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!