Noise and UNA Governance

The UNA managed to implement a noise bylaw about a decade ago (see also, UBCBoG).  It's not clear that the bylaw has any actual effect though. Infractions are complainant driven and the UNA has no bylaw office to monitor or enforce violations of the bylaw. Furthermore, the bylaw is set such that the most persistent noise issues, landscaping and equipment and activities in public spaces, don't violate the terms of the bylaw.

Over the years three categories of noise complaint have arisen: landscaping equipment noise, institutional noise (institutional building and related activities, frats), and playground/park noise.  Landscaping equipment noise falls within acceptable levels of  the bylaws and is typically ignored by the authorities. Institutional noise complaints have arisen from time to time, but due to their nature tend also to be ignored and don't usually violate the noise bylaw.  Playground and park noises however have been an ongoing site of conflict.

Playground noise conflicts have a long history in the UNA. Right from the planning days of the Old Barn Community Centre to the thwarted Wesbrook Place Basketball Court arguments over what constitutes "inflicting unacceptable noise" on residents have motivated decisions to keep or cancel outdoor play areas.  What constitutes unacceptable seems tied to the age of a playground user - noise from younger park users is generally accepted; noise from youth or adults tends to be frowned upon. Basketball courts are a good example of this situation. 

The original plans for the park alongside of the  Old Barn Community Centre included a half court basketball area. I was a community rep on the planning committee and was quite impressed with the landscape architect's plans that included a lot of natural play scapes (as opposed to traditional play equipment) and accommodated multi-age/intergenerational park use with a small basketball space worked in.  However, when presented to the UNA board and the CEO of UBC Properties trust two complaints were lodged: (1) the basketball court will attract people from outside the community, and (2) the noise will be an unreasonable intrusion into the lives of people living alongside of the park.  The landscape plans were tossed out and the architect was instructed to produce a more community relevant park. The result is the large lawn and small installation of equipment suitable for young children. 

It took a concerted campaign by youth to get a basketball court. The new location of that court was telling - it was placed alongside Thunderbird Boulevard, a busy campus arterial road. Even so it worked as a positive social space for an intergenerational set of community residents. Recently we almost lost it, but with a bit of pushback it was moved from the street to a parking lot.

The current anti-basketball campaign replicates the same arguments and objections that swirled around the Hawthorn Place Court. Time will tell if a local youth campaign will get the court back. If they do get one, I suspect it will also be in a place less congenial for the safety and wellbeing of the court users (the Triumph parking lot might be a location).  As previously, it doesn't take a majority to defeat a basketball court, just one or two older men with power and connections. That was what happened in Hawthorn and it seems to have been the case more recently in Wesbrook. 

The noise of children in playgrounds shifts the terms of debate differently. Here those who try to frame the intrusion of noise into the quiet enjoyment of their homes tend to find themselves cast as anti-child and unfriendly. Teenagers and youth are presented as vaguely threatening. The noise of young children, however, is greeted warmly. We can see how the same complaint - unreasonable noise- is often presented against both types of activities. Yet the cultural valuation of the complaints are assessed differently and those opposed to child noise come out on the losing end.

The UNA dealt with two prominent examples over the past years: a playground built in 2012 in Iona Green (Chancellor Place) and the use of the three Hawthorn Place playgrounds by a local private school (2013-2016).  In both cases the UNA ultimately decided that while there was evidence of noise it was reasonable noise.

The Iona Green playground conflict spanned nearly four years until the UNA decisively decided to do nothing about the complaints in 2016.  In 2012 UBC Community and Campus Planning, working in concert with the theological colleges, installed a small children's play ground in Iona Green. A previous playground in the neighbourhood had been displaced by redevelopment of one of the theological colleges. The colleges contributed a gift to UBC to assist in the funding of a new playground which was built with minimal engagement with residents in the area around the playground.  Complaints were inevitable. Within a year of the playground opening the UNA board (on which I served 2012-2016) was receiving emails and resident reports at an accelerating rate about the unreasonable noise levels created by the playground.

The residential buildings surrounding Iona Green created a glass and concrete pit around which sounds bounced and amplified with no structural dampening. Given that situation the ultimate solution was to relocate the playground or ignore the issue and get on with it. The UNA Board and Campus Planning held a series of consultations 2014-2016, the end result was a report to the board recommending leaving the playground were it was.  At the time I sympathized with the residents who found themselves the victim of a poor urban design.  Campus Planning was less sympathetic and the principals of the theological colleges were issuing biblical statements about being open to children. The UNA board voted to leave the playground were it was and stated that the sounds of children didn't constitute unreasonable noise by definition. 

This same problem played out again in Hawthorn Place with noise from a private school who used the parks without charge or permit. From about 2013 until 2017 or so the school used the three playgrounds in Hawthorn Place essentially as their private recreational spaces. Through out this time the UNA's official response was that the UNA had determined that there was no way to stop the school and the school told the UNA  they would continue to use the parks as they didn't believe the UNA had the legal right to prevent them since UBC Properties Trust had said it was okay for the school to use the parks.

In this case the noise issue was complicated by a private school using a UNA resource without permit or compensation (at the same time the UNA had a park use policy that involved  fee schedule for specific usages of the parks). The issue was resolved by the school relocating to the UEL portion of campus.  That said, the issue remained that the UNA's official perspective (and much public opinion) sided with the idea that children playing does not equal unreasonable sound.

The only substantive difference between noise from children's playgrounds and noise from outdoor basketball courts is who is making the noise. When it is children their sounds are registered as not noise, as a positive indicator of community belonging. The decisions makers and policy influencers talk about the importance of play for children. Those who oppose are described as selfish and lacking in empathy. With basketball courts the noise makers are defined as wayward teenagers and youth, potentially attracted from outside the community.  They are described as potential threats to the wellbeing of others. Yet the volume and nature of the sounds from both are empirically very much the same. What is different is the cultural values assigned to them: children are positive, teenagers and youth are disruptive.

As a person who has been both a child and a youth I can see good reasons for accommodating all ages of people. I also think we need to seriously reconsider our rhetoric around sounds (noise) and the extent to which we allow them or disallow them. With the push to greater housing density issues of sounds felt as intrusive will be more of a problem, so we need to think about both how we develop better tolerances for these sounds and also ways to mitigate them without shutting down youth activities.

Effects of Slates on Voting Behaviours in Past UNA Elections

 Over the past ten years there have been two UNA elections with clearly identifiable slates (2012, 2014) and one with a probable slate (2017). In years with slates the voting results reflect different patterns than in non-slate years.

I was a member of a slate in both of the elections that I participated in (2102, 2014). 

In the 2012 election we organized a slate and ran against a single individual. Thus we knew that at least two of our slate would be elected. In the 2014 election there were two slates.  In both elections the dominant slate won by about two thirds of all ballots cast. In the 2014 election our 'losing' slate, while clearly outvoted by the dominant slate, also tallied a significant lead over the three independent candidates.

Through scrutineer reports at the time I can also make some additional observations. In the 2012 campaign most of the people voting for Ada Dong were plumping their ballots (only voting for her, rather than use their full three votes). In the 2014 election many voters only cast two votes, not the three they could have. Thus supporters of the Shang/Alexander slate voted just for them, while those supporting the Menzies/Craigie slate only voted for us.  We weren't able to pull as large a vote as our opposing slate and thus only one of us squeaked onto the board that time. But slates tend to corral supporters in ways that shape voting behaviour differently than without slates.

In elections that have no slates the spread of votes has tended to be more even. It is hard to see any significant gaps in the results between candidates. There appears to be a lot more voters casting only one vote (perhaps for a neighbour they know) and thus not using all available votes.  For example, in the 2019 election the individual voting results ranged from a high of 627 to a low of 245 with the top five results all fairly close. This was also the election in which the fourth ranked candidate won over the third ranked due to the local area rule.  We don't know the total ballots cast for 2019 becuase the UNA did not record that info. They only recorded individual candidate totals. I have estimated the number of ballots cast to be about 1200, but it could have been anywhere between 920 and 2700.  

Slates reveal the underlying, often unstated, campaign tactics of slate organizers.  In the city of Vancouver we have witnessed the situation in which multiple groups run short slates (not running as many candidates as there are spaces available). It creates an interesting political dynamic on those governing boards, the results of which are debatable. Some think it brings more diversity to the discussions while others suggest it restricts what can be done. I think it can do a little of both. If a single slate dominates minority interests tend to be silenced as the dominant slate controls the agenda. In multi-slate boards things can grind to a halt as one party tries to obstruct decision making or, worse I think, the board gravitates to easiest common denominator decisions.

In UNA elections slates have tended to bring more voters out. They also tend to reveal social divisions within the UNA community. They can also build connections across the differences within the UNA. In 2012 the organizing group made an effort to link differnt groups from recent immigrant residents in Wesbrook to faculty/staff in Hawthorn to retirees in Hampton around a common platform. In 2014 that unity broke down and we saw a slate based in the retiree/newcomer section campaign against a faculty/staff housing demographic. In 2017 the informal slate that succeed again linked across the three longstanding UNA demographics. 

In 2021 it will be interesting to see how a fourth, previously ignored sub-culture within the UNA is represented. Fo many years the official UNA line was antagonistic to student participation. For many years student housing in the UNA was explicitly excluded from UNA membership. With the University Boulevard housing coming on stream this situation has mellowed. Fact is there are many university students already living within the UNA as owners and renters. The current election, with four student candidates running, makes this fact clear.  It will be interesting to see how it pans out in the election results.

[This post was edited Dec. 1/21 to revise 2019 total ballots cast from 1800 to 1200]

UNA Voting trends over the decade

I first ran for UNA Director with Mike Feely in 2005. The UNA board at that time was comprised of  appointed Directors.  They had just changed the rules so that three resident directors (half of the board) were to be elected.  The voting took place in person at the AGM held in Cecil Green House. About a hundred people voted in that first election.  I came in fourth losing out to my running mate Mike Feeley and Hampton Place residents Brian Collins and Jim Taylor.  

Over the years since then the UNA has grown alongside of the real estate developments on campus. Voter participation has also increased averaging around 350 voters per election until this decade were voter participation started to climb. 

I next ran for the UNA board in 2012. By that time the UNA membership was larger, the Old Barn Community Centre was established as a community focal point, and voter turnout consistently topper 600 to 1000 voters.  

Campaign practices have also changed since that first election. From fairly informal word of mouth campaigns things started to ramp up into formal slates. 

I was part of a slate in both the 2012 and 2014 elections. In 2012 it was a formal slate and we coordinated out campaign activities much like a formal civic party might.  In 2014 there were two less formal slates: Richard Alexander (my former slatemate in 2012) teamed up with Sabrina Zhang and I teamed with Alan Craigie. It was a crowded field of seven candidates for three spaces. Alan and I worked hard but were were decisively out organized with the Zhang/Alexander slate taking about 1000 votes each to the 300+ votes or so Alan and I each got. I just squeaked in with 347 votes trialing way behind Alexander and Zhang.

The 2014 election revealed a decisive shift in electoral power away from the Hampton Place establishment. Candidates able to cross the language barrier were better placed to connect with and mobilize a wide community of voters that hadn't really been engaged in previous UNA elections.  This election also resulted in a more careful management of the election system to ensure all proper protocols were carried out.

The dip in voter turn out in 2015 and 2016 related to more stringent voting practices where polling stations were tried in place of mail in ballots. The high cost and reduced turn out made in person voting a short experiment and the UNA returned to mail in balloting in subsequent elections. 

This current election, with 13 candidates for seven spots on the board for three year terms essentially marks the end of a period of near yearly voting. I am disappointed that we've moved to triennial voting and longer terms of office. I think it removes directors from accountability when they don't have the possibility of electoral defeat looming over their heads.   

I am expecting this election to be a record breaker in terms of number of ballots cast [update Dec. 1/21: I was wrong]. It is hard to tell though as only those people receiving and recording the ballots will know for certain how many envelopes are being returned.  In the past elections with more candidates running do bring out more voters. In addition when campaign tactics include recruiting people to join the UNA, voters turn out also increases.  From what I see both situations are in play. 

All this is, of course, speculation until Tuesday's results come in.  In the meantime make sure you have voted if you haven't already!

Calling the election? Early guesses.

Is it too soon to call the Nov. 30th UNA Board of Directors' election? Well, maybe/maybe not. Given this is an election that is done through mail-in ballots that started arriving in mailboxes on Nov. 8th we can assume a lot of the voting already took place by now (though given mail speed the envelopes will likely arrive in greater numbers this week).

A lot depends upon how effective the various slates are at reaching beyond the typical 350-500 core UNA voters. The smaller the voter turnout the more likely the 'current directors' slate will win their four spots back (Holmes, Kang, McCutcheon, Watson). However, there are some wild cards here - the student AMS Slate for example could rock the boat and place up to three candidates on the Board (pretty certain they will win a Hawthorn Place seat, maybe a Hampton as well). 

Also unclear is the impact of the multicultural committee/community engagement committee that has historically managed a network outside the english language social media that has a significant impact in the UNA elections. In some elections that network has linked with the core older UNA vote and been decisive in electing candidates. The implication will be strongest here in Wesbrook local area. 

The implication of the faculty/staff housing association is also important and has played an important role in getting candidates elected in the past. I am willing to bet the election of one Wesbrook Place candidate will be thanks to that group of voters. 

The easiest candidate elections to call are, I think, Watson, McCutcheon, and Proust, all from Hawthorn Place. As long as they all win more votes than the two Hampton Place candidates I'm willing to bet these three will be elected. But, those are the only names I will venture to guess as any other predication is a lot less certain and is based purely on speculation.

As for the two Hampton Place candidates, Holmes and Ngieng, it will be hard to tell which of them will get elected. I'm willing to bet at least one of them will get elected. Holmes is  favoured to win, but experience isn't everything in an election and if he is over confident and not engaged in campaigning he may find himself surprised on election night. But Ngieng will only win if she can really attract a lot of new voters to overcome Holmes' establishment advantage. She has a lot of ground to cover to make it onto the board whereas Holmes can gently trot over the finish line to win.

Third Slate is now public

 With the Sunday, Nov. 21/21 campaign letter the 'current directors' slate that kicked off with a private meeting a week ago is now out in the open.  It was clear during the all candidates meeting that at least Holmes and McCutcheon were speaking to their collective campaign messages, but the letter lays it down. 

Their message revolves around their 'harmonies' history of working together, the over promises of other candidates, and how much more their experience will be important in this new stage of the UNA. They imply, but do't state, that electing a totally green slate would be a disaster.

The 'current directors' slate really seems to be a reactive slate, most likely worried about the implications of the well organized and well supported 'AMS slate' of Co, Gan, Ngieng, and Proust.

The 'current slate' is trying to pull from the older, establishment Hampton Place voters comprised of many retired empty nesters and newcomer residents.

The 'AMS slate' is working to recruit students to the UNA, solicit those already members, and draw out those who feel disaffected from the current UNA's actions (or lack thereof).

Cheng's, Glassheim's, and Liu' slate might be understood as the better communication and engagement slate. Rather than simply saying they'll make the UNA change, they demonstrated the change they want to bring by  putting it into play with a new facebook page for community discussion. 

All in all it will be interesting to see the results from this election which will very likely produce a new board populated with candidates from these three slates.

'Current Directors' Slate - campaign letter

 Dear Fellow UNA Members,

You are probably becoming tired of all the emails from candidates, so we will keep this brief.

 

We are writing to ask that you vote for us: Murray McCutcheon, Jane Kang, Richard Watson, and Bill Holmes. We are the four current UNA directors in this election. We have worked together harmoniously and effectively over the last two years and would like to continue serving the community. Between us, we bring considerable experience with the UNA. Electing us will provide continuity in the operation of the UNA Board. 

 

Our track record shows that we get things done. Here are a few things we have achieved as directors:

·       Significant changes to the UNA’s bylaws. These were approved by UNA members last year. One change eliminated UBC- and AMS-appointed director positions. Now all UNA directors are elected by residents, enabling the UNA to more strongly represent the interests of residents.

·       Addition of new purposes to the UNA’s constitution. These include representing the interests of residents vis-à-vis UBC, the BC Government and other entities, and taking positions on land use and development at UBC. As continuing Board members, we intend to pursue these purposes vigorously, especially with respect to UBC’s development of Campus Vision 2050 and its proposals for Stadium Neighbourhood.

·       Formation of the Community Engagement Advisory Committee. This committee provides advice to the Board on increasing the engagement of residents in community life. It is planning a survey of residents to determine how the UNA can better serve the community.

·       Formation of the Land Use Advisory Committee.  This committee, which is about to be launched, will assist the Board in formulating positions relating to land use and development, both in the neighbourhoods and nearby.

·       Hiring a superb Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), who was previously a CAO in a municipality.

 

You have heard numerous wonderful ideas from other candidates as to what they would like the UNA to do. While we agree with many of these ideas, we are also realistic. The UNA has limited resources – both staff and money –so only a fraction of the ideas can be implemented. We commit to working together with newly elected directors to initiate actions that will be of greatest benefit to the community.

 

Sincerely,

Murray McCutcheon

Jane Kang

Richard Watson

Bill Holmes

Erin Co - campaign letter

Good Evening UNA Residents,

My name is Erin Co, and I’m running to represent YOU in the UNA Board of Directors. You’ve most likely already received emails regarding the upcoming UNA Elections, so I appreciate you taking the time to read this, I’ll keep it short and sweet.

The UNA is the backbone of where we live, work, and play, and through living at Wesbrook Village, I intend to create and cultivate a community where we all thrive in. This means providing services, both recreational and municipal, ensuring residents are consulted on UBC’s land use plan and the Skytrain to UBC, and collaborating with the university and the RCMP to create a UNA Safety Advisory Committee.

As not just a student leader and advocate but also as a young adult, I genuinely have the drive and passion to work with and for UNA Residents round the clock.

Specifically, my platform, and more importantly, action plan consists of: 

• Furthering the Skytrain-to-UBC by pushing UBC to include the project in CampusVision 2050, which is UBC’s 10-year land use plan, in acknowledging the key benefits that the Skytrain brings to our community
• Directly consult with residents as UBC renews CampusVision 2050, through community town halls and engagement sessions Community Safety and Amenities 
• Create a comprehensive crime prevention strategy in consultation with all UNA residents and in partnership with UBC 
• Consult and survey residents on the expanded needs of families for daycare services while making investments into all UNA-administered childcare services Sustainable Initiatives 
• Work towards the creation of a sustainable action plan in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from UNA facilities and strive towards creating more green spaces in the neighbourhoods Community Engagement 
• Consolidate all quarterly business of the UNA Board of Directors into brief, concise, and engaging language and communicate these updates  
• Push for the creation of a UNA Youth Leaders’ Council to involve younger residents on various issues Equity and Diversity 
• Addressing the health and well-being of senior residents through the establishment of a senior health and wellness program to be facilitated by the UNA and its recreation centres 
• Work towards the establishment of a relationship with Musqueam in order to ensure that the UNA is effectively contributing towards Indigenous reconciliation 

 This election, I hope to continue serving my community and working on the ground with you to make sure your concerns and needs are not just heard, but met. 

As always, please feel free to contact me at erin.tanco@gmail.com. 

 Thank you, and I hope you vote Erin Co for the UNA Board of Directors. 

 Yours, Erin Co Candidate | UNA Board of Directors

Basketball & the UNA - reflections.

 Basketball is a great sport. My father played youth basketball in the 1940/50s on BC's north coast. I love his stories of rough boat trips to outlying villages, the ferocity of the audiences, and the joy of the game. My Dad, his dad and all the cousins played on local teams.  All of my relatives and many of my ancestors have been involved in local team sports. One uncle (Russell Gamble) was inducted into the BC Basketball Sports Hall of Fame in 2003 for his work supporting community basketball. 

Co-op Team 1948, Bob Menzies (front, 2nd from right)

I played basketball as a kid, even made it to the high school team for while. Like a lot of folks back home we had a hoop nailed to the back of the house. The local gym was open for drop in ball, and there were public courts around town.

So. I come to the local UNA basketball discussion with a bit of a perspective. I think it is great, I think it builds community, and I am highly suspicious of the arguments poised against this low cost, easy entry, community building activity!

1930s team, Grampa  Menzies (back, 2nd from left) 

My late uncle, Russell Gamble, was pivotal in the longstanding All Native Basketball Tournament  (ANBT) based in Prince Rupert that has existed since the 1950s. It is one of the largest community basketball tournaments in North America. 

Basketball is a low barrier sport. It doesn't take a lot of expensive gear or high tech facilities. At the base all one needs is a patch of ground and a hoop to shoot into. 

Gitxaała’s women’s team@ the ANBT, 2013

Yet. Riding alongside this joyful sport is a host of detractors. All over North America outdoor basketball courts face sustained criticism and campaigns to either prevent them or decommission them.  A November 17, 2021 article in the Walrus documents the situation in Toronto. Here, and despite all the public support for the victorious Raptors basketball team, there has been a sustained campaign against public outdoor basketball courts. 

2021 anti-basketball poster, Wesbrook Place.

Underlying the campaign against public outdoor courts is a set of ideas that revolve around ’noise,’  ’danger,’ and ’property values.’ Each of these claims are unfounded opinions. Even worse, there is documented evidence that they are not a simple misconception, but are factually wrong.  

For example, in a Portland study of parks it was found that the noise levels from skateboard parks and basketball courts were no different than any other outdoor park. The park noise was 70db at 50 feet from the park (and indistinguishable from ambient levels at 200 feet), less than what the UNA allows for power equipment. 

 

The is the ’danger’ element position teenagers as potential threats to younger children.  Basketball courts are said to attract 'outsiders.' Yet,  the research on outdoor parks actually demonstrates that parks with people are safer for everyone than empty spaces. In fact, I have been hard pressed to find any empirical evidence that outdoor basketball courts are dangerous to the well-being of children or community members in general. If anything, the evidence points the other way - open access outdoor activities like basketball improve community, child, and youth well-being.  

What about the property argument? Realistically, anyone who thinks an outdoor basketball court has anything to do with driving down property values has no clear comprehension of Vancouver’s housing market. Any drop in value that might come won’t be caused by a basketball court. 

All this is by way of trying to make sense of the UNA’s reasoning when they abruptly voted to pull their basketball court proposal in Wesbrook Place on Nov. 17/21.  

Earlier in November notices started going up about the proposed basketball court calling for public input. About 99% of the social media commentary I observed spoke positively about the proposed neighbourhood court. Then anonymous notices started popping up around Wesbrook Place (see the two examples in this post). Shortly thereafter an anonymous facebook page turned up.  The page has essentially been deleted now (during its operation any pro-basketball comments were deleted and hidden).

At the Tuesday night UNA Directors' meeting an unscheduled delegation spoke to the Directors complaining about the noise and disruption of the proposed basketball court and demanded that the court be cancelled. Directors Bill Holmes and Terry Mullens put a motion on the floor to stop the ball court and were supported in that action by Director Kang. The only support at the meeting to continue public consultation was from Director Watson. Director McCutcheon was absent.

According to Director Holmes the court would have "inflict[ed] an unacceptable amount of noise on a few residents, thereby causing a significant deterioration in the livability of their units" (personal communication Nov. 18/21).  No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim. 

As noted above, the noise complaint is one of the common criticisms of outdoor basketball courts, yet the evidence around this 'problem' doesn't support the claims.  Noise is a word often used to describe unwanted sounds. It is value laden and often comes with very strong subconscious cultural biases. What are joyous sounds of children playing to another may be an intrusive interruption of their peace of mind.  One picnic in the park is for some a raucous disruption. On it goes. When one actually measures the sound levels from basketball courts, skate board parks, or children's splash parks, they all have the same objective measure of sound production.  It raises a serious question about the underlying unspoken drive beyond the UNA's reversal and the three people who spoke against the outdoor ball park.

I grew up in a world where basketball was part of our community life, it was history, it was fun, it was something we dreamed about for the future. It brought (and brings) people together across race and class divides. It made us happy. It was a place to gather and make friends. The ethic of basketball makes it something that is open to all. I think that's one reason the ANBT in Prince Rupert has been so successful - it creates connections that transcend barriers.

At the UNA All Candidates meeting on Nov. 18 every candidate spoke about the importance of building community (even the ones that had shut down the basketball court).  But I am not sure they all agreed on what this 'community' is or what it should be. Richard Watson stood alone when he talked about the idea of neighbour civility,  of taking responsibly to be present in our communities. It was an inspiring and encouraging viewpoint. It foregrounds a sense of collective belonging. When the UNA Board makes 'community-oriented' decisions in the future let's hope they are more inclined toward Watson's idea of neighbour civility then the narrow complaint of personal disruption that guided the basketball court decision.  

The UNA All Candidate's Forum

The UNA all candidate's forum was thursday, Nov. 18. I watched the event and live tweeted it. What follows is the compilation of the tweets, loosely edited. The format was very clipped and at times it was hard to distinguish particular differences. Of note, the student candidates who had previously suggested they were in favour of increased policing, clarified to say they were't calling for more police on the streets. Holmes and McCutcheon constantly spoke about the importance of keeping experience on the board.I was impressed by the sincerity and reflections by Watson, Glassheim, Gallo and Liu. 

Getting ready for the #UNA_Election forum, starts at 7pm tonight. They have it set up as a webinar, so my guess is it won't be very interactive. Also there's more than a dozen candidates and only 1.5 hours - so it will also be fairly constrained. Just waiting (at 7pm) for the @UNAcommunity to open the webinar for the election forum- but nothing yet. Pretty certain that they are only taking questions that were presubmitted - hope that's not the case, but I think it is. They've shut down chat, no way to see how many people are present .

The moderator preselected 9 questions, distributed them, and each candidate is only allowed to answer up to 3 questions. So very restrictive. Really weird that there is no mention (@UNAcommunity ) of how many people are there. Now 30 second intros starting with Gan telling us her name, that she is a candidate

Feil liu starts with a nice intro of her family, kids, what she does and what she hopes to achieve. She is cut cut off, but the moderator let Gan ramble on. Cheng is coming to us from a gym somewhere on campus. Kang now with a palm tree blowing in her background. Kang cut off by moderator. Mitchel starts with identifying his local area, what he does and what he wants (sort of speed reading. McCutcheon says how long he's lived here, and his opposition to stadium dev and a plug for experience. Watson says more than 70 residents watching, thanks the candidates, says he's a long term resident

Gallo says lives in wesbrook and a prof and engaged, active listener and honest. Co tells us her name and her undergrad major saying she's a student leader. Ngieng, the undergrads keep repeating their names ... ... boosts safety. Glassheim is a parent and reps the basketball court and how the board dropped it before it was approved. Moderator skipped Bill Holmes. Says he's been here for 20 yrs and is boosting himself as the oldest candidate. (overtime)

Apparently they will take question via the Q/A box. Holmes is saying have to reelect current board or things will be set backwards in time

Note: Ali Mojdhei not present

Co is calling for a safety program among other things. Cheng is answering this question. He is talking about performance indicators. Student candidate Gan says important improvement is community stakeholder relations and says as a student she didn't engage and the UNA failed becuase of it. Mitchel wants to bake in community engagement (don't we all). Fei liu says EDI should be core aspect of strategic plans. Watson now up - says strategic planning wasn't able to be done, in covid crisis, but in all tings most important to get going to reestablish plan, adding community connectedness & sustainability. McCutsheon says we have actually done a lot over the past two years and he is pushing Holmes's claim that they need experienced board members to be elected. 

What neighbourhood do you live, why, what fav area. This is the most important question but only two people are raising their hands. Kang and Watson. Kang gives a shoutout to Doughgirls and says more outdoor facilities need to be developed. So sad that none of the students spoke to that question. 

Now a safety question. Cheng raises property theft and road issues as big safety issues. Gallo, big issues of safety is that problems with over policing and there needs to be a balance, focuses now on road safety that needs to be addressed. Glasheim - biggest concern is safety of roads and walkways - to deal with improvements on road safety. A really well thought out comment. Kang - highlights traffic and working closely with rcmp. Ngieng - highlights marine drive roads but need to focus on sexual violence, crime prevention and comprehensive crime prevention policy. 

Now a question on increasing diversity of perspectives

Proust says UNA has communication deficit and not effectively engaging with entire community membership. Kang is talking about concrete things to do like making friends across boundaries. Gallo - starting point would be diversity on the board, mentions her immigrant background and the importance of representation on the board. 

Question on civic life. Almost all of them raise their hands for this. Glassheim starts off with a reference to what the UNA has done already but says more needs to be done. Fei says needs connections across cultural barriers (editor note: this is the issue and has been a goal of the UNA for many years). McCutcheon says civic life means accepting responsibility to get involved, not just a top down from the UNA. Proust says need to work with residents on what belonging means and then focusses on 'grievance politics' by saying people don't feel they belong - good politics, but not factually grounded. Watson says finding ways to meet and gather - a personal responsibility that starts with each of us

I figured out how to comment and share thoughts - use the Q&A to put your comments into the public view! 

New question about longterm planning. Holmes talks about problems with densification. Co on campus vision - the students are really running on an AMS campaign program - housing affordability.

Note the above is my gloss on what Co said (she just argued for a plan to devalue property values. I wonder if people realize that. 

McCutcheon critiquing densification. Calling for medium density. 

Going to slack off on tweeting this out as it's getting hard to see the differences between what people are saying especially given a lot of the comments revel a lack of knowledge about reality of history and current practices here. 

So far candidates who seem to be the most knowledgeable about past, are being the most honest in their accounts of successes/failures are: Gallo, Glassheim, Watson, and McCutcheon. 

Many of the criticisms of the UNA raised by Proust, gan, Co, and Ngieng are not founded in factual details. Holmes presents as very defensive of past actions of the UNA. It is important to note he has done a lot, but this forum doesn't let him shine as well as he could. 

No one offered to answer the affordability question. Strange given that so many candidates made this a core to their campaigns. 

Last question - climate crisis. Holmes only one left with the 'right' to answer this last question [others all used up their 'three' questions]. Holmes speaks about what the UNA has been doing to address the climate crisis. 

Now questions being taken from the floor. Question about over policing. Watson picks it up - says we do need more community policing, need to be cautious, need to build community is the solution. UNA can play a part in that. The more we know each other the better safety is. Proust, despite his campaign letter, says he doesn't support increased policing. Ngieng also contradicts her campaign literature now saying she doesn't support increased policing, says we need other things. She's on the right track, but is changing her tune. Fei Liu says still needs more police on the streets, but also good community friends. 

Now addressing a question that I posted;

McCutcheon talks about being out and active and engaged in our community. Jane Kang talks about being on the multi cultural committee and doing things that way. Eagle Glassheim says he live in an activist corner - they noticed bird strikes on glass fences and got together to see what they could do. eagle also mentions community efforts on road safety. [Sad more of the candidates didn't answer this question.

Question on appropriate density - Watson - density is tricky - appropriate is kind of like community of Hawthorn. Holmes talks about community feeling - pointing to Musqueam development as being appropriate. Ngieng says tricking question and says remember that as UBC grows need to balance housing with green spaces. And says affordable housing . McCutcheon says we need to get to an idea of reasonable density. Need to advocate for livability. Fei Liu says it is a professional question, most important part how we can match the facilities. In all these discussion on development everyone assumes growth is necessary. But it's not - we shouldn't be supersizing, shouldn't be growing continuously. 

Next question: How would you engage the Musqeuam Nation. Only two hands up. Proust and Liu. Watson now raises his hand as well. Now Ngieng raises her hand. Answers so far on this question are sincere, but not as informed as they could be. Erin Co says we need to educate residents, 2nd we need to establish a clear relation [She doesn't appreciate that Musqueam might not want to. They have an MOU with UBC that makes engagement with UNA irrelevant]. I wonder if Co and Ngieng have listened to Musqueam? when they say reconciliation can happen, do they know what that means? Watson says education is important, get to know the Musqueam people, but be respectful. Cultivate respect first. Appreciate Watson's statement but I think, after listening to these answers, I need to do some educating of these neighbours. There are a lot of freshman assumptions here that need to be addressed. Kang mentions the reconciliation pole. 

A pot question and nobody wants to answer. 

A fiscal experience question: Gan and Holmes put up their hands. Gan says she is an AMS exec. Holmes says chair of the finance committee and a tax lawyer and all the hands go up. I am pretty certain each of he candidates are now going to tell us they have lots of fiscal experience so I am not going to summarize all of them. Confirmed - they all attest to their personal competency and experience. 

The @UbysseyNews tosses in a question about communications in multiple languages. Again a host of hands - I predict one group says we are doing it, and then those that say the UNA has failed. I would suggest the UNA is doing what is needed, but I expect some tomatoes will be tossed. Like the experience questions, the answers to the communications question are in fact type cast and don't really add anything. 

And the forum is over. I had hoped to have a longer meeting, but am glad it was only 1.5 hours.

Safety - a campaign promise

 Safety has a peculiar resonance in contemporary urban politics. For some conservative leaning folks safety is about protecting their property and their children from 'influences' they don't like. 

[Consider] the slogan of safety in schools.    Most of us we think this means something like ensuring no child is bullied, that schools are earthquake proof, and/or that it implies a focus on issues of emergency preparedness. However, this is also a coded phrase that speaks to a conservative anti-LGBTQ movement intensely opposed to any kind of non-heteronormative sexual orientation or gender identity. (Menzies, Oct. 2018).

In the current UNA elections safety has popped up in almost every campaign letter and communication from candidates (not all, but most). A discouragingly strong minority of occurrences reference the conservative 'protect my property' variant of safety. Some, however focus on a more progressive focus that might be called a community wellbeing approach.

Fei Liu, for example, very carefully argues that "a safe community should be inclusive without out prejudice and hate."  Eagle Glassheim discusses safety in the context of earthquake preparedness and climate change induced wildfires in Pacific Spirit Park.   This approach to safety centers the wellbeing of all people living in our neighbourhoods.

The conservative mode of safety reconceptualizes threats to wellbeing as something caused thieves at night, unfamiliar strangers, or identities that challenge parental authority.  The solutions to these types of threats typically involves increased police presence and excluding people thought to be strange and dangerous. 

Three candidates in the current election have explicitly called for increased policing and more money being spent on the local RCMP; this in an historical moment wherein many people are calling for a defunding of police or a retasking of police funding to more community wellbeing focussed activities. 

Tony Cheng opened his campaign by citing examples of violent crime in Alberta and followed up by promising to lobby for more RCMP funding.  AMS supported candidates Mitchell Proust and Sofia Ngieng have both promised to lobby for more police presence on campus in order to improve community safety.  Erin Co, another student candidate, is less explicit on an expanded police presence but also picks up the conservative safety theme by advocating to The Ubyssey "to make a working group and to liaise between the RCMP and UBC to ensure the overall safety of all community members." 

A lot of research shows that community safety isn't gained by increased police presence. For the fiscally concerned, there are cheaper ways than spending on policing to improve community safety.  In fact, the best intervention lies in preemptive community planning - something that is currently underway and already in existence in the residential neighbourhood plans.  Let's hope that those candidates who have called for spending more money increasing police and enforcement reconsider their promises. If they get elected this is one promise I hope they break - not because they are typical promise-breaking politicians, but because they will have reflected on the facts and have realized they are wrong to demand more police.

------

Editors Note, Nov. 20/21: Proust and Ngieng clarified/reversed their position on expanding police presence during the All Candidates Forum by saying they meant community enforcement, not more police officers.

Mitchell Proust campaign letter.

Hello neighbours,

In case I haven’t had the chance to meet you yet, my name is Mitchell Prost. I am a resident of Hawthorn Place and am running to represent you on the University Neighbourhoods Association Board of Directors. The UNA is an organization that has surely affected your living experience here on campus in some way or another. I am hoping to work with board members and residents alike to improve our community for all.

Before I dive into my campaign and what I hope to do with the UNA, I thought it would be nice for you to get to know a little about me first. Some personal fast facts about me are:

• I was born in Langley, BC and grew up in Surrey, BC
• I have lived on the UBC Campus (Musqueam Territory) for the past six years
• I have one dog and two cats (very cute pictures linked here)!
• I graduated from UBC with a Bachelors of Science in Biology and Behavioural Neuroscience
• I have played the piano for 16 years and love to compose music
• I like to think I am a friendly person, and hope to meet many of you in the coming weeks and beyond!

Professionally, I currently work as the Student Services Manager with the Alma Mater Society (AMS) of UBC Vancouver where I oversee the operations of our community services. The AMS Food Bank, our Safewalk campus shuttle program, and our AMS Housing Services are some examples of the services I manage daily. In this role, I additionally sit on the AMS Board as a councillor, on the Finance Committee, and the Student Life Committee.

Outside of my current work, I sit on the City of Vancouver’s Renters Advisory Committee where I regularly engage in conversations and consultation with city staff and Councillors on a variety of issues affecting Vancouver’s 600,000+ residents.

If you’d like a full picture of the work I have done, I invite you to review my LinkedIn profile. Additionally, you can visit my campaign website at mitchellprost.com. 

My Vision for the UNA

As I mentioned above, the UNA is an organization that affects us all here living in our neighbourhoods. The board in particular has the ability to engage in consultation with a variety of stakeholders such as residents like us, the UBC administration, the UBC Board of Governors, and more. The topics vary from more local issues such as parking and access, to more broader topics such as the planning of how UBC’s physical campus will grow in the future. As a UNA Director, I will commit to bringing my full attention to all conversations we have, no matter how easy or difficult, or how small or large they might be.

In addition to continuing the work currently being done by the board to ensure a smooth transition that does not disrupt the community in a major way, I hope to work on the following priorities:

Land Use Planning and Development

An affordable, accessible, and sustainable living

• Coordinate with the UNA-UBC Liaison Committee and the UNA Land Use Advisory Committee as a way to ensure that the UNA is making housing more affordable in our neighbourhoods.
  
  

• Consulting directly with all residents on matters of land use, climate action, sustainability, transit solutions, and more as UBC renews its 10-year Land Use Plan, otherwise known as “Campus Vision 2050”.
  
  

• Pushing for the development of more green spaces in all neighbourhoods along with the promotion of sustainable transportation methods such as the Skytrain-to-UBC and zero-emission vehicle charging stations.
  
  

• Advocating for the inclusion of the Skytrain-to-UBC into CampusVision 2050 in understanding the short-term and long-term benefits that the project brings to the region, such as employment growth, Indigenous partnerships, and sustainable transit solutions.

Safety and Communal Living

Creating a safe community

• Work with the rest of the board to push the provincial government to allocate more resources towards local law enforcement and UBC to ensure that our neighbourhoods and the entire campus are being kept safe.
  
  

• Collaborate with UBC and the Director of Electoral Area A on the creation of a UNA Safety Advisory Committee which would be mandated to work with local law enforcement to create a comprehensive crime prevention plan as a way to mitigate the long-term impacts of population growth.
  
  

• Lobby the provincial government, in coordination with UBC and all relevant stakeholders, to conduct a safety audit of direct roads and ensure that all access routes to UBC’s Vancouver campus are safe for residents, visitors, and students. 

Community Engagement and Transparency

Being transparent and accountable

• Revolutionize the UNA’s community engagement strategy by growing social media accounts and regularly updating residents on the operations of the UNA Board of Directors along with work being conducted by UNA staff in brief, concise, and engaging language.
  
  

• Push for the creation of more youth engagement in the UNA’s operations and governance by pushing for the creation of a UNA Youth Leaders’ Council which would act as a consultant on directional decisions regarding affordable housing, connectivity, sustainability, and more within the UNA neighbourhoods.
  
  

• Improve accessibility and transparency of the UNA Board Meetings through the uploading and storing meeting recordings to UNA website, in addition to the written minute documents already available.
  
  

• Increase community engagement in creating the annual budget through a UNA budgetary priorities survey.

Expanding Revenues and Services 
Cutting costs and investing in a community for all

• Push for the reduction of parking costs for UNA residents while making up for lost revenue by potentially increasing parking costs for visitors and guests in understanding that UNA residents are existing financial contributors (small financial study required).
  
  

• Conducting a review on the current services provided by the UNA to identify any gaps in an effort to reinvest within the community.

Many of my goals are informed by the thoughts and feelings of other UNA residents. Before moving forward on major changes, I believe it is imperative to adequately consult the community, and will incorporate this belief into my work as a Director, should the community select me as one.

If you have made it this far, I truly appreciate your time and attention. If you have any questions or comments at all, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at mitchell.prost@gmail.com or by replying to this email.

Thank you and have a great day!

Best,
Mitchell

Mitchell Prost | He/Him

Candidate | UNA Board of Directors

Website: mitchelprostcom

Email: mitchell.prost@gmail.com

Sofia Ngieng - campaign letter

 Good afternoon,

My name is Sofia Ngieng and I am excited to announce that I am running to be on your UNA Board of Directors. Having been a resident of Hampton Place neighbourhood, I believe that the UNA has failed in ensuring that they are accurately voicing your opinions along with the opinions of your fellow residents - whether that is on matters of land use, green space expansions, community safety, or engagement and transparency. If elected to the UNA Board of Directors, I hope to bring a fresh slate of ideas and work tirelessly with all UNA residents. My candidacy for the UNA Board of Directors aims at revolutionizing the UNA’s outlook on land use development, safety, communal amenities, and expanding revenues while investing in you, the residents.

UBC is currently renewing its 10-year land use plan, more commonly referred to as “CampusVision 2050”. The plan will have a major impact on how the neighbourhoods are developed over the next few decades and it is essential that the UNA advocates for the needs of its residents. If elected, I will work with UNA residents and push for the following items:

• Creating a direct line of communication with all residents to ensure that your voices are being heard when it comes to CampusVision 2050;

• Maintaining and growing sustainable initiatives such as green spaces and zero-emission vehicle charging stations;

• Advocating for the inclusion of the Skytrain-to-UBC into CampusVision 2050 in acknowledging the transportational improvements, increased employment opportunities, environmental benefits, and Indigenous reconciliatory partnerships that the project brings to UBC and the region.

As a young resident who is working towards my double major in English and Political Science at UBC, I will work towards bettering the relationship that the UNA has with your children, the youth of our community. A couple of ways that I will better this relationship are as follows:

• Actively engaging with newer residents through community events and initiatives to ensure that they understand the importance of the UNA along with the partnerships that it has with stakeholders such as UBC and the UEL.

• Working with the rest of the UNA Board of Directors to create a UNA Youth Leaders’ Council to involve and engage younger residents in directional conversations on sustainability, community engagement, and connectivity within the UNA neighbourhoods. 

Your youth are growing up in these neighbourhoods, they should be involved in these conversations.

Our community must be kept safe - for our children, for our students, and for our parents. We need to be actively liaising with local law enforcement and UBC to lobby the provincial government to provide the UBC campus, in its entirety, with increased enforcement funding and resources. 

The UNA has not made any tangible action on this yet. I believe it is pivotal that the UNA plays a strong role in voicing support for improved road safety on UBC’s Vancouver campus. 

This election, UNA residents and members have a unique opportunity to make our communities more safe, build a tighter community, and shape the way that our communities are going to look over the next few decades. I hope to serve as a fierce advocate for this work and ensure that your voices are being accurately represented on the UNA Board of Directors.

Warmly,

Sofia Ngieng

Candidate | UNA Board of Directors