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.