Listen In is a
community engagement process inaugurated by the UNA October 2012. The objective of Listen In is to expand and develop upon the UNA’s community
engagement and public accountability in the area of emergent and longstanding
issues of resident concerns. UNA
Directors and Staff were invited to participate as listeners and observers. Community volunteers moderated and
facilitated the workshop. Community
residents provided comments, direction, and input.
The rationale for Listen
In arises out of the UNA’s role in the delivery of services, such as
community centre programs and community services cards, with reasonable
effectiveness. The UNA is more
than just a service provider. The UNA acts as the clearinghouse for the
engagement and voice of a diverse group of residents who have selected the
University Town as their home. Listen In thus provides a direct,
public, and transparent mechanism to build upon and to enhance the UNA’s
democratic reach and practice.
Listen In used the
device of a discussion circle (in which each participant's voice is respected
and dialogue -not debate- is prioritized) to solicit community comment. Each participant had an opportunity to
speak, without debate or argument.
Comments were recorded in two ways: by a volunteer (Maria Harris, Metro
Electoral Area A Director) on flip chart paper that was then put up in clear
view of all in the room, and by UNA Director Charles Menzies using a recording
device that captured audio and his own handwritten notes. Both outputs were subsequently placed
online so that all participants and interested members of the public could view
the meeting proceedings unedited (see http://universitytown.blogspot.ca/).
The first Listen In
session was held October 30, 2012.
The primary topic put to community members was: “what are your thoughts on development,
housing, and our public spaces?”
Participants were asked to address this larger issue in three rounds
address the following three sub-questions: (1) what works? (2) What needs
improvement? (3) What more can we do? The facilitator had the meeting identify
the priority items under question 2 (what needs improvement) and from there the
participants identified a set of action items related to the 3rd
question, what needs improvement.
Attached to this report are copies of the flip charts and
Menzies’ notes. This information
is submitted to the board for your information. A more detailed discussion and
set of recommendations on taking action based upon the community consultation
will be held in the next Governance Standing Committee meeting (November 27,
2012).
Summary of key points from Oct. 30th Listen In
What works?
The general theme of comments under this heading was that
our community is a beautiful and exciting place to live. The advantages of having the forest to
one side, the ocean on another, and a world-class university and yet a third
side made this a desirable and wonderful place to live and to raise one’s
family. There is a diversity of
people –ages, cultures, occupations- that contributes to the vitality of the
residential neighbourhoods. The
type of housing, with a generally groundfloor entry orientation, and the mass
of pedestrian friendly walk ways further adds to the positive, safe, and
enjoyable feel of the UNA areas.
What needs improvement?
Under this category the volunteer note taker recorded each
participants idea. Then the
facilitator asked audience members to select their top three priority
concerns. The full list of ‘needs
improvements’ can be found in the attached pdf notes. For the purposes of this report I have highlighted the top
three items.
1.
Towers – density and massing concerns
2.
Resident rights – need to be consistent with
other urban areas
3.
Consultative process for planning – needs
improvements
These areas of improvement are all matters that the UNA has
no direct control over. Our best
avenue to address these areas that need improvement is to be more proactive in
our advocacy on behalf of neighbourhhod residents.
What more can be done- action items.
Three general categories of action items were identified.
1.
Communications –improve communications between
UNA and members; between resident and UBC; between residents and our
neighbours.
2.
Advocacy – work to include residents in decision
making related to planning; focus on improving UBC response to residents; lobby
provincial government; educate residents to become more involved in the UNA
3.
Action – conduct comprehensive social and
environmental assessment of cumulative impact of housing development; UBC/UNA
joint study of the public realm (what is working/what could be improved);
working group on integrating new immigrant residents into wider community.
Of these three categories improved communications was the most
frequently mentioned. Suggestions
included:
·
having the secretary of the UNA write a monthly
column in the Campus Resident
·
‘Ramp up the Dialogue’ – make direct contact and
have regular meeting with the BoG, C&CP, surrounding residents, UBC
students (commuter and residential)
·
develop more and improved mechanisms for
communicating with new residents
·
try again to improve overall resident
participation in the UNA
The advocacy group of action items is the mostly likely to
lead to long terms solutions but also those most likely to result in
controversy. For example,
significant support was expressed for a moratorium on further development until
the full environmental, social, and economic impacts on all residents in the
University area (students, UEL, Point grey, and UNA) was determined. Another strongly supported suggestion
was to lobby for the establishment of a real municipality west of Blanca.
The three main Action category items – a social and
environmental impact assessment of the planned density ramp up and a joint
UBC/UNA study of the adequacy of the public realm are two things that could be
identified as doable in the medium term.
Given UBC’s public support of sustainability conducting a social and
environmental impact assessment is something that one could assume there would
be wide spread support and encouragement for from within the UBC
administration, student advocacy groups, and neighbouring residential
communities. The same could be
said for a study of the public realm.
Discussion
Overall I am pleased with how this event worked out and
believe that we have a model that is worth repeating. Holding such meetings provide community members with an
avenue to share concerns and positive feedback. Too often people in our society face defensive officials
unwilling to listen. We, staff and
directors present, showed those community members who came out that we could
listen without acting defensive. I have had the opportunity over the course of
my professional career as a researcher to see many community meetings erupt
into disarray as local government officials attempted to control the
outcome. However, in the few times
that I have seen local officials listen and record far more positive outcomes
followed. Our Listen In
series has the potential to set a new higher standard for community-based
democratic practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment