Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association
Volume 4, Issue 6
JUNE 17, 2013
Walk ‘n Roll Project Brings Kids Together to get Safely to School
Metro Directors Discuss Water Rate Relief, but UEL Surcharge Stays for Now Discussion on 20% surcharge is held at committee meeting; onus is on UBC and UEL to get talks on water agreement with Metro underway
Residents of the University Endowment Lands in June attended the third in a series of ‘town hall’ meetings held to review the idea of the UEL converting from ‘government protectorate’ into municipal corporation. The Campus Resident sources indicate the meeting—which was closed to nonresidents and the media—was well-run and well-attended. The previous two town hall meetings were also well attended with about 60 UEL residents at each. All meetings took place in relatively-small community space in the University Marketplace. The Campus Resident understands that with a show of hands at one of the earlier meetings, 90% of the residents expressed themselves in favour of the community becoming a village municipality. At the other meeting, all expressed themselves in favour.
For the first time in almost 65 year, Metro Vancouver directors have discussed how the 20% surcharge added to the cost of water supplied to the University Endowment Lands might be replaced by a supply agreement offering more reasonable water rates. The discussion came at the June 6 meeting of the Metro utilities committee. The 12-member committee, which makes recommendations to the full Metro board, ultimately passed a motion maintaining the 20% surcharge—which has been in place since 1949. However, prior to the vote, the suggestion of a water supply agreement arose. Local Metro director Maria Harris, who voted against the motion to keep the 20% surcharge in place, said after the meeting that she supported the suggestion a fellow-director made of a UEL water supply agreement. “The committee’s view was that discussion of a water supply agreement should be initiated by UBC and the Province rather than by Metro Vancouver,” Ms. Harris said. “This leaves us with a valuable opportunity to engage with the Greater Vancouver Water District and to agree upon a reasonable water rate and reasonable commitments that align our local water demand with regional water related objectives.” Prior to approving the motion to keep the 20% surcharge in place (for now), committee members considered the comments of Stan Woods, senior engineer, utility planning department, on water rates charged to municipalities which are members of the water district (such as Vancouver and Richmond) and nonmembers (such at the UEL and Point Roberts in the United States).
UEL continued on Page 11.
WATER continued on Page 7.
Children, parents and volunteers join to make Walk ‘n Roll project a success. Over 200 children were involved in this project which lasted a week in May Photo credit Andy Feng. Turn to Page 10 for full story.
UBC, UEL Files Flip for Sixth Time in Only Three Years Rookie MLA Coralee Oakes is appointed minister whose brief in part is UBC and the UEL; Ms Oakes is minister, community, sport and cultural development The June 10th appointment of rookie MLA Coralee Oakes as minister of community, sport and cultural development brings to six the number of appointments to this portfolio, which includes oversight for the administration of both UBC and the University Endowment Lands (UEL), in three years. Elected to represent the riding of Cariboo North, Ms. Oakes is a former twoterm Quesnel City councilor and executive director of the Quesnel and District Chamber of Commerce since 1999. In a write-up on the B.C. government website, the new minister is listed as a strong believer in a vibrant and healthy business community. “As a result of her community work, in 2007, Ms. Oakes was appointed by the Province to the Small Business Roundtable to represent the rural voice of small business. This work led her to be appointed to the Minister’s Council on Tourism in 2009.” Ms. Oakes is the past president of the British Columbia Chamber Executives and has served as a director on the BC
Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Chamber of Commerce Executives, Cariboo Chilcotin Tourism Association and numerous local not-for-profit organizations. The post of minister, community, sport and cultural development, has special significance for 8,000 campus residents for among other things, the provincial government made clear three years ago it was ready to start considering whether a change of governance was needed at the University of British Columbia, and this assurance came in a May 2010 letter from Bill Bennett, minister at the time, to the University Neighbourhoods Association. MINISTER continued on Page 6.
UEL Residents Review Prospects for Village Incorporation Third ‘town hall’ meeting is held; non-residents and media are excluded
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
New School Construction Continues Apace Norma Rose Point School is scheduled to open in 15 months at old site of U Hill Secondary; community vision for UBC family of schools is being implemented The demolition of the old University Hill Secondary School on Acadia Road in the University Endowment Lands has concluded with the work of building the new Norma Rose Point Elementary/Middle school at the site continuing apace. Of the old school buildings, only the famous helmet-shaped gymnasium survives since it is included in the design of the new school. Norma Rose Point School consists in large part of two wings with the K to 5 school in one wing and the grades 6-8 school (the middle school) in the other wing. David Nelson, a district principal (field services) with the Vancouver School Board, said in an interview, “The middle school wing has walls and windows, and construction of the K to 5 wing is well underway.” Mr. Nelson added that “construction is on track for occupancy in time for September 2014.” In March, the school board officially named the new school in honour of deceased Musqueam elder and longtime educator Norma Rose Point, and the board will officially recognize the new school name in conjunction with the formal opening of the school. Mr. Nelson said that in the meantime the VSB has begun referring to the school—in its current location on the grounds of Queen Elizabeth Elementary—as Norma Rose Point School. A community vision has come into place for the UBC family of schools over the last decade—a vision of two elementary schools (K to grade 5), one middle school (grades 6 to 8), and one high school (grades 9 to 12). In the longer term also, when student numbers warrant, the vision will include a plan for a third K to grade 5 school located in Westbrook Place. Robert Schindel, VSB director of instruction, field services team, says that in order to achieve this vision, it is necessary to re-align the grade configurations at both University Hill Elementary and University Hill Secondary School. “It is our belief that moving quickly to re-align the grade configurations is ultimately in the best interest of students, staff, and long term viability of all three
Photos of construction underway at the old site of U Hill Secondary School. sites,” Mr. Schindel says. The following is the timeline he provided for grade re-alignment within the UBC Family of Schools: September 2014
• Norma Rose Point School officially opens and offers Kindergarten through grade 7 programming during the first year. •University Hill Elementary School of-
ficially becomes Kindergarten to grade 5. Students in the UBC family will attend Norma Rose Point for grades 6 and 7. • University Hill Secondary continues to offer grades 8 to 12 programming. September 2015 • Norma Rose Point School adds grade 8 programming and becomes a K to grade 8 school. (K to 5 will be offered in one wing; grade 6 to 8 - middle school - in another wing). • University Hill Elementary will continue to offer K to grade 5 programming. • University Hill Secondary will offer programming for grades 9 through 12. Over the coming weeks, Mr. Schindel says, the field services team will work with the administrators of Norma Rose Point, University Hill Elementary and University Hill Secondary in order to determine how best to support students, staff, and families in successfully making this transition. Members of the team will also talk with students, staff, and parents about the vision for a vibrant and enriching middle school program at Norma Rose Point School. “At the district, we are very excited about the opening of Norma Rose Point School and with the opportunities the middle school will provide to the students of the UBC community,” Mr. Schindel said. “We look forward to working with parents through this period of transition in order to ensure that the larger vision of three vibrant schools providing a seamless K through 12 program is realized.”
Citing “Disappointment”, UNA Sub-Committee Seeks Dissolution Sub-committee was formed in late 2012 to look at sustainable transportation issues on campus; chair is Thomas Beyer, residentdirector and UNA treasurer In a report submitted to the University Neighbourhoods Association, a UNA di-
rector says the sub-committee on sustainable transportation on campus he chairs seeks dissolution because many of its recommendations have been ignored “by not only the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) and UBC, but also by the UNA.” Most of the sub-committee’s members, and a large number of parents and seniors on campus were ‘”extremely disappointed” to see that many of the sub-commit-
tee’s recommendations were ignored, Thomas Beyer—a resident-director who is also UNA treasurer—says in his report. “The sub-committee feels that, therefore, further committee work is unnecessary.” The sub-committee met three times since late 2012, and Mr. Beyer said that in place of the UNA sub-committee, “a more informal pedestrian safety group has been formed.”
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
Published by: University Neighbourhoods Association #202-5923 Berton Avenue, Vancouver, BC V6S OB3
Editorial Page Axing the Despised Surcharge on Water At a Metro Vancouver committee meeting in April last year, Maria Harris—who represents residents of both UBC and the University Endowment Lands on the Metro board—asked why Metro applied a 20% surcharge on water supplied to he UEL. In subsequent June and November committee meetings, Ms. Harris—with dogged persistence—asked the question again and again. The persistence has paid off. A second Metro committee—hearing of questions raised about the 20% surcharge at the first—has agreed to recommend to the full Metro board that its water-supply relationship with the UEL be reviewed. In time, this might mean an end to the much-disliked surcharge in favour of a “reasonable” water supply agreement. Metro first placed a surcharge on the water it sends by pipeline up 16th Avenue to the UEL in 1949. No one knows for
sure how much this surcharge comes to when totaled over the last 64 years. However, Metro expects to sell water worth $3 million to the UEL this year with the 20% surcharge fetching the grand total billing to $3,600,000. The story does not end here for most of this water moves further along the pipeline to UBC, which—therefore—pays most of the $600,000 surcharge. This $600,000 comes out of the UBC operating budget. Over the next 10 years unless something is done, this will amount to a drain of $6 million on the budget. However, thanks to efforts of Ms. Harris, Metro directors have begun thinking in terms of a water-supply agreement which would still likely make water at UBC more expensive than in Vancouver, but not by the same gross amount. Until such a water-supply agreement is inked, the 20% surcharge remains.
Kudos to UNA Board for Consulting on Election Reform I am writing to respond to the letter from Mr. Jim Taylor published in the May issue of the Campus Resident. Mr. Taylor criticized the UNA Board for consulting with residents on a proposed reform of elections for UNA directors that would have all directors elected at the same time for 3-year terms. In Mr. Taylor’s view, this reform should only be considered in the context of a general examination of governance for our community. I would like to make three points. First, it makes no sense to put off a desirable reform that is easy to implement until the indefinite future when the governance of our community might be thoroughly examined. Second, comprehensive governance reform is a long way off. I have spent many hours exploring this matter, including conversations with officials in the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. It has become apparent that we face major hurdles in trying to obtain a real local government for our community. The provincial government will not help us until we demonstrate that reform is necessary in order to solve specific problems with our current governance arrangement and that there is widespread interest in reform. UBC will not support any steps towards meaningful governance reform and, in fact, would
probably oppose reform with the powers in Victoria. The University clearly does not relish the thought of an independent local government representing the residents who live on its lands. Thus, it will be many years before we are able to advance beyond our current status as a “colony” of UBC. Third, contrary to Mr. Taylor’s assertion, the proposed election reform would not commit the community to any further reforms. It is a stand-alone reform that involves changing a few rules in the UNA Bylaws regarding the term and election of directors. To state that this may lead to the community “being folded into Vancouver” is fear-mongering and plainly misleading. Mr. Taylor chastises the UNA Board for entertaining this minor reform of the UNA’s rules. I think the Board is to be commended for doing so. It should be made clear that the Board has no power to decide to implement the proposed election reform. This can only be decided by residents, by a vote at an annual general meeting. Giving residents an opportunity to vote on the reform, which I hope the UNA Board will do, is the democratic approach. Bill Holmes Hampton Place resident
Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association
Advertise with us! email - firstname.lastname@example.org
Editor & Business Manager John Tompkins 604.827.3502 JTompkins@myuna.ca
Letter to the Editor Let’s Have One Dog Bylaw for All Areas I read with interest in your May edition that the UNA Board is firming up plans for an Animal Control Bylaw. However, I think that it should be kept in mind that the UNA is actually five non-connected islands surrounded by the UBC Campus. The “dog attack” referred to involved two dogs of residents of Hawthorn Place, but occurred on Campus (institutional) property. At the present time, UBC does not have a control bylaw, but I gather that this is currently under review by the UBC Legal Department. I feel that any animal bylaw to be effective should involve the participation
of the UNA, UBC administration, UBC student rental housing areas, University Endowment Lands (which already has such a bylaw), perhaps Pacific Spirit Park, and ultimately the new Musqueam property to be developed on University Boulevard. It would be in the best interests of all parties to have one comprehensive bylaw in effect. It should not be too difficult to use the City of Vancouver bylaw as a model to accomplish this. Keith Morrison Hawthorn Place resident
Are the UNA Perils of its Own Making? “Backroom approach?” “Ethical quicksands?” (Campus Resident news item and editorial, May 2013) – Who would have thought that a glacial-paced UNA could be so quickly assailed by moral perils? The “pressure” supposedly came from “a group of residents” who wanted a full representation on the Board. Clearly, the community has a right to know what brought about these dangers. I understand that when Shaohong Wu resigned from the UNA Board in March he was told by a director that “since you caused this vacancy, you should help fill it up.” So he recommended a qualified resident to serve until the September 2013 election. However, in an in camera (closed to public and press) meeting of the UNA governance committee, this was rejected allegedly because the volunteer was “handpicked.” It then passed a motion not to appoint a replacement. In the April issue of The Campus Resident, Bill Holmes wrote that residents are “entitled to, and should have, a full complement of representatives on the Board and that Section 5.12 of the UNA Bylaws permits the directors to appoint a new director whenever there is a vacancy...” He urged residents to express their views on this; some residents emailed the UNA at email@example.com . I was one of those who wrote in support of Bill’s views. There were no secret “pressures.” At the April Board meeting, some residents suggested that the UNA call for volunteers and appoint the best among them. A number of residents, including a former UNA Board chair, applied for the position. However, the UNA rejected the applications because, in the view of director Charles Menzies, a UNA director should be elected, not appointed (although three UNA directors are currently appointed) and that the Board should decide the matter through an electoral re-
form that would define the replacement process at the UNA September AGM. In May the UNA announced a draft policy for replacing resigned directors to avoid what Mr. Menzies termed a “backroom approach” that would lead to what UNA chair Richard Alexander called “ethical quicksands.” Are these moral dangers for real or of their own making? At present, a “backroom approach” is standard UNA practice through its in camera sessions. A “backroom” is where secret deals are made. So are not in camera committee meetings the ultimate “backroom approach?” I challenge the UNA to publish the residents’ emails and show how they constitute a “backroom approach.” If Mr. Menzies and Mr. Alexander cannot prove such an approach in these emails, then they owe “a group of residents” a public apology. Obviously, the real danger in the UNA is not “ethical quicksands” but the lack of transparency in the UNA’s decision-making process. Its in camera committee meetings obstruct transparent, responsive and accountable governance. This lack of transparency is the root cause of this director replacement fiasco, not “pressure” from a “group of residents” advocating transparency and democratic representation. Eleanor R. Laquian, Hampton Place resident
Letters to the Editor & Opinions Include name, address and telephone number. Maximum lengths: Letters 400 words. Opinions 750 words. We may edit or decline to publish any submission.
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
Comments Page Transition from Campus to Community at UBC: Thinking about Schools and Transportation By Kay Teschke Professor, UBC School of Population and Public Health and leader, Cycling in Cities research program When I started working at UBC about 30 years ago, the site was a university campus, with little surrounding housing. Most students and employees arrived by car – the ultimate commuter campus. Now, UBC aspires to be a community. Housing for students, employees, and the broader Vancouver population has been built all across the UBC lands, and education is not just university level. It includes daycare, elementary and secondary schools. But the legacy of our commuter campus survives. The university sits at the core – an internal hub protected from car traffic, allowing its students and faculty members to walk or bike in comfort and safety to classes, meetings, and recreation. This core is surrounded by arterial roads, designed and located to deliver commuters to the university. Yet the placement of UBC’s residential neighbourhoods, schools and daycares requires most children to cross these arterials (such as 16th Avenue) at least twice every day. This puts our youngest community members at risk in two possible ways: • The saddest outcome is that many children are driven short distances to school or daycare, and miss the joys of walking and biking: being outdoors, feeling independent, and using their boundless energy. • The alternative, for those whose parents recognize that the health benefits of active travel outweigh the risks, is that some children will be needlessly injured because they must walk or bike along routes that do not use research evidence to guide their design. What does transportation research say? • Safety concerns are the biggest deterrents to walking and biking. • Facilities that motivate walking and biking are separated from motor vehicle traffic for the entire distance. • Walking and biking routes physically separated from motor vehicle traffic are safer. • Speed limits of ≤ 30 km/h greatly reduce both the risk of being in a crash and the severity of injuries if a crash occurs. • Traffic circles (such as the one at 16th Avenue and Wesbrook Mall) reduce the risk of two motor vehicles crashing at an intersection, but increase the risk of pedestrians and cyclists being hit. The good news is that routes designed to motivate walking and biking are also safer routes. In addition, people of all ages and abilities have similar preferences in route designs, so there is no need to design different styles for different people. So, what to do? Here are some ideas, based on the evidence: • Reduce all campus speed limits to 30 km/h. This would signify that the UBC lands represent a residential and educa-
Cyclists ride under West Georiga Street at entrance to Stanley Park.
tional community, not a commuter pass through. The full university community would benefit from a feel similar to the campus core. • Convert the painted bike lanes along UBC’s arterials to separated bike lanes next to the sidewalks, and move car parking and bus stops next to moving motor vehicle traffic. This will make both cycling and walking along these routes more comfortable and safer. • If roundabouts are installed at intersections to improve motor vehicle safety or traffic flow, either design separated outer rings for pedestrians and cyclists or provide underpasses so cyclists and pedestrians don’t need to interact with motor vehicles at all. A great local example of this is the underpass at Stanley Park under Georgia Street. The university town of Boulder Colorado has installed more than 70 underpasses and it has the highest cycling rate in North America. Northern European countries have been the leaders in implementing changes such as these (and more). In the last 10 years, changes have also been afoot throughout North America, in cities like Montreal, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Vancouver. UBC was a leader in moving commuters from cars to buses via the UPass, but we lag far behind in designing for active travel throughout our campus communities. We are a research-intensive medical university. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to put health research into practice at home? We could create a welcoming, healthy and safe environment for all our community members, including our youngest citizens travelling to and from their schools.
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
HOW TO BEST ENHANCE THE VALUE OF OUR LEASES (7th in a Series) Jim Taylor, Hampton Place Resident, Lawyer and First UNA Chair In the second article in this series I prepared a table showing the relationship between the LH value and the FS value of new properties in several different areas. One was SFU. The new LH values were 100% of FS for both the Neighbourhoods and SFU. Recently I examined the value of LHs at current resale value compared to FS. While LHs in the Neighbourhoods continue to sell for 100% of FS this is not the case for SFU. There, the LHs are selling for less than 100%. Why the difference? In my last article I excluded as factors all of the things that were known at the time that these units were purchased when new. Here I concentrate on a significant issue that was not known or understood by purchasers at the time that these LHs were purchased when new. SFU’s market residential area (UniverCity) is located in Burnaby. Accordingly, the provider of municipal services to UniverCity residents is Burnaby. But UniverCity is also located (as are the Neighbourhoods) on the campus of SFU. Under the University Act the SFU Board of Governors (“BOG”) has the statutory right to manage its campus activities and non-residential development in the same way that the UBC BOG has. The question is, under a governance model such as at SFU where market residents live on a University campus and all their property tax dollars are directed to the municipality in order to provide municipal services to the SFU residents, leaving no tax dollars for other purposes, how do you develop the mechanisms so residents can address the second critical group of governance issues in this context - the relationship between residents and the University? These issues include developing independence from the University itself, obtaining an independent voice on community matters (including devices such as the UNA Board and its initiatives, myuna.ca and The Campus
Resident), negotiating access to University facilities, establishing boundaries between the right of the University to manage us and our rights as Residents, ensuring the unique community programming that a University residential community needs, etc., etc. The solution to this in our model is that as Residents we use, as a result of a negotiated agreement with UBC, the Services Levy (in effect a part of the property taxes that, at SFU, go entirely to Burnaby) to satisfy both the municipal governance and the services Burnaby provides to SFU residents and the University governance issues. We have a funded staff which independently advises the UNA Directors on matters and we can provide the Directors with the professional help required from time to time in dealing with, issues where the interests of the Residents and UBC are not common. SFU has no structure like this. And they do not have any dedicated funding (like the Services Levy) to support an independent residents’ body to deal with SFU about university governance issues because all the monies used to fund this independent advocacy here at UBC are, at SFU, directed entirely to Burnaby. Prior to its residential community being developed, SFU struck a Community Advisory Committee. It had 12 members. The membership was diverse: students, neighbouring Burnaby residents, Burnaby planning staff, BC Housing, CMHC and Smart Growth BC. It did not include a resident as there were no residents at the time. After the initial development of UniverCity this committee, with the addition of some residents, continued to attempt to act as the go between the interests of UniverCity residents and of the University. Considering the membership you will see how unsatisfactory a structure this is to assert the interest of residents. Eventually, to address this issue, SFU established a Council of Strata Chairs amongst the various strata corporations (such as we have in our various Neighbourhoods). The problem is that Councils of Strata Chairs are interested, understandably, primarily in strata issues – property, maintenance, etc. Strata presidents do
not expect to deal with (nor do they have the financial support to do so) the broad range of University governance issues that the UNA, representing all of us, deals with in connection with UBC. So recently SFU Properties caused a neighbourhood association (Burnaby Mountain Residents Association (“BMRA”)) to be incorporated. Look at its website, www. bmra.ca, and compare it to myuna.ca. The lack of substance of the SFU initiative to represent residents’ interests could not be clearer. While the UNA has a budget of $4.2 million dollars (drawn from our Services Levy) and a full complement of staff to assist the UNA Directors in dealing with all governance issues (those regarding the provision of pure municipal services and those involving UBC) the BMRA has no revenue as a right. The membership is small (understandably so for a series of reasons including the fact that it has no staff support, etc.). The only monies the BMRA has is what they can gain through the good will of SFU in providing grants. So far these grants have been in the order of $500$7,000 a year. On an ongoing basis, unless SFU Properties (in effect SFU) is prepared to grant a substantial amount of money to the BMRA so that they can develop UniverCity resident representation independently of SFU Properties (and SFU) it is difficult to see how the residents at SFU will ever be able to deal with this second, very real, very important, set of the governance issues that arise by virtue of being located on a campus where the university has a statutory right to manage that campus. If you think about our Neighbourhoods without the UNA, and the enormous number of activities that the UNA ensures for our community, you realize how different a place this would be if we did not have this independent, funded, Resident representative. Let me give you one small example that is not well known. When UBC Properties was identifying a grocery store tenant for Wesbrook, the UNA talked to Properties concerning the lease that Properties would grant to what was eventually Save-On (owned by Jimmie Pattison). The question was, would Save-On
seek the standard protection that an anchor grocer in such a commercial development almost invariably gets – a provision in the lease precluding any competition with the grocer’s business? Properties is presently seeking two new tenants for Wesbrook (a bakery and a fish market) neither of which would be permitted if there were such a provision in the Save-On lease. Both the UNA and Properties recognized that if Residents were to have the type of walkable, local community shopping experience that we hoped to develop in Wesbrook that these independent competitors of the principal grocer were absolutely necessary. This analysis of the way in which the terms of a grocery store lease could impact residential life simply would not have happened without a thoughtful developer (Properties) and an active and funded Residents’ representative (the UNA). At SFU, the grocer, Nestors Market (interestingly, also owned by Jimmie Pattison) has a lease which contains such a provision prohibiting SFU from leasing to any business that competes with Nestors including, amongst other things, a green grocer, meat market, fish market, bakery, delicatessen, pharmacy, convenience food store, health food store, general nutrition store, a specialty and/or ethnic food store, the sale of vitamin and/or nutritional supplement products, etc. It is not surprising that at SFU, the residents, not having an independent voice from SFU, were not able to effect, and likely did not (may still not) even know about, the extent to which the anchor grocery store precludes the village market atmosphere that we are striving for here in the Neighbourhoods. Without this independent residents’ voice, the relationship between UniverCity residents and SFU is essentially a landlord and tenant model, the failed model that we had here preUNA. The learning from this is, FOURTH ON OUR LIST, ENSURING A WELL FUNDED INDEPENDENT RESIDENTS’ GROUP TO DEAL WITH THE LANDLORD (UNIVERSITY) ABOUT UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE ISSUES HAS AN IMPACT ON LEASEHOLD VALUE.
如何最有效地增进我们租约的价值 (系列之七) Jim Taylor先生, Hampton Place 住户、 律师以及首任UNA主席 在本系列第二篇文章里我制备了一份表 格，显示在几个不同地区里的物业还” 新”时，LH价值和FS价值之间的关 系。SFU是其中的一个地区。表格显示在 大学邻区和SFU这两个地区的”新”LH 价值是FS价值的100%。 最近我检视了以现行转售价格为准的LH 价值和FS的对照。虽然以我们大学邻 区里的售价而言，LH继续维持在FS的 100%的水平，在SFU却并非如此。在那 里，LH的售价低于100%。为什么会有这 样的差异呢?我在上一篇文章里，排除了 可能成为因素的所有在购买这些新单位时 已知的事实。在这里，我要着重于在这些 新单位被���卖当时不为人知或理解的一个 重要问题。 SFU的市场住宅区(UniverCity)位于 本拿比市。因此，为UniverCity居民提 供市政服务的是本拿比市。但UniverCity也座落在SFU校园里 (和我们大学 邻区一样)。根据《大学法》规定，SFU 的理事会(BOG)拥有管理其校园活动和非 居民开发的法定权利，就像UBC的BOG一 样。问题在于，根据在SFU的治理模式， 也就是当市场居民住在大学校园里而所有 物业税收全部归于市政府以便向SFU居民 提供市政服务，却没有任何税金可供其他 用途时，如何能够制定所需机制，让居民 们能够处理在这种情况下第二类重大的治 理问题 (居民和大学之间的关系) 呢? 这些问题包括没有大学本身涉入的开发独 立性、针对社区议题获得独立发声(包括 像UNA的理事会以及由他们主导的myu-
na.ca网站和Campus Resident月刊等) 、针对使用大学设施进行磋商、划定界线 以明确大学管理我们居民的权利和我们身 为居民的权利、确实制定大学居民社区所 需的独特社区方案，等等。 在我们的模式里，这个问题的解决方式 是，在和UBC协商达成一致后，我们身为 居民者利用服务附加捐 (Service Levy， 实际上是物业税的一部份，但在SFU它 们全都归于本拿比) 来满足两方面的需 求–等于是由本拿比为SFU居民提供服务 和市政治理，以及大学治理两项问题。我 们拥有受薪人员，由他们向UNA理事们独 立建言；同时我们也可以在居民和UBC之 间发生利益分歧时，随时为理事们提供处 理相关问题的专业协助。SFU没有这样的 结构。他们也没有任何的专款(比如服务 附加捐)来支持独立的居民团体就大学治 理问题和SFU进行交涉，因为所有在我们 UBC这里用来资助独立争取权益的钱，在 SFU全都给了本拿比。 SFU在开发它的居民社区之前组织了一 个社区顾问委员会。当时它有12位委员。 会员组成相当多元：有学生、附近的本 拿比居民、本拿比的计划官员、BC住房 局、加拿大房贷和住房署（CMHC）和卑 诗智慧成长协会（Smart Growth BC） 。当时没有居民委员是因为那时候还没有 居民。经过UniverCity的初期开发后， 这个委员会在有居民加入的情况下，持续 试图担任在UniverCity居民和大学之间 协调权益的角色。衡量了全体委员后，相 信您会理解到这样一个结构为什么不足以 担当为居民主张权益的角色。最后，为了 要处理这个问题，SFU在多个分契法团间 成立了一个分契主席委员会 (正如同我 们这些邻区里所设的委员会)。问题是这 个分契主席委员会只对分契问题如物业、 维修等感兴趣，而这也是可以理解的。没
有人会指望分契理事长去处理 (他们也 没有经济资助能够处理) 较广泛的大学 治理问题，但是在我们这里，这些和UBC 有关的问题都是由UNA代表我们全体进 行处理。所以最近 SFU Properties 促成了一个邻区协会 (本拿比山居民协 会 - Burnaby Mountain Residents Association - “BMRA”) 的设立。 请看一下这个网站 www.bmra.ca，然后 拿它来和 myuna.ca 做个比较。SFU 主导的方案缺乏实质，不足以代表居民权 益的事实是再明显不过了。虽然UNA拥有 420万元预算 (得自我们的服务附加捐) 和足额的工作人员协助UNA理事们处理所 有治理问题 (和提供单纯市政服务有关的 问题以及涉及UBC的问题)，BMRA却没 有获得税收的权利。它的会员人数很少 ( 可以想见这是很多原因造成的，包括它没 有员工支持等)。BMRA唯一能够收到的 钱是透过SFU好心提供的补助金。但到目 前为止，这些补助大约只有每年$500 $7,000元之谱。 以长远而言，除非SFU Properties ( 实质上就是SFU) 愿意持续为BMRA提供 大笔的金额，以便他们能够培养出独立于 SFU Properties (以及SFU) 的UniverCity居民代表，很难想象SFU的居民 真的会有一天能够处理因为居住在校园里 而大学拥有管理校园的法定权利所导致的 这些第二类，非常真切，非常重要的治 理问题。如果让您试想我们这些邻区没 有 UNA，以及UNA为我们社区落实的诸 多活动，您就会明白，如果我们没有这个 独立、享有资助的居民代表的话，这里将 会是个多么不一样的地方。让我给您举个 并非广为人知的小例子。当年在UBC要为 Wesbrook找一家超商租客的时候，UNA 针对Properties将会给予最终确定为 Save-On(Jimmie Pattison所有)的租
约，和Properties进行了商谈。当时提 出的问题是，Save-On是否会要求在此 类商业开发案中常驻超商几乎都会获得的 标准保护–在租约里明定排除所有会和超 商竞争的店家。Properties目前正在为 Wesbrook寻找两个新租客(一家面包店和 一间鱼货市场)。如果当初在Save-On的 租约里有这样的条款，这两家租客就都无 法获准。UNA和Properties当时都认识 到，如果要在Wesbrook开展我们想要的 那种可以在本地社区走路购物的体验，有 常驻超商以外的这些竞争对手是绝对必要 的。如果没有像Properties这样思考缜 密的开发商，和像UNA这样积极、享有资 助的居民代表，这种对于超商租约条款可 能会影响居民生活的分析是不会发生的。 在SFU的超商是Nestors超市 (有趣的是 这家店也是Jimmie Pattison所有)。 它的租约就包含一个条款，禁止SFU出租 店面给任何会和Nestors竞争的商家，包 括果菜商、肉店、鱼货市场、面包店、简 餐店、药房、便利食品店、健康食品店、 一般营养品店、特色异国食品店、贩卖维 生素或营养补品的店面，等等。所以在 SFU，因为全体居民没有独立于SFU的声 音，自然他们就不能影响，或甚至根本没 有想过，常驻超商能够排除这种乡村市场 氛围的程度，而这种氛围却是我们在大学 邻区这里极力争取的。 因为没有这种独立的居民声 音，UniverCity居民和SFU之间的关系 基本上只是房东和房客模式的关系，也是 我们在没有UNA之前采用的失败模式。 从这里我们学到的是，在我们列表里的第 四项 - 确实设置一个资金充裕的独立居 民团体，以便和房东(大学)处理有关大学 治理问题 –会影响租赁的价值。
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
Skaters and Boarders get Rolling in new Campus Skate Park By Sabrina He and Charli Jin, Grade 11 students, University Hill Secondary School Next to the UBC Thunderbird Sports Centre, you may have noticed the brand new skate park that the UNA has built in partnership with UBC Transportation Planning. This project was started a year and a half ago to accommodate the many skaters and boarders on campus. As the first on-campus skate park in North America, the project cost almost $500 ,000 and is already popular amongst residents here. The park opened up to the public on May 1, and skaters ranging from ages ten to 30 come daily to utilize and enjoy the space. The skate park not only provides recreation for campus residents, but it also incorporates water sustainability. The park collects rainwater and irrigates the plants, making the facility multifunctional. After talking to some of the skaters, we found that many of them had positive comments about the park and said it was a “good facility” and that one of the great benefits about it is the “fitness” it brings. It seemed as though the skaters in the park were regulars coming once or twice a week. We noticed, however, that the majority of riders wearing helmets were the young boys around 10-12 years old. When we asked some of the older skaters why they weren’t wearing a helmet, they said “its too hot to wear helmets” while another one said that in general, the guys who skated there knew what they were doing, and that they had a mutual understanding of the order of who skates next so there aren’t many collisions. He said that it was more dangerous for the younger skaters and recommended that signs be put into use to establish rules about safety. More specifically, skaters should be divided into categories, from the younger children to the adults, the less experienced to the more experienced, and each group can skate at its respective times. As one of the older skaters pointed out, it is difficult to concentrate on skating as well as ensure the safety of little eightnine year olds who get in your way with
MINISTER continued from Page 1. Referring to the way in which the residents of UBC were governed, Mr. Bennett said in his letter, “UBC and the Province agree it is time to start thinking about whether there is a need for more representative local government for the Point Grey peninsula, especially given the significant current and projected population growth, and the increasing complexity of managing the area without the benefit of a municipal government. “The Province is prepared to explore the idea of greater local self-government in the area. Residents of the many communities on the Point Grey peninsula would need to be involved in any discussion of whether governance change is necessary to carry out the core functions of governance, planning and services delivery. Any further action in this regard is going to require time and discussion.” Mr. Bennett pointedly referred in his letter to the role to be played by the UNA
Lone skater stands atop sea of concrete at first skate park in North American university. Photo Credit Edward Chang. no warning, partially due to their inability to understand the concept of “taking turns”, and partially because they simply cannot stop in time. We know from our figure skating experience that the rink is allocated to skaters of varying levels according to a fixed schedule. This easy and practical method of structuring will apply perfectly to the park as well, keeping it in order without creating concerns and/ or inconvenience amongst skaters. There needs to be some notices explaining the new regulations and word of mouth to pass it on . The UBC Skatepark’s Opening Celebration took place on Saturday June 15. It was a fun and free event full of music, cake, and prizes! There was also a crew of pro skaters, a BMX demo, and a camp for kids and youth for attendees to enjoy, not to mention the friendly competitions that attendees participated in and/ or watched. Overall, it was an incredibly recreational and meaningful afternoon, an excellent way of promoting community spirit and unity.
in the proposed exploration of greater local self-governance. “The University Neighbourhoods Association and its Board has played, and will continue to play, a vital role in guiding and administering the growing residential community on UBC’s Point Grey campus. I look forward to working with you on the transition to a new planning arrangement for the UBC Point Grey campus.” Mr. Bennett ceased to be minister of community, sport and cultural development in October, 2010 when Ben Steward took over. Shortly after (in November, 2010), Stephanie Cadieux took over from Mr. Stewart, and in March, 2011. Ida Chong took over from Ms. Cadieux. Mr. Bennett took over from Ms. Chong who was also previously responsible for UBC in the mid-2000s when land use planning oversight for UBC belonged to Metro Vancouver. Now, Ms. Oakes takes over from Mr. Bennett.
Van Gogh public art inspires skaters at UBC. Photo credit Edward Chang.
at The Old Barn Community Centre
Monday July 1, 2013 12 - 2pm Music by Mountain Men Birthday Cake Refreshments Face Painting Girl Guides Scouts Games Crafts & more!
free event for all ages!
Come and celebrate Canada’s 146th birthday with your neighbours! The
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
Month of June Means Start of Market at UBC Farm Market is open Saturdays at UBC Farm; it is also open Wednesdays in centre of campus Saturday and Wednesday markets return for a new season at UBC Farm this month. Starting Saturday, June 22nd with a ‘Solstice Celebration’, staff and students at the farm invite you to join them every Saturday from 9 am -1 pm for an assortment of farm-fresh produce, herbs, eggs and flowers. The Farm also hosts other local vendors, who offer produce, fruit, fresh bread, coffee, pasta, local handicrafts, prepared food and more along with family-friendly activities and entertainment. Meanwhile, the weekly Wednesday WATER continued from Page 1. By way of background, Mr. Woods explained that questions about the rationale for applying a 20% surcharge to the UEL arose at the April, June and November, 2012 meetings of the Electoral Area A committee—an obvious reference to the surcharge-challenge launched by Ms. Harris, who chairs this committee. In a report filed with the committee, Mr. Woods notes how the Greater Vancouver Water District (an arm of Metro) was created in 1924 to provide water on a wholesale basis to GVWD members and how GVWD membership has increased over time to 19 members in 2013 (18 member municipalities and the Tsawwassen First Nation). The UEL does not belong to the water district—all of whose members pay the same water rate (currently $0.6054 per cubic meter) for the volume of water they consume. The UEL pays the member rate plus the 20% surcharge, which brings the rate up to $0.7265 per cubic meter. To complicate matters, the UEL charges UBC a 10% surcharge. This means, of course, that UBC pays 30% more for its supply of water than, say, Vancouver and Richmond. The Woods report offers several reasons why the UEL is charged at a higher rate than GVWD members. First and foremost comes the issue of liability. In his report, the engineer explains that GVWD members are legally liable for all obligations of the GVWD including debt, risks to infrastructure, legal suits or actions, or spills to the environment. “GVWD members are, therefore, subject to additional charges should circumstances arise while non-members are not.” The UEL has no such liability. The Metro planner and his staff reviewed the approach to using surcharges applied in other North American cities and found that “many municipal utilities charge higher rates to retail customers located outside their city limits. “A 2012 rate survey by the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Campus Market starts June 19th. You can find the UBC Farm stand on the corner of Agricultural Road and East Mall (outside of Irving K. Barber Library) from 11:30 am– 1:30 pm. The Farm encourages customers to use sustainable modes of transportation to reach its markets, whether that is walking, biking or public transit. Also, at the first Wednesday market on June 19th, Ian Demuth of the UBC Central Commissary will demonstrate and offer samples of fresh recipes for early season produce from the popular farm. You may stay informed about both markets by subscribing to the Market List: http://ubcfarm.ubc.ca/markets-andevents/markets Also, check the Contact page for the latest information about finding the Farm: http://ubcfarm.ubc.ca/about/directionshours-and-contact-information. showed that the outside city differentials vary greatly, reaching as high as 300% with an average of 35% and a median of 20%. “In member organizations such as the AWWA, the BC Water and Waste Association, or the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the nonmember surcharge for services is between 20% and 30%.” The GVWD delivers water to the edge of the UEL, with the transfer of responsibility occurring in the area of 16th Avenue and Blanca Street. In recent years the GVWD has completed several system upgrades that have improved the reliability of supply to the UEL/UBC area and nearby parts of Vancouver including: • The completion of a 2 km section of 16th Avenue Main No. 2 from Trafalgar Street to Crown Street, in late 2009, to ensure reliable water supply to the Olympic venues in the UBC area, ahead of the 2010 Winter Olympics; • The replacement of 4 km of 16th Avenue Main No. 1 from Arbutus Street to Sasamat Street with 16th Avenue Main No. 3, including over a 40% increase in the capacity of the pipe. The 20% UEL surcharge amounts to approximately $606,000 annually, and based on water usage, about $79,000 of this surcharge would be passed along to UEL’s retail customers and the remaining $527,000 to UBC, Mr. Woods said at the meeting. During debate on this point, Ms. Harris said, “I have an issue with this. The $527,000 comes out of the UBC operating budget.” In 2013, the GVWD expects to sell UEL about 5 million cubic metres of water at a cost of about $3,640,000, which includes the 20% surcharge as a non-member. By coincidence, at the same meeting, the committee voted in favour of amending a water supply agreement with Point Roberts Water Board. Like UEL, Point Roberts does not belong to the GVWD, but unlike the UEL, Point Roberts has a water supply agreement—entitling it to buy water at the member rate.
Team up with our fun and energetic leader for an action packed party!
Book a Saturday birthday party now!! 604.822.9675 or firstname.lastname@example.org 6308 Thunderbird Blvd @ UBC
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
UNA Community News Sustainability Corner
Local Re-use Opportunities In my last column, I focused on recycling as a topic. However, as we found in the Community Zero Waste Challenge (where UNA residents committed to reducing waste at home over a 12 week period), waste reduction was the ultimate goal. Recycling is certainly one way to achieve waste reduction at home, but recycling in itself does not necessary reduce waste (you could increase your waste by increasing consumption, even with recycling), and recycling processes ultimately will produce more waste. One way to achieve waste reduction is to focus on other ‘R’, re-use , which the topic of this month’s column. Buying used is an obvious way to support re-use and an important strategy for achieving waste reduction – by buying used items you avoid packaging and more importantly ensure the item itself has a longer life before it’s recycled or disposed. The recent UNA Yard Sale provides one great example of supporting re-use locally. Our popular annual neighbourhood yard sale (held every June) provides a great opportunity for buying household items from (and selling to) your neighbours. St. Anselm’s Church on University Boulevard holds a similar event every September. These events provide great deals, and save you money (or raise money if you’re selling). They are a great social event and a chance to get out and meet your neighbours. Yard
sales are popular on weekends throughout the summer in Point Grey neighbourhoods. Watch for yard sale signs or ads in the Vancouver Courier or on Craigslist. Donating goods is another great way to support local re-use. Not only do you prevent waste, you support local charities. Some nearby locations include the SPCA and Salvation Army thrift stores on West Broadway and the Vancouver Hospice thrift store on Dunbar St. On campus, clothing donation bins can be found at the campus Fire Department on Wesbrook Mall, on Thunderbird Crescent at Thunderbird Residence (just north of the Old Barn Community Centre) and at St. Anselm’s Church on University Boulevard. The Thunderbird location also takes toys and the St. Anselm’s Church location includes a book donation bin. If you prefer to see your old computer equipment re-used instead of recycled as e-waste, consider donating it to Free Geeks. Located at 1820 Pandora St. in Vancouver, where they repair and donate computers to local non-profits and provide free job skills training. Thrift stores are also great places to pick up a good deal on many items. For example, my wife and I often visit the Value Village on West Hastings Street to browse for clothing for our young child, before we by new. We often find great deals on quality, gently used clothing, and we are able to support local charities
with our purchases. Finally, Craigslist is an excellent free online resource for buying and selling a wide range of used items. Again, this has been a particularly good resource for my family for buying and selling quality baby and child care items locally. As an unexpected bonus, we have met other parents and shared childcare tips and stories. For more information about local re-use opportunities or other sustainability related topics contact me at email@example.com or 604.822.3263.
Ralph Wells, UNA Sustainability Manager.
UNA staff member Cathie Cleveland supporting re-use by selling items at June 8, 2013 UNA Yard Sale.
Jim Taylor Park free at The Old Barn Community Centre, 6308 Thunderbird Blvd @ UBC
5 - 6:30pm
Friday July 12 featuring “Sons Of Granville”
Friday August 9 featuring
“Langley Ukulele Ensemble” The
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
Grand Prix Cyclists Set About Winning Big Race day is July 9; kids’ race is on agenda as well as adult races Presented by Mahony & Sons, the third annual Grand Prix at UBC July 9 features top North American cyclists racing for up to $10,000 in prize money along a fast -paced, short course. Organizers say that while the two previous Grand Prize races at UBC were exciting, “what’s even more exciting this year is the growth of the kids’ races, involvement of the corporate cyclists in their Corporate Challenge relay, and the community involvement. All this makes the event so much fun to come watch.” Chair of the race, Dr. Jack Taunton, brought the event to UBC in 2011 with a view to bringing together the UBC community and the active lifestyle that is a big part of cycling. Organizers see the event as “a catalyst to promote health and wellness through
sport”. Meanwhile, “spectatorship drives excitement and really ramps up the race for participants”. UBC residents wishing to watch the racing should walk over Thuderbird Blvd and East Mall. Schedule of events July 9: •12:00-12:30pm Youth Race •1:00-1:45pm Men’s Category 3/4 Race •2:00-2:30pm Public Ride •3:00-4:00pm Corporate Challenge •4:30-5:30pm Kid’s Race •6:00-7:00pm Women’s Pro Category 1/2/3 •7:30-8:30pm Men’s Pro Category 1/2
Join us on FACEBOOK! Keep up to date with the latest UNA news, announcements, events, and The Old Barn Community Centre’s programming!
AMS Bike Co-op
Cycling Resource Clinics All services provided by donation to the AMS Bike Co-op
11am - 2pm
at The Old Barn Community Centre
June 22 July 20 August 17 Free Bike Tune-ups! Bike mechanic demonstrations Learn how to fix your own bike Resources from local advocacy organizations Information about upcoming cycling events Directions to local bike shops and services Cycling route planning and bike maps The
First come, first served!
The Old Barn Community Centre and The University Neighbourhoods Association
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
New Project Promotes Safe and Healthy Ways of Getting to School by Scott Steedman For a week in May, a new program got kids (and parents) to leave the car at home and walk, bike or rollerblade to school. Walk ‘n Roll to School promotes healthy, safe, sustainable transportation—and encourages students to start their day socializing and getting a little exercise, too. It takes about forty minutes for Jennifer Chen to walk from her home in Chancellor Place to University Hill Secondary School in Wesbrook Village. She doesn’t mind the walk, but it’s a big effort, so her parents usually drive her. Though from May 27–31, Jennifer and her family joined about 185 UTown@UBC residents by participating in Walk ‘n Roll to School Celebration Week. “So many students and their parents got involved because the program promotes a healthy habit of walking to school and keeping the neighbourhood green,” says Jennifer, who is just finishing grade 9. “It really motivated the residents.” “Not only that, the students got to spend time with their friends, and even make new ones,” she adds. “Overall, I think the project strengthens the connections between each neighbourhood.” Walk ’n Roll to School is a joint project between UTown@UBC and the University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA). At its heart were six neighbourhood “Walking School Buses,” led by parent volunteers in yellow “Walk ’n Roll” t-shirts and hats. Every morning, students were dropped off at designated “stops” and then walked to school together along easy and enjoyable routes. Every student was given a walking passport and got a sticker to put in it whenever they joined in throughout the
week. The last day ended with a celebration rally, with free healthy snacks, where all the participants turned in their passports for a chance to win prizes, including a new bike. There were also numerous fun activities and safety initiatives for the students, including a yellow theme day (the official Walk ’n Roll to School colour), bike safety checks and a workshop, a cycling rodeo, RCMP speed watch, educational materials on safe walking and riding behaviour and free reflective stickers and bike lights to increase visibility in poor weather. “We’ve got two boys, in grades 6 and 4,” says Tim Dow, Co-Chair of the Parent Advisory Council (PAC) at University Hill Elementary. “We don’t own a car so the boys usually ride their bikes to school, or walk when it’s raining.” “Many UHill Elementary parents were excited for their children to take part in the Walk ‘n Roll to School program. The students enjoyed the fun and social aspects of getting to school by foot or bike. They especially liked getting the stickers in their ‘passports’ and the reflector and cap giveaways—and of course, the chance to win a free bike!” The aspect parents appreciated most was the wholesome exercise the students got before the school day, Dow says. And the help in kicking the car habit. “Automobile congestion at drop-off and pick-up times can be a problem at the school,” he explains. “We definitely saw less congestion with so many students arriving by people power. More than fifty students walked to school that week and another fifty plus rode their bikes—despite a bit of rainy weather on Tuesday.” Celebration Week is over, but like many
parents, Dow is hoping kids will continue to walk and ride to school, now that they know how fun and easy it is. And he agrees with the organizers, who wrote on their maps: “This is only one route. UTown@UBC has many roads and paths for pedestrians and cyclists. We encourage you to explore your community and find your favourite way to get to school!” To learn more, visit the Walk ‘n Roll to School website, which includes information on the value of promoting walking and cycling to school and the results of surveys with more than 500 University Hill Elementary and Secondary students on their most popular walking and cycling routes and other modes of transportation. (Article reprinted with permission from UBC Campus and Community Planning)
Santiago Jimenez rolling to school
Staff and volunteers supporting the Walk ‘n Roll program
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013
Biodiversity in your backyard Goldfish: Pretty Pets or Pernicious Pests? By Dr. Eric Taylor, Director of the Fish Collection and Interim Museum Director, Beaty Biodiversity Museum The introduction of exotic species and their potential to become invasive is one of the leading causes of the declining status of native biodiversity. In addition, costs to the economy from the prevention, control, elimination, and the mitigation of effects of exotic/invasive species, and costs from lost opportunities are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year worldwide. For Canadian freshwater fishes, exotic/invasive species are the second most important cause of extinction or extirpation (after habitat loss and degradation). The Goldfish, Carassius auratus, is native to freshwater areas of central Asia, China and perhaps Japan. The Goldfish has been domesticated for over 1000 years, usually for ornamental reasons,
which has contributed to its being one of the top five most commonly introduced freshwater fishes in the world. Interestingly, Goldfish are one of the very few vertebrates with a unique metabolic pathway involving the production of ethanol in the blood, which contributes to it being capable of persisting under conditions of very low oxygen levels (such at the bottom of lakes during wintertime). Recently, several Goldfish were spotted in the Biodiversity Research Centre’s (BRC) water feature that runs between the BRC and the Fisheries Centre. While these fish were undeniably beautiful, attracted some interest from viewers, and are relatively benign exotics (they are not major predators of other fishes) it was decided to remove them from the water feature. First, we should not knowingly promote the introduction or existence of exotic species especially on BRC grounds. Second, the ultimate location of discharge of the water feature is unclear and it is possible (although unlikely) that some fish could make their way into nearby natural water courses such as
Musqueam (“Tin Can”) Creek. Finally, even if the Goldfish did not leave the water feature on their own, there is always the possibility that someone could remove them from the water feature and introduce them somewhere else where they may do more harm. Ultimately, twelve Goldfish were removed from the BRC water feature. They will be donated to the public education team of the Beaty Biodiversity Museum to assist in programs introducing people to the issue of exotic/invasive species in BC and Canada. To learn more about invasive species in our area and what you can do about them visit the Invasive Species Council of Metro Vancouver’s website: http://www.iscmv.ca In the Collections: The Botanical Garden is in full-bloom with spectacular shows of colour throughout the Garden’s collections as well as the Shop In The Garden, which is fully stocked to help you with all of your home gardening needs. At the Beaty Biodiversity Museum don’t miss the art exhibit [a]drift, which features the work of local artist
Edith Krause, who explores micro-marine organisms in large scale until August 25, 2013. Both the Garden and Museum have also launched new programing around the theme of EXTREMES! To find out more visit: http://beatymuseum. ubc.ca/events and http://botanicalgarden. ubc.ca/tours
Goldfish, Carassius auratus
New Shuttle Route to Replace Two Old Routes Service to hospice and UBC Botanical Garden is maintained; new route effective in December. UBC and TransLink have settled on the design for a new community shuttle route for campus. The new C20 shuttle bus route will operate clock-wise via SW Marine Drive and counter-clockwise via West Mall, maintaining current service levels to the UBC Botanical Garden and St. John’s Hospice (see map).
Following community consultation on how to best replace the two current money-losing routes (currently C20 and C22), a spokesperson for UBC said further work was done to explore alternative routing options for community shuttle service at UBC. The route changes will be implemented December 2013. Over the coming months, the spokesperson said, UBC campus and community planning will work closely with TransLink on a communication strategy to ensure stakeholders are aware of route changes and new schedule information including bus stop locations.
New shuttle route around UBC
UEL continued from Page 1. Not all looked favourably at the meeting being closed to non-residents and the media, however “This is the sort of thing that should be loudly promoted,” a resident who attended the June meeting said. Currently the UEL is managed by the provincial government’s ministry of community, sport and cultural development. The basis for this is the University Endowment Lands Act of 1925. Since the early 1990s the UEL population has grown from about 2,200 to over 4,000. A community advisory council (the CAC) represents residents, and the CAC—which meets monthly—has voted to consider asking the provincial government to examine viable governance options, including incorporation as a village municipality. If there is sufficient public support, and if the Province deems it appropriate, a referendum will be held for all UEL residents to make a choice. This process could take up to two years. The Campus Resident will provide further details about the June meeting in July.
THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JUNE 17, 2013