is exploring the con-cept of an academy for sustainable food production at Colony Farm Regional Park in Coquitlam. In addition to rec-reational opportunities, the Academy would provide education and research on urban agriculture, sustainable food production, and the study and protec-tion of fish and wildlife. In September, Metro Vancouver adopted a Draft Park Plan for Colony Farm and it is engaged in public discussion and is exploring funding sources. If the Academy is set up, it will provide educational oppor-tunities that complement and reinforce activities at the UBC Farm and at Terra Nova Lands in Richmond. Conferences In September, I attended two local con-ferences. The first dealt with “Building Future Cities Today”. The conference brought together delegates from Asian, European and North American urban regions to discuss common issues of sustainability, energy, waste and water planning. The most fascinating sessions dealt with the challenges each of these regions confronts in building livable communities on a human scale. The conference website, www.metrovan-couver.org/2011IRBC, provides video clips from the conference and elec-tronic versions of the presentations. It is well worth a look. The materials con-tain much food for thought as we move forward to deal with some serious long-term challenges. Other areas face simi-lar challenges to ours and conferences like this allow experiences and creative ideas and solutions to be shared. I also attended the Union of BC Mu-nicipalities Convention. Among many presentations, one that will be of par-ticular local interest was a report by the Whistler Housing Authority on afford-able housing, both rental and owned. The WHA website, www.whistlerhous-ing.ca provides a good overview of its organizational structure and of the kinds of employee housing that it provides.

Settlement Introduction services NOW AT THE OLD BARN COMMUNITy CENTRE!


Documents

Campus Resident October 2011