Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

Volume 3, Issue 4 APRIL 16, 2012

Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

With housing prices in Vancouver the highest in Canada, the University of Brit-ish Columbia has released draft housing program options designed to improve housing choice and affordability on its Point Grey campus. The proposed options, which were con-tained in a paper and widely discussed by the campus community in March, in-clude the possibility of discounted prop-erty purchases and rentals to encourage

Property purchases might be discounted up to 33%

for only some members of the UBC community;

housing is huge factor in attracting and retaining

top faculty, says task force chair

UBC Weighs Affordable Housing Options, Including 1/3

Price Discount for Tenured Professorsfaculty, staff and students to live on the Vancouver campus. The effort will inform a UBC Hous-ing Action Plan, which seeks to improve UBC’s ability to compete with top uni-versities and employers for the best and brightest minds, both globally and local-ly, while helping to build a more sustain-able, vibrant residential community.

HOUSING Continued on Page 9

Young Campus Pianists Prove Unbeatable in Talent Contest

Campus residents and University Hill students Angeni Wang, 13, and Arthur Wang, 11, are congratulated by UNA directors for their success in winning UBC’s Got Talent contest with brilliant piano duet. See story on Page 8. Metro Vancouver directors should not

imagine themselves talking local gov-ernance with UBC and the University Neighbourhoods Association any time soon—unless at a meeting called by the provincial government. Stephen Owen, UBC vice-president, external, legal and community relations, told the Campus Resident that Metro has no role to play in land use planning at UBC following passage of legislation almost two years ago, and he confessed himself baffled why Metro would want to consider a renewed role as they ap-parently did March 30th at a meeting in Burnaby. At this meeting, Metro directors voted to inform Ida Chong, minister of com-munity, sport and cultural development that in advance of determining if and how views from the UBC community on governance should be canvassed, they will “convene a meeting of stakeholders” to share an understanding of governance issues, establish a communication proto-col, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop governance options. “This is a curious step Metro has tak-en,” Mr. Owen said. “However, they have asked staff to come up with options on governance. Our position is that this is the responsibility of the provincial gov-ernment, and we would be happy to take part in any round-table that the province calls or facilitates. This is not a Metro matter.” The four past chairs of the UNA (Jim Taylor, Brian Collins, Mike Feeley and Sharon Wu) and the current chair (Prod Laquian) expressed a similar view in both a letter to Metro chair Greg Moore dated March 2nd (this letter was pub-lished in the March issue of the Campus Resident, widely distributed on campus) and a later letter to Metro director Maria Harris (who represents residents of Elec-toral Area A).

Vice-president Stephen Owen says UBC would be happy to sit at round-table

called and facilitated by province; however, echo-

ing UNA comments, Owen says face to face meeting

with Metro—as proposed by Metro board March 30

- is not on

UBC Unites with UNA in

Declining Invite to Metro Meeting

METRO Continued on Page 11WATER Continued on Page 11

UBC has refunded—through about 50 strata corporations—almost $1 million for water rates it incorrectly charged campus residents over the period 2002-2011. In a letter to stratas containing “impor-

Campus residents should have been charged same water rate as Vancouver

residents; almost $1 million is refunded to residents who paid about 30% too much

for ten years for water

Almost $ 1 million Refund Remedies Incorrect Charge for Water on Campus over 10 years

tant information about water rates”, Pierre Ouillet, UBC vice president, finance re-sources and operations, says, “Attached you will find the rebate for your strata, covering the period 2002 – 2011. I also confirm that the stratas will be charged for water consumption based on City of Vancouver rates going forward.” Mr. Ouillet says the information to which he refers “is the result of work undertaken by UBC and the University Neighbourhoods Association Board, rep-resented in this matter by Mr. Jim Taylor, a resident of Hampton Place and former Chair of the UNA Board.”

Pierre Ouillet

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012page 2

Almost thirty years have passed since Robert H. (Bob) Lee envisioned build-ing a residential community on 200 acres of UBC land. Ironically, the light shone on this idea when real estate development in Van-couver was buckling under its heaviest burden. “The interest rate was 22%. It was slow in the real estate business,” the property developer said during “an inti-mate evening with Robert H. Lee” event attended by about 50 members of the UBC community on campus April 4th. Asked to sit on the UBC board of gov-ernors in 1984, Mr. Lee—50 years old at the time—concluded he “would stay for a few years, then go back to busi-ness.” In fact, though no longer a board member, he remains to this day devoted to helping build a residential community at UBC, and as a direct result of his lead-ership, UBC—through UBC Properties Trust, the subsidiary he founded—has earned up to $750 million for its endow-ment fund through development of the 200 acres—20% of the UBC land mass;

Years of Volunteer Service Yield ‘Town’ at UBCCommunity-minded

developer Robert H. (Bob) Lee draws strength from

exemplary father, an immigrant to Vancouver

from China; love of selling led younger Mr. Lee to

new vocation in real estate industry after graduation from UBC with degree in

commerce

moreover, he has done all this work as a community-minded volunteer (as have other members of the UBC Properties board), charging UBC the princely sum of $1 a year. A wealthy man for many years, the enterprising Mr. Lee comes of humble origins: his dad immigrated from Chi-na and settled in Vancouver, where he opened an import-export business. Born and raised in Chinatown, Mr. Lee grew up working in the family firm as a cook, and from his father, he learned to have faith in hard work. His father also gave him grounds to believe in something else. “My father was very community-minded,” Mr. Lee said to the rapt gather-ing at MBA House in Wesbrook Place, largest of the neighbourhoods that UBC Properties has developed on campus with an area of 100 acres south of 16th Avenue. After graduating from high-school, Mr. Lee attended UBC, and after gradu-ating from UBC with a degree in com-merce, he returned to the family hearth to continue working for his dad—whose firm was thriving. By now, however, Mr. Lee had become intensely interested in something else. “I wanted something more challeng-ing,” Mr. Lee said as UBC Properties president Al Poettcker—seated beside him at the front of the MBA House com-mon room—gently teased out his life story. “I loved to sell. I told my dad. I quit the company.” At this point in his journey through life, Mr. Lee joined the real estate indus-try—succeeding over the next 30 years in becoming one of the most prominent property developers in Vancouver with

especially strong contacts in the Hong Kong business community. Having joined the UBC board of gov-ernors (in 1984), Mr. Lee said—during the 90-minute event commemorating his recent retirement from the board of UBC Properties—that he envisioned building a ‘town’ on campus as a way of keep-ing UBC on track to meet what he knew were its ambitious fund-raising goals. When Mr. Poettcker asked, “Why did you dream so big?”, Mr. Lee said, “UBC wanted to be the best university in Can-ada. You can’t do this without money.” Knowing UBC was prohibited by law from selling land to enhance its endow-ment (or for any other reason), Mr. Lee looked at the hitherto unimagined pros-pect of leasing it for residential devel-opment. Skeptics on the UBC board marshaled arguments against the motion to build homes on UBC land—and a power struggle ensued. “People did not want to cut the trees down.” However, this did not hold back the larger number of board members, who—persuaded by Mr. Lee—voted for the motion. So did UBC—organizing UBC Prop-erties Trust in 1988 to build Hampton Place on 22 acres of land in the south-east corner of campus—step officially into the property development busi-ness. “Hampton Place is my pride and joy,” the legendary businessman offered. “The money went into the endowment fund. It can’t be spent. The interest on these funds can be spent, but the money is there for ever,” The success of Hampton Place paved

the way for more neighbourhoods at UBC (Hawthorn Place, Chancellor Place, Wesbrook Place and East Cam-pus) with the result almost 8,000 resi-dents live on campus today—with many more expected in the future. Answering a question from a member of the audience about urban density on campus, Mr. Lee quietly agreed the issue of density in campus neighbourhoods can drive a wedge between residents and the UBC administration. “I know people don’t like density, but it’s nec-essary,” he said. “You have to increase density. Density means more dollars on the bottom line.” By increasing ‘the bottom line’ of its endowment fund, he added, UBC increases the likelihood of realizing its academic mission, which is global in reach. UBC is in the top 20 universities in world in part because of land development, he said. Asked what he might have done differ-ently in Hampton Place given the benefit of hindsight, Mr. Lee said he might have made the structures there somewhat taller. “We might have put another two or three storeys on the high-rises. This would have put another $10 million into the fund.” A highly-respected businessman who received the Order of Canada in 1999, Mr. Lee has ‘given back’ to the UBC community in many ways—and not only the UBC community. He has held numerous positions with various vol-unteer organizations, among them the British Columbia Paraplegic Foundation and the province’s Children’s Hospital, and has served as Chancellor of the Uni-versity of British Columbia. After receiving many millions of dol-lars from Mr. Lee, the Sauder School of Commerce at UBC named its graduate school after him, while the YMCA re-named its downtown facility after him. As his Order of Canada citation states, “Through his dedication and commit-ment, Mr. Lee has distinguished himself as an entrepreneur with a social con-science.” And as his Order of British Co-lumbia citation states, “His standing in the business community, combined with his dedication to volunteer service and his exemplary character, makes Robert Lee a role model to all who know him.” At the ‘intimate evening’ on campus, Mr. Lee said, “I have been blessed with good luck in business.” Unquestionably, UBC has been blessed with good luck in having Bob Lee as a friend.

Robert H. (Bob) Lee

Bob Lee with Al Poettcker, president of UBC Properties Trust. Photo by Alexander Leung

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012 page 3

Editor & Business Manager

University Neighbourhoods Association

#202-5923 Berton Avenue,

Vancouver, BC V6S OB3

Published by:

John Tompkins

604.827.3502 JTompkins@myuna.caEditorial Page

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.

Letters to the Editor

I have a great deal of respect for the UNA and the community activities it provides for campus residents. I have relied upon the association to provide its municipal-like duties since moving here many years ago when the UNA was organized and run by a few giving volunteers. But I do get dismayed when the UNA Board attempts to act like a “government” as it commis-sions a study of Translink, the regional transportation authority, which study “will identify options for representation that are in the best interests of the UNA and UBC.” From the article it appears that the UNA Board has an objection to supporting our only elected governmental official to be a voting member of the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation. The UNA board can, unwisely, withhold its support if it wants to, but it cannot do so as the elected, representative “government “ of the uni-versity neighbourhoods. Let’s not forget that the UNA is a community association, not an elected municipal government. Hundreds of UNA residents voted for Maria Harris as Director of Electoral Area A of Metro Vancouver during the last two municipal elections. Twice, she received resounding majorities from voters on the

UBC Campus and the UEL. She lives on the Point Grey peninsula and has, perhaps, the best knowledge of Translink operations as anyone in the area. Currently, she attends the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation but does not have a vote due to its legislated structure. Why not support her request to gain voting rights so she can better represent the in-terests of the UBC/UEL area – the second highest destination of buses in the region? Why not support our elected official who represents UNA residents on the regional government? Why commission a study to discover who would best speak for our interests when that person is already on board and for whom we voted to do just that? It is my opinion that the results of a UNA study would have little impact upon the elected mayors of the Mayor’s Council or upon the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, which ministry could en-act legislation to give Maria Harris voting rights.

Gary Gibson, Hampton Place, alternate director, Electoral Area A, Metro Van-couver

No need for UNA to study TransLink

I am surprised that the February edition of The Campus Resident “newspaper” would publish “Exploratory Talks on UBC Gov-ernance Take Place with Province Detect-ing No Thirst for Change at Present” as its front-page headline story. It appears The Campus Resident did not directly contact provincial minister Ida Chong, even though it had months to do so, for specific answers as to how she ar-rived at her conclusion made last year and whether she is even aware of residents’ concerns and frustrations about the lack of democracy here, yet enjoyed by residents of other municipalities. The Campus Resident also failed to

My thanks go to Patrick Lewis, director of the UBC Biodiversity Collections, for his piece “Lights Out for Biodiversity” in your February 20, 2012 issue. Lewis notes the deleterious effects of night light-ing on various animals, including migrat-ing birds, and the importance of choosing the right type of lighting. It is also important to choose light fix-tures that only direct light where it is need-ed for safety. Globe-type light fixtures that deliver light up and to the side, instead of just down, waste energy and add unneces-sarily to the carbon footprint. They also add to the light pollution that bleaches out

Lights Out for Biodiversitythe night sky and denies us the enjoyment of the stars. It is particularly unfortunate that a university would deny young people the scientific and aesthetic experience of the night sky. The university is to be congratulated on its choice of lighting for the new South Campus development, but its continued use of globe lighting on the main campus is disappointing. I hope its lighting choic-es in the future will be governed by sound environmental practices.

David Van Blarcom, Hampton Place

The Campus Resident “not objective”

seek comments from residents and from University Neighbourhoods Association board members on Chong’s conclusion that there is “no thirst for change”. As a journalist (now retired) I am sur-prised this publication, paid for with our taxes, would run such an unbalanced and uninformative story at the top of page 1. Residents need to become very aware The Campus Resident is not an objective or professional publication. Unfortunately, it does not have any competition as other papers usually fail to report campus resi-dent matters.

Kathy Griffiths, Hampton Place

Metro Vancouver wants to arrange a meet-ing of all ‘UBC stakeholders’ to discuss governance in UBC residential neighbour-hoods—and possibly in the University En-dowment Lands. UBC says it’s not interested in attend-ing any governance meetings called by the Metro board of directors. However, according to UBC vice-president Stephen Owen, the University would attend a gov-ernance meeting called by the minister of community, sport and. cultural develop-ment (Ida Chong, the current minister). Maybe Ms. Chong will deem to be in favor of such a meeting save that it was Ms Chong—in another ministerial portfo-lio—who decided against such an initia-tive four years ago when the governance issue at UBC was making earlier headlines in the local media. Moreover, Ms Chong seems no more enthusiastic to engage the community in change today than she was four years ago. In a letter penned as recently as the middle of November, 2011, Mr. Chong found no more evidence of changing the status quo than she had four years earlier.This letter went to then-Metro chair Lois Jackson who had had the gall—or gump-tion—to ask when the provincial govern-ment might follow up non its promise to review governance at UBC once the old regime of Metro was replaced.

Round-Table Talks Called by Government could

Prove UsefulDid Ms. Chong speak from the heart when saying she detected no headwind of gov-ernance change blowing on campus lands; or did Ms. Chong simply decline to de-tect what some residents claim is a hearty clamor for political change by residents who call campus home. Maybe UBC and/or the UNA would consider inviting Ms. Chong to discuss governance with residents at some kind of town hall event on campus in the imme-diate future. As MLA for the Vancouver-Point Grey, the provincial riding enclosing campus, Premier Christy Clark might con-sider joining Ms. Chong in an event which would be surely judged momentous in the history of University Town development. To be said in favor of the days when Met-ro Vancouver kept an eye on key changes in local governance, every two months three Metro director appeared every sec-ond or third month on campus to make themselves available for input on local is-sues. People living on campus felt at least they were in touch with those who labored to govern them. Alas, local people have missed this com-mon touch since the province kicked Met-ro out of the business of overseeing com-munity planning on campus. Now would seem as good a time as any for the prov-ince to make news by calling for a gover-nance meeting at UBC.

Plant SaleSpring Plant and White Elephant Sale on April 28, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM at the St. Helen’s Anglican Church located at 4405 West 8th Ave (Corner of Trimble).

We offer Master Gardener Clinic, Plants, Books, Cards, Raffle, Baked Goods, Household Items, Dollar Store, and other novelties.Admission is free.

For the next month, until May 15, 2012, the UNA will be accepting your comments about the UNA draft Enforcement and Disputes

Bylaw that has been developed according to the protocol outlined in the Neighbours’ Agreement section 5.5 and Schedule G.

Please send your comments to the UNA Office c/o Cathie Cleveland at cathie@myuna.ca or by fax at 604.827.5375

or mail to the UNA Office at #202-5923 Berton Avenue V6S 0B3 before 4:30 pm on May 15, 2012.

UNA Enforcement and Disputes Bylaw Public Consultation

See Letter to Editor on Page 5 also.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012page 4

Electoral Area A

At its meeting on March 30th, the Metro Vancouver Board adopted the following recommendation of its intergovernmental and administration Committee: That the Board: a) request staff to inform the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Devel-opment that in advance of determining if and how views from the community

Why I Voted against March 30th Metro Motion By Maria Harris,

Electoral Area A Director, Metro Vancouver

should be canvassed, Metro Vancouver will convene a meeting of stakeholders to share an understanding of governance issues, establish a communication proto-col, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop governance options; b) refer the report dated March 13, 2012, titled “Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues” to an open meeting of the Electoral Area Committee for in-formation; c) direct the Board Chair to write a letter to the University Neighbourhoods Asso-ciation advising them of the relative ju-risdictions of the parties (Metro Vancou-

ver, UBC and related parties).This recommendation was discussed at some length. The discussion focused on the need for sensitivity to:• The existence of separate groups in the area;• Community-based initiatives related to governance that are presently under way; and • The jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver relative to that of the Province, the UNA and UBC in matters of local government. It was clear that many directors, includ-ing the chairs of the board and the inter-governmental committee, appreciated the need for this sensitivity. Although assurances were given that the process would be sensitive to local views, I voted against the recommendation. I did so because I felt that a recommen-dation on this matter should explicitly recognize that locally-based groups have a central role in an examination of gover-nance in the area. In speaking on the recommendation, I provided some background information about the UNA, in particular regard-ing its extensive responsibilities in the UNA neighbourhoods. This was part of my continuing attempt to help my fellow directors understand the important dif-ferences between the UNA and a typical neighbourhood association. In addition, I informed them that the UNA has a governance study under way, and intends at some point to undertake a survey to determine residents’ views on governance. I also made the point that in the Elec-toral Area a grass-roots approach to the governance question is preferable to an approach driven from outside the com-munity. I am confident that I was successful in increasing sensitivity to the local per-spective. I made it clear to my fellow Di-rectors, as I have done in the past, that the UBC area is not homogeneous and that the University Endowment Lands (UEL) are entirely separate from UBC lands, both geographically and adminis-tratively. Residents of the UNA neighbourhoods, the UEL, and the institutional UBC lands may well have different views on ques-tions of governance. Thus, their different perspectives must be recognized in dis-

cussions. I believe that the Directors now appreciate this. Metro Vancouver staff certainly do. Please see Metro Story on Page 7.

Maria Harris

The Old BarnCommunity Centre

Keep up to date with all of the latest news

and events that happen around your

community!

The University Neighbourhoods

Association

and the

Join us on FACEBOOK!

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012 page 5

Letter to the Editor

In a letter to the editor, March issue, An-drew Parr, managing director student housing and hospitality services, states that in my February article, I said “UBC is making a 50-75% profit on student hous-ing.” I actually said in my February article that “UBC makes a profit of 50-75% on student housing, before financing costs, if any.” Clearly capital is required to build buildings and maintain them. A commer-cially operated student housing project of scale should indeed operate at a margin well above 50%, before financing costs. Student housing, as opposed to rental housing, has additional costs for social and educational purposes, to provide a student experience that costs money, per-haps another 10% over and above a classic rental property. A rental property can be run in the 30-35% cost range, especially in newer buildings. However UBC pays no property taxes which is often about 10% of the gross rent and that is how I arrived at the figure of 25% cost or 75% possible operating margin. If those margins are not achieved by UBC in newer buildings with almost no maintenance costs, operating costs i.e. primarily personnel costs should be questioned. UBC uses internal financing costs that exceed commercially available mortgage rates which are in the high 2% to low 3% range currently. To my knowledge UBC uses 5% which is 66% more expensive than commercially available bond or mortgage money at 3%. Thus the student housing department is operating at a break even (or loss) position although it could easily show a profit. In other words, UBC generates 5% on its allocated money, which by far exceeds commercially avail-

Rental Housing Makes Good Business Sense for UBCable bond or mortgage rates today. The profits from (now break-even or loss) stu-dent housing are shuffled onto the other side of the ledger, or to the endowment fund. If UBC decided to sell all student hous-ing buildings at market rates of $150,000 to $225,000 per unit it could generate a billion dollars easily, vastly exceeding the money invested into student housing to-date, thus providing a very good invest-ment for UBC. I am not suggesting UBC should do that, I wish to merely point out that UBC as BC’s largest landlord has a very large, very valuable asset that it mon-etizes. The monetization happens via the rental income or the interest on the money lent, but it could be monetized in other ways, such as outsourcing or a sale. As you can see from the currently being constructed Ponderosa housing complex (see picture) at a cost of about $167M for around 1100 beds, or $160,000/bed UBC is highly committed to more rental hous-ing, as it makes sense. But are the project-ed rents of $900 for a tiny studio, $840’s for each bedroom in a 2BR or $745 in a 4 BR unit really much below market hous-ing elsewhere? At these prices, it makes sense for students to live on campus with-out wasting time in daily commutes, and it makes sense to UBC as it generates roughly 3.4% on this $167M invested or roughly $5.7M annually. The math, for those inclined: 1100 beds @ $800/month with 10 month occupancy is $8.8M gross rent minus operating costs of about 35% so roughly $5.7M net op-erating profit, before financing costs. A break even if UBC charged 3.4% on its money, or a loss to the student housing division if it charged 5% (50% higher).

Over time, rents go up and UBC makes a higher and higher return every year. This is why UBC [and the author, btw] is in the rental business: it makes good financial sense! I wish to also comment on Andrew’s statement “cost of housing is significant-ly lower than the same type of housing in near-by neighbourhoods.” As many students can attest to, (and confirmed by searches by the author on both UBC’s website and what is available elsewhere, as well as discussions with renters) rents at UBC are very comparable for similar-ly accommodation: say a 800 sq ft 2BR that costs around $1500 to $1800 in areas along major bus routes to UBC, Kitsilano or at UBC. Charging 4 students $745 each in the new Ponderosa complex for a 4BR condo is about $3000/month, very similar to a house in Kits or Dunbar even. Cheap-er housing is available at UBC because it has shared older dorms or very tiny stu-dios which by and large do not exist else-where, or in Acadia East. However lower quality housing, with similar price points, exists also in older uglier apartment build-ings within walking distance to Broadway corridor or Kits. On per square foot basis, with similar quality, UBC’s rents are not that different from market housing further afield, higher even in some cases. Of course a new con-do in a high-rise in along Broadway, Rich-mond or Yaletown with 1200 sq ft costs more than a 22 year old run-down 850 sq ft unit in a woodframe rental building in Acadia, roughly 50%-70% more, but you get new, 50% bigger and better quality. Hardly an apple-to-apple comparison. UBC’s housing policies are by and large very sophisticated market oriented

policies that make fiscal sense. Any BC tax payer (and thus subsidy provider for higher education) should expect such prudent fiscal management. UBC does a commendable job in the complicated dance between subsidized/cheap housing for the truly few that need it (such as some families, students or support staff), market condos for sale and at-market rental hous-ing. The recently introduced new hous-ing initiatives ( www.planning.ubc.ca/housingplan ) will introduce more money and many more options into this mix and again take a common sense middle ground between the competing interests of maxi-mizing return on invested capital, mini-mizing rents and lowering housing costs for select students, staff or faculty. That was the main point of my (earlier and again this) article: student housing provided by UBC is not “affordable or cheap or subsidized housing”. It is a very profitable business as rents are very close to market and it provides a decent return on UBC’s invested money. In other word, UBC could lower rents if it so decided, but it would lower its return of invested capital. It could also raise rents and still get enough students, low vacancies and an even higher return on capital. It chooses the middle ground. A prudent business decision to balance capital needs and cus-tomer/student needs.

Thomas Beyer is the president of Pres-tigious Properties and a director of the University Neighbourhoods Asso-ciation. The opinions expressed in this article are independent of those of the UNA.

The Old Barn Community Centre

Spring & Summer Program Guide 2012Look for your copy in the mail next week,

or pick up a copy from The Old Barn!

Registration opens April 10, 2012

www.oldbarn.ca 604.827.4469

The Old Barn Community Centre

Spring & Summer Program Guide 2012Look for your copy in the mail next week,

or pick up a copy from The Old Barn!

Registration opens April 10, 2012

www.oldbarn.ca 604.827.4469

TheThe

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012page 6

The four elected directors of the Univer-sity Neighbourhoods Association have joined in saying they have serious reser-vations about the way a proposed UBC housing action plan threatens to discrim-inate against staff and non-tenured fac-ulty at the University. Prod Laquian, Thomas Beyer, Erica Frank and Mankee Mah say they are all of the same view the housing action plan—as currently constituted—pro-vides better treatment to tenured UBC faculty seeking housing on campus than UBC staff and non-tenured faculty. The UNA directors, speaking during a period of public consultation on the housing plan in March, said provisions in the plan that favours tenured profes-sors in search of campus homes over oth-er UBC employees with the same goals negate the stated aims of UBC to be a progressive community. In an eloquent denunciation of some provisions of the housing action plan, which would—if passed—not give staff members the same proposed eligibility as professors to buy condos at 33% dis-count to market among other things, Ms. Mah stated, “I support the inclusion of staff and non-tenured faculty in all ownership models of the housing action plan two hundred percent. The faculty/staff op-tions of the housing action plan and its eligibility rules are UNA’s business as these homes will be located in the UNA neighbourhoods. “The goals UBC have set for the resi-dential campus: livability, sustainability, promotion of walking to work or study, all are examples of noble aspirations of a forward-thinking community.” Ms. Mah quoted a relevant section of the UBC Land Use Plan that reads: “It is the objective of the Land Use Plan that residential development support es-tablishment of a community with strong links between the academic and residen-tial areas for the mutual benefit of both areas and to reduce the need to travel to and from UBC.” She said that by excluding staff and non-tenured faculty from non-market ownership, the housing action plan “has twisted UBC’s noble aspirations into a faculty recruitment plan. This commu-nity will no longer be about reducing travel to and from UBC, nor will the ex-clusion of staff and non-tenured faculty be beneficial to our community. The housing action plan’s blatant discrimina-tion against these UBC employees is not forward-thinking but takes us backwards into a class society. “It will create a divided community where those UBC employees who are not tenured or tenure-track will be made to feel like second-class citizens.” She urged the UBC Housing Action Committee to uphold UBC’s long stand-ing values in the development of the

UNA Resident-Directors Demand Same 33% Discounted Housing Prices for UBC Staff as Faculty

Directors are concerned with prospect of “class society” at UBC built on housing discounts; speaking for future residents is very much UNA business today, say directors

campus residential community. How-ever, she said that “should the housing action plan continue to discriminate against the staff and non-tenured faculty of UBC, I will do everything I can to op-pose it. This is our community and it is our duty to uphold the ‘good’ we all ad-mire for ourselves and our children.” Erica Frank, director, asked, “Why not open this [co-housing] up to staff; and to be even more expansive on this prin-ciple, the elected members of the UNA have consensus in our support to make many of these housing options open to staff as well, at least for those who can afford it.” Ms. Frank, in her fifth year as a UNA di-rector, said that the elected members of the UNA Board believe that many if not all of these housing options should be made available to staff as well as faculty. She said that some might think it’s not the UNA’s business to weigh in on this issue. “But these (residents) will become our shared constituents, and the UNA and UBC have made a mutual commitment to environmental, financial, and social sustainability, and the four elected UNA Board members think that segregating

faculty and staff is inconsistent with that commitment, and ill-advised. “ After a housing action plan workshop, Ms. Frank said she and Ms. Mah “both live quite happily in wonderful Haw-thorn townhouses that were made avail-able to (and are still predominantly oc-

cupied by) faculty and staff, so I think our personal views are well-informed.” Thomas Beyer, director, said the dis-crimination Ms. Mah referred to would not only make staff at UBC second-class residents when looking for housing on campus. “What about 3rd class residents, name-ly staff employed by sub-trades or on Campus services establishments like Starbucks, Pizza places, Sushi parlors, cleaning people: are they not worthy of a potential subsidy too?”A first-year director, Mr. Beyer related a personal experience. “Let me relay some examples from Banff, Alberta, a small housing con-strained community in a National Park bearing its name: I used to live close by in Canmore, Alberta, but outside the Na-tional Park. “To buy property in Banff you had to prove you worked in Banff. Not so in Canmore, a mere 10 minutes away. What happened was that a house or condo in Canmore was 20-50% more than a simi-lar one in Banff where second homes were not allowed and where there are no millionaires snatching up tight land for their homes. You had to live and work in Banff to be able to buy a house or condo.” Mr. Beyer said a similar policy could apply on campus. “If UBC wants reduced prices, then you limit the number of folks who can buy. Thus, you will establish a smaller pool of buyers, and thus reduced prices. So a condo anyone can buy at market price might go for $800,000 but a condo next door, restricted to UBC related staff working on campus. might go for only $600,000.” Mr. Beyer said, “I agree with my es-teemed UNA board colleagues that set-ting up UBC-wide rules that only profes-sors with tenure, but not non-tenure, or just Ph.Ds but not MSc people, or only pizza bakers but not sushi workers, can buy a unit at a discount is a dangerous precedent, in conflict with the overall stated community goals that we all try to build here together.” Prod Laquian said he concurred with the “great statement” of Ms. Mah and the comments of others. Mr. Laquian, UNA board chair and president, said, “All UNA resident-direc-tors are of the same view on this.”

Thomas Beyer: Housing plan....“is in conflict with the overall stated com-munity goals that we all try to build here together.”

Mankee Mah: “Housing action plan will create a divided community...”

Prod Laquian: “All UNA resident-directors are of the same view on this.”

Erica Frank: “...segregating faculty and staff is inconsistent...and ill-advised.”

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012 page 7

The University Neighbourhoods Associa-tion may expect to receive a cordial letter from Metro Vancouver about the prospects for discussing governance at UBC shortly. At a meeting in Burnaby March 30th , the board of Metro Vancouver voted to send a letter advising the UNA that Metro sees it-self in the role of local government on the UBC campus but stating this perception in a conciliatory way—mindful perhaps that the letter may not be well received no mat-ter how cordially it is written. During considerable discussion on the issue of how campus residents should be governed locally, which Metro seems de-termined to press in the face of UNA and UBC reluctance, a Metro director said with apparent sincerity, “Let’s send them a nice letter.” Another said, “Let’s not hammer them.” Several directors used the term ‘concilia-tory’ to describe the tone of the proposed letter—a term which suggests a possible reconciliation between Metro on the one hand and UBC/UNA on the other hand following what was well described as “an amicable divorce” a few years back.

Metro Makes Attempt at Reconciling with UNA/UBC Boards

Fractious relations emerged then follow-ing a unilateral and poorly-explained pro-posal by Metro to impose a zoning bylaw on UBC under the auspices of an Official Community Plan. Reacting adversely to this proposal, UBC found comfort in a move by the provincial government to wrest oversight for land use planning on campus from Metro in favour of itself—and here the issue has remained until re-newed Metro claims about governance at UBC. At the March 30 meeting, Metro direc-tors—with only Electoral Area A represen-tative Maria Harris objecting—said they would:• request staff to inform the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Develop-ment that in advance of determining if and how views from the community should be canvassed, Metro Vancouver will convene a meeting of stakeholders to share an un-derstanding of governance issues, establish a communication protocol, identify the views of all stakeholders and develop gov-ernance options; • refer a Metro staff report dated March

13, 2012, titled “Continuing the Dialogue on UBC Governance Issues” to an open meeting of the Electoral Area Committee for information; • direct the Board Chair to write a letter to the University Neighbourhoods Asso-ciation advising them of the relative juris-dictions of the parties (Metro Vancouver, UBC and related parties). Ms. Harris said she objected to the mo-tion proposing a governance gathering on grounds that it was based on a report “for-mulated by staff” which she did not find entirely reassuring. Nonetheless, Ms. Har-ris—who opened the debate—held consis-tent to the mantra often expressed over the next 45 minutes—that “there is no other lo-cal government at UBC...there is no single entity representing residents except their Electoral Area A representative.” Moreover, she said, “There are lots of residents at UBC not covered by the UNA umbrella.” Speaking next, Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan insisted the need for government change at UBC was imperative. “Our work on UBC is not done,” Mr. Corrigan said.

“Let’s not leave it this way. Our only pur-pose is to give responsibility to democratic rights at UBC.” In usual blunt fashion, Mr. Corrigan—the Metro bogeyman as far as UBC and the UNA are concerned—said, “Upsetting the status quo will upset a lot of people. If that’s the cost of fetching democracy to UBC, it’s a cost that is not too high.” The mayor, however, joined other Metro di-rectors in lamenting the juggling act that would seem to be needed to get all ‘stake-holders’ at UBC at the same table let alone on the same page in a frank discussion about governance on campus. “The UNA is effectively only a residents association whose members or directors don’t have to be Canadian citizens,” Mr. Corrigan said. “A government with stu-dents in it would be difficult to deal with, and on the (adjacent) University Endow-ment Lands with its multi-million dollar homes, taxation is a huge problem.” Metro chair Greg Moore, mayor of Port Coquitlam, sought to keep the conciliatory tone of the meeting alive with a keen eye on the prospect of better communication with stakeholders at UBC—including the University administration, the UNA, the UEL administration, the UEL community advisory council, the (student) Alma Ma-ter Society, the city of Vancouver, perhaps even Musqueam First Nation. “Let’s get everybody to the table,” Mr. Moore said. “Let’s not make governance judgments at the table. Let’s just establish a communi-cation protocol (with all stakeholders at UBC).” Mayor Moore—after complimenting Ms. Harris on the way she presented “sensitive issues”—lambasted the kind of insensitive approach that might not lead to change. “It’s not us versus them (the UNA and UBC),” he said. “It’s not us versus any-body.” Mr. Moore deplored the recent tac-tic of UNA chairs past and present in airing their complaints about Metro in a letter to the Vancouver Sun, with only a copy to Mr. Moore. Vancouver councilor Raymond Louie noted there should be nothing in the Metro overture to the UNA that should be dis-respectful. “We don’t want to be seen as confrontational. We won’t want to be seen as inflexible. We do not want to inflame the situation.” Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie offered the same kind of opinion. “Our motion should be very conciliatory,” Mr. Brodie said. He said this should hold true even though a March UNA letter had been “very blunt”, urging Metro to stay out of any debate about local governance at UBC.

Residents of the Keenleyside housing complex on campus—who asked the Uni-versity of British Columbia not to allow temporary use of the vacant lot next to their homes by a recreational volleyball league—have had their request granted. At a meeting April 11, the UBC develop-ment permit board declined to approve an application by Urban Rec for the right to use and maintain seven volleyball courts on the vacant lot beside Keenleyside for up to six months of evening volleyball for its playing members. Instead, the board referred the permit application back to the UBC campus and community planning department to work with UBC Proper-

Petitioners Put Volleyball Out of Play next to Keenleyside Condos

Keenleyside residents were unhappy with prospect of vacant lot used for games; UBC says alternate site for

volleyball courts will be identified

ties Trust to find an alternative site for the courts. Had the application been approved, seven volleyball courts would have been installed beside Keenleyside in Westbrook Place, the largest neighbourhood on cam-pus and one in the throes of development. Karen Russell, manager, development services, said UBC Properties Trust had identified a potential alternative location for the volleyball courts, and “that loca-tion will be further explored.” The permit application for the new lo-cation for the courts will come back to the board for consideration in May, Ms. Russell said. She added that notification regarding details on the new proposal and the timing of May meeting will be pro-vided to those residents and stratas on lots within 30 metres of the new site, those who have expressed an interest in this process to date, and the University Neigh-bourhoods Association The residents of Keenleyside—repre-sented by their strata council—argued the one-acre lot beside their homes could

be better used for up to three years as a community garden—though there is no guarantee UBC will sanction community gardening at the site any more than vol-leyball. The strata council complained that UBC had planned to allow noisy volleyball games for 2 ½ hours a night up to five nights a week within audible range of residences. Speaking on behalf of Keenleyside coun-cil, resident Clair Robson said that had the Urban Rec application been approved, there would “have been 100 people in at-tendance (on the vacant lot), with music, four nights a week for three months. This would have been disastrous! Urban Rec is Vancouver’s premier pro-vider of coed beach volleyball with lo-cations at Jericho Beach, River District, UBC (pending) and Urban Beach. The organization has over 60 courts of beach volleyball action each night for the play-ing pleasure of members.

UBC residents and residents of the Uni-versity Endowment Lands (UEL) will soon have a voice on the mayors’ council on regional transportation. In a letter to regional mayors dated April 10, transportation minister Blair Lekstrom explains that he will table legislation en-abling the addition of a seat on the mayors’ council for the Metro Vancouver director for Electoral Area A.Mr. Lekstrom said addition of the Elector-al Area A director—which will be brought about by amendments to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Act—will “provide representation to the resi-dents of this area...” Maria Harris, current Electoral Area

UBC/UEL Residents to Receive Voice On Transit Group

A director, lobbied hard for this act to be amended, and in a March 15 letter to Mr. Lekstrom, the mayors confirmed they unanimously supported her argument that residents in the UBC/UEL area needed to be heard at the council table since they were home to the second-busiest transpor-tation hub in the Lower Mainland (after downtown Vancouver). Nearly 95% of residents in Electoral Area A—which comprises a cluster of unincorporated communities around the Lower Mainland—live at UBC or on the UEL. Until now, Ms. Harris has sat at the table with regional mayors but has not been allowed to vote. When passed, the legislation will amend this.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012page 8

Sustainability Corner

UNA Community News

Ralph Wells, UNA Sustainability Manager

Young Campus Pianists Prove Unbeatable in Talent Contest

UBC’s Got Talent contest was open to all; campus

residents Arthur Wang, 11, and sister Angeni Wang, 13,

were winners

An awesome display of musical talent won young campus residents Arthur and Angeni Wang first place in the second-annual UBC’s Got Talent contest at the Old Auditorium March 29th. The brilliant brother-and-sister pair—Arthur is 11 and attends University Hill Elementary School while Angeni is 13 and attends University Hill Secondary School—played the third movement of Piano Concerto #2 by Saint-Saens. Delighted that UBC’s Got Talent, 2012 was won by contestants from campus neighbourhoods, directors of the Univer-sity Neighbourhoods Association invited Arthur and Angeni—accompanied by mom Min Zhao and dad Tongli Wang--to their April 10 meeting to be formally recognized for their talents and achieve-ments. At the meeting, directors first watched a video of their piano duet at the UBC’s Got Talent contest. (Readers may do the same on You Tube.)

At the end of their performance, follow-ing great applause from directors, UNA chair Prod Laquian perfectly expressed the sentiment in the room, “Wow!” said Mr. Laquian, who then stepped forward to shake hands with talented youngsters. In a brief interview with The Campus Resident outside the meeting room, Ar-thur and Angeni said how thrilled they were to have taken first place in front of a large audience at the Old Auditorium.They gave great credit to their music teacher (Dr. Victor Shevtsov, of Rich-mond), and thanked their mom and dad for supporting their grand goals of be-coming professional pianists one day.Min said, “Arthur began playing when he was six, and Angeni when she was 6 ½.” Tongli said, “Min and I are very proud of them.” Both Arthur and Angeni—playing alone or together—have enjoyed consid-erable success in musical contests around the Lower Mainland, either winning or placing high in such highly-competitive events as the Richmond musical festival and Kiwanis musical festival. Asked his favourite musicians, Arthur said, “I like Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt.” Angeni said, “And Rachmaninov, the Russian, yes we both like the same.”

Arthur Wang, and sister Angeni Wang performing at UBC’s Got Talent.

MOU Focus Area: Community Engagement

April marks the conclusion of my series of columns on the UBC-UNA MOU on Sustainability. In this final installment, I’m covering the focus area on commu-nity engagement. This focus area com-mits UBC and the UNA to work together to ensure stakeholder engagement occurs on joint sustainability initiatives, to work on communication and education strate-gies and to develop community surveys on sustainability programs. Finally, this focus area is intended encourage com-munity involvement in sustainability programs. You may have already read about some engagement programs in my previous columns covering the MOU. Over the past year, UNA residents were invited to join working groups to contribute to two significant sustainability initiatives: the development of the UBC Waste and Water Action Plans and a review of UBC Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP). There was also an open house for UNA residents for the Waste and Water Action Plan, and a fol-low up open house is planned. Another initiative with a major com-munity engagement process is the devel-opment of our Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP). The CEEP is a strategic plan that is intended to help us map an energy efficient, low green house gas future for our community. I am happy to report the development of the plan will kick-off in May of this year, and will have many engagement components. These are expected to include workshops and focus groups as well as online oppor-tunities to participate via polls and social media. You can expect to hear more about these and other innovative engage-

ment opportunities such as the use of the UBC BC Hydro Decision Theater soon. Longer term, with the completion of the CEEP and Waste and Water Action Plans, our focus will turn implementation. This will include development of educational materials and other engagement pro-grams to support increased participation in UNA sustainability programs, such as our innovative composting program along with new programs intended to conserve energy and reduce water con-sumption. Ultimately our goal is to help you as a resident access and participate in sus-tainability programs and with your sup-port, create a community that serves as a leading example of sustainable living. To help us get there, be sure to stay tuned to hear more about opportunities for you to participate in the development and implementation of our MOU planning initiatives.

A sure sign that spring has arrived, UBC Building Operations recently provided three loads of compost soil for use in the UNA community gardens. Here Patrick Moore, Connor Todd and Ethan Ogrodniczuk move compost soil to the kid’s com-munity garden at the Old Barn Community Centre.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012 page 9

“If we are going to be one of the world’s great universities, we must be able to at-tract and retain the absolute best people, and housing is a huge factor of that,” says Nassif Ghoussoub, chair of UBC’s com-munity planning task group and a mem-ber of UBC’s board of governors. “The lack of affordable housing on or near campus makes it harder to attract top re-searchers and is forcing faculty, students and staff to live and commute farther from campus.” The team visited North American cam-puses such as New York University, Co-lumbia, Harvard and UCLA to learn how other universities in expensive cities are tackling housing affordability. They ex-plored how other jurisdictions and gov-ernment bodies, such as the Resort Mu-nicipality of Whistler and BC Housing, offer affordable housing and choices to their constituents, and they consulted widely with campus groups. “What we learned was that many of these great universities are ahead of us at integrating housing into their overall academic mission,” says Prof. Ghous-soub, a professor in UBC’s department of mathematics and distinguished uni-versity scholar. He has seen competitor universities with large departments dedi-cated to outbidding other institutions for emerging research stars, who can attract millions in research funding. “Seeing how others approach housing was truly eye-opening and helped to cre-ate consensus around the need to act,” he says. Highlights of the discussion paper, cre-ated by UBC campus and community planning staff, include a capped appre-ciation program that would allow tenured or tenure-track faculty to buy (and sell) campus housing at 33 per cent below

market prices. Another option sees fac-ulty purchasing campus housing as joint owners with UBC for roughly 30 per cent of their pre-tax income. Rental options include a proposed part-nership with BC Housing that would make UBC the first university in North American to offer non-profit rental hous-ing to eligible employees or faculty with an annual income of less than $64,000. Other proposed rental programs include non-market rental cooperatives for fac-ulty and staff. While the housing proposals for faculty and staff are still under consideration, the university is already moving forward on a major student housing plan. With more than 9,000 student residents, UBC’s Van-couver campus already has more student housing than any other Canadian campus. The university has committed to housing 2,500 more students by 2016, including the 570 beds opened in Totem Park resi-dence last fall. Prof. Ghoussoub says a greater range of housing size will be created for UBC’s changing demographics also. “A gen-eration ago, graduate students and new professors tended to be single, but now they are often married with two children. We heard a clear need for more sizes and options, from one to four bedrooms,” he says. One of the largest problems facing planners was ensuring the benefits of af-fordable housing remain available to fu-ture generations, Prof. Ghoussoub says. “Given our finite amount of space, we had to restrict these programs to full-time faculty, staff and students. As people re-tire, graduate or find new jobs, their units will become available for others.” While faculty and staff would be eli-gible for rentals, the proposed ownership options target tenured and tenure-track faculty. “Housing is a much greater bar-

HOUSING Continued from Page 1

Nassif Ghoussoub, Photo by Mark Mushet.

rier for attracting and retaining faculty, who are typically recruited from outside the Lower Mainland, than it is for staff, who tend to live in Vancouver and whose careers tend to span more employers,” says Prof. Ghoussoub, adding that peer institutions have similar restrictions on their ownership programs. Once feedback from the current consul-tation phase has been gathered, the team will conduct additional feasibility studies before preparing their recommendations

for UBC’s housing action plan, which UBC’s board of governors will consider this summer. “Investing in affordable housing would mean significant trade-offs for the uni-versity,” says Prof. Ghoussoub. “But I strongly believe that these programs will offer far greater long-term net benefits, both financially and in terms of building a vibrant, sustainable community with a strong academic flavour.”

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012page 10

Biodiversity in your backyard

April is an ideal time to see the diversity of cherry trees on campus and to enjoy their glorious blooms. The UBC Van-couver campus has been an arboretum (a collection of trees) since John Davidson became the university’s first Botanical Garden director in 1916. Many mag-nificent large trees still stand in the Old Arboretum (opposite Place Vanier resi-dences on Lower Mall). They are both an indication of the original garden’s location and a testament to Davidson’s, and later, UBC Professor of Horticulture, Frank Buck’s vision of the campus. Fol-lowing these two innovators, John Neill, also a professor of horticulture and super-visor of campus development, continued to expand on the vision. Neill is known for collaborating with Professor Mori of Chiba University in Japan on the devel-opment of Nitobe Memorial Garden and for many of the ornamental cherry plant-ings around campus. Without doubt, the most spectacular example of this is the avenue of ‘Somei-yoshino’ along Lower Mall, in April. ‘Somei-yoshino’ is the tra-ditional Tokyo cherry, much celebrated in hanami (cherry blossom viewing) fes-tivals throughout Japan. UBC’s horticul-tural pioneers all recognized biodiversity

Many Rare Cherry Trees at UBCfor the aesthetic value it brings, but we now know that there is also considerable ecological value in diverse plantings. And so we celebrate the wonderful diver-sity of cherries on campus, from ‘Shiro-tae’, a beauty renowned for its pure white double flowers and exceptionally wide-spreading branches, to the birch bark cherry, with its polished peeling bark and diminutive pink blossoms. Many of the less common of Vancou-ver’s many celebrated flowering cher-ries can be found at UBC. In the Nitobe Memorial Garden there is a single tree of ‘Taki-nioi’—the only one of its kind in Vancouver. ‘Taki-nioi’, which means fra-grant waterfall in Japanese, stands at the edge of the path near the pond with its branches drooping in gentle arcs toward the water. In mid to late April its white flowers fill the garden with a delicate al-mond fragrance. Next to it is a gnarled specimen of ‘Shogetsu’, a small cherry with a spreading, rounded crown and el-

egant, long-stalked flowers composed of the lightest pink, frilled petals. Its rare beauty is captured in its poetic Japanese name “moonlight on pine trees.” There is a magnificent planting of the aforemen-tioned ‘Shirotae’ at Regent College, at the corner of Wesbrook Mall and University Boulevard. At the Botanical Garden, visi-tors can see a number of specimens of the wild, pink flowered O-yama-zakura (big mountain cherry) from northern Japan, as well as a 100-m-long row of the famous Japanese cultivar ‘Tai-haku’ (great white cherry) along Marine Drive, in the lawn

west of the Botanical Garden entrance. Spring is a great time to get out and experience UBC Botanical Garden. Mag-nolias and rhododendrons are at their peak in the garden, and our garden cen-tre is well stocked with everything you’ll need to make the most of your garden-ing space, whether it’s a small patio or spacious backyard. Join us on May 12th from 10am to 4pm for A Growing Affair, our annual plant sale. More information can be found at: botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/events.

By Douglas Justice, Curator of Collections, UBC Botanical Garden, part of UBC Biodiversity

Collections

Tai-haku Taki-nioi

NOW SERVING BRUNCHSat & Sun, 11am - 3pm

Enjoy a FREE Fair Trade coffee or tea with your brunch. Present this advertisement to your server at time of ordering.

Valid until May 27, 2012. PH: 604-822-9503Building #4 2205 Lower Mall (Marine Drive Residence) www.food.ubc.ca

Get to the Point!

open to the public | 2hr complimentary parking | 11 am - 10 pm daily

Local & organic ingredients to start your day: Organic Oatmeal, Breakfast Tacos, Pancakes,

Spinach Omelet, Eggs Benedict...

Photo: UBC Farm

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012 page 11

In 2011, Mr. Ouillet says, the UNA board decided that a Fact Binder be as-sembled to document important informa-tion on the development of the communi-ty on campus. The UNA Board asked Mr. Taylor, a lawyer, to head up this work. One of the topics in this Fact Binder is water and sewer rates charged to resi-dents by UBC Utilities. As Mr. Taylor began his work on this topic, Mr. Ouillett says, he brought an issue to UBC’s attention regarding the water rates being charged to residents. UBC has been charging the same rates to residents on campus as the University Endowment Lands charges its residents. “Mr. Taylor put it to UBC that this was not consistent with the original scheme for the community, which was that the total property taxes paid by residents (in-cluding provincial charges, school and transit charges, and the service levy) plus water and sewer charges, should match that paid by a similarly assessed property in the City of Vancouver,” Mr. Ouillett writes. “UBC considered this matter carefully

WATER Continued from Page 1 and agrees with Mr. Taylor.” As a result of the review of City of Van-couver water and sewer rates, UBC has concluded that a rebate on water charges is in order. “I know that water rates have been the subject of some general community dis-cussion recently. UBC is grateful to Mr. Taylor and the UNA Board for their work with us on this matter. We will continue to work with Mr. Taylor and with the UNA Board regarding water and sewer rates in the future.” In a fact sheet provided with the letter to stratas, UBC notes• The difference between the City of Van-couver water rates and the rates origi-nally charged to the stratas over the past 10 years is being refunded. Total refund to all the stratas for the past 10 years is $882,537.• The average total refund per strata unit (or household) is $302.45 which works out to $30.25/year or $2.52/month. The actual amount of refund per strata unit varies based on the age of the building and the total water consumed by the building. The refund includes interest us-ing the Bank of Canada’s average inter-

est rate for each year that strata was in operation.• Charges for water rates are not spe-cifically outlined in ground leases. Since UBC purchases water from Metro Van-couver via the UEL, UBC had tradi-tionally passed on the UEL charge to the UNA. For many years, the UEL rate and the City of Vancouver rate were the same, obscuring the inconsistency. Dif-ferences between the City of Vancouver rates and UEL rates have become more pronounced over the past few years be-cause of upgrades to the water system made by Metro Vancouver, the cost of which the UEL passed on to its custom-ers, but the City of Vancouver did not. Recently, the UNA started working with UBC in examining the ground leases and the related interpretation around the is-sue of utilities. Upon a detailed review, UBC agreed with the UNA’s Jim Taylor that the spirit of the ground leases was for the services levy, water and sewer rates charged to strata residents to match the City of Vancouver rates.• UBC is recalculating the water billings from 2002 to present and the differences in the billed amounts between the City of

Vancouver rates and UEL rates will be refunded, including interest based on the average Bank of Canada rate each year. • The UNA Board has created a Rate Verification Panel, chaired by Jim Tay-lor, to review and confirm that the rebates are correct, and that the rates charged to stratas and businesses in the residential neighbourhoods on campus are correct.• The majority of refunds will be made to the strata corporations rather than to individual strata lot owners. In the cases of a few townhomes, UBC is attempting to locate the current addresses of the past owners.• According to best practices, UBC has a contingency fund to cover unexpected operational costs. This fund will be used to reimburse the overpayment.• Residents are charged directly by UBC for the services levy as well as water and sewer. The service levy charges are clear-ly outlined in the ground leases. Howev-er, the ground leases were often unclear in reference to utilities, like water. We’ve now looked at the lease agreements and the components of the various charges and levies, and we believe there are no other outstanding discrepancies. After this adjustment, the rates for water and sewer services charged to each strata will match the City of Vancouver rates.• Building Operations handles the water and sewer services, under an agreement with the UNA Board. Any other services provided by UBC are done so by contrac-tual agreement, the majority of which are outlined in the Neighbours’ Agreement.UBC says, “This is an example of UBC and the UNA working collaboratively to provide clarity and transparency in rela-tion to service delivery. As the ground leases were often unclear in reference to utilities, like water, this collaborative ap-proach determined that the spirit of the leases is to match the City of Vancouver. UBC works closely with the UNA resi-dents through joint membership in the UNA Board and the Board ensures that services are provided to the residents as needed and in accordance with all agree-ments.” Past owners seeking refunds should contact Ray McNichol at UBC finance, resources and operations, 604 827 5018 mcnichol@finance.ubc.ca

In the first letter the five chairs express-ly challenged a proposal entertained by Metro to poll campus residents on their views on local governance. Mr. Owen said, “I must say UBC agrees completely on the position taken by the UNA chairs past and present.” Following a quiet two years on the UNA/UBC-Metro front, the issue of governance at UBC resurfaced recently in large part due to a September 6, 2011 letter from Lois Jackson, then Metro chair to Ms. Chong enquiring about the position of the government on possible change at UBC. In a written reply Ms. Chong said, “There are certainly issues that would suggest a governance change will ulti-mately be needed, but at this time I have not seen strong objection to the status quo.” The intergovernmental and administra-tive committee of Metro then instructed Metro staff to look into the prospect of a governance survey of UBC residents—a prospect strongly objected to by the five UNA chairs.

In remarks prior to the March 30th meet-ing of Metro directors, Mr. Owen noted the agenda for the meeting included an item entitled ‘Continuing the dialogue on UBC Governance Issues’. He said back-ground documents and proposed board actions included in this report contained a number of inaccuracies. “Metro Vancouver does not have a local governance role in the Point Grey campus lands. Metro itself asked to be relieved of this responsibility in the Fall of 2009. As a result, UBC and Metro jointly asked the BC Government to address this matter.”In mid 2010, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act transferred local gov-ernance responsibilities from Metro to the Province. “Metro Vancouver’s role in the UBC area is limited to being a regional service provider of infrastructure such as water and sewerage,” Mr. Owen said. “It also has a few regional responsibili-ties for items such as emergency services planning. The university works collab-oratively with Metro Vancouver on these matters. There is nothing for us to discuss with Metro in terms of local governance. “Our relationship is with the province Stephen Owen

METRO Continued from Page 1 now and I don’t think it would be appro-priate for us to sit down with stakehold-ers unless it was at a meeting called by the province.”

As of

May 1, 2012, all vehicles parked in

violation of the parking signage in the UNA

neighbourhoods are subject to be

towed immediately without any warnings.

Parking Notice

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT APRIL 16, 2012page 12