Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

Volume 3, Issue 7 JULY 16, 2012

Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

‘OUR Town’ Group of Residents Gets Off to Solid Start in Campus Politics

Inaugural meeting held at Tapestry seniors centre June 25th is well-attended; three OUR candidates in upcom-

ing UNA election are introduced

OUR continued on Page 2

Gardening Gets Boost at New Campus Park

Founders of the Organization of U-Town Residents (OUR) expressed themselves well pleased with the turnout of 60-65

Having fun seems to be shaping up as a signature feature of life in Wesbrook Place, the largest neighbourhood under development at the University of British Columbia. The Wesbrook Festival will take place

More Residents, More Stores, More PlayspaceWesbrook Place Presses Ahead on All Fronts

Residents and visitors are also having fun there

Saturday, September 15. The Wesbrook Village Community Summer BBQ goes Thursday, July 19. The Canada Day Fun Run (5 K and 10k) took place Sunday, July 1. So, beside residents and campus visi-tors enjoying community gatherings there, does anything else happen in this South Campus neighbourhood? Apparently it does. Consider the num-ber of new stores opening in the central part of it UBC refers to as ‘Wesbrook Vil-lage’. The following five commercial op-erations have signed lease agreements with UBC Properties Trust to open new outlets there over the next few months:

Campus residents at new community garden in Nobel Park, Wesbrook Place: (from left) Wendy Luo, Heather Friesen, Wing Tow Poon, Leslie Alexander, and Kathryn Campbell with her children, Aimee and Owen. For full story, please see Page 5.

Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt; B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch store; a Taiwanese noodle restaurant belonging to the Fair-child group of companies in Richmond; More Bikes; and Vicki’s Nail Salon. Meanwhile, on the recreational side, Nobel Park (between Wesbrook Mall and UBC Farm) gets ready to be officially opened—the park has a full-sized softball diamond; set of community gardens and children’s playground. In addition, Urban Rec—the largest recreational group in Vancouver—has got its (temporary) vol-leyball courts off to a start not far away. All this community, commercial and

WESBROOK continued on Page 2

residents at the inaugural meeting of their group, whose mission is to dramatically change the political landscape at UBC. The meeting of OUR took place June 25th at Tapestry seniors residence on campus, and John Dickinson, a co-found-er of OUR, told the Campus Resident af-ter the meeting, “We’re pleased so many people came out. We didn’t know how many residents to expect.” In fact, the start of the meeting needed to be delayed briefly to allow Tapestry staff to wheel in extra seating to accommodate

the greater-than-expected turnout. Claire Robson, another OUR co-found-er, also expressed satisfaction with both the turnout of residents—and the way the meeting turned out. After the meeting, Ms. Robson said, “We were a bit stiff to start with because we were a little ner-vous. We didn’t know quite what to ex-pect. We’re glad the meeting turned out well.”

In an attempt to raise awareness of the important issue of governance on cam-pus, the University Neighborhoods As-sociation commissioned Hampton Place resident Jim Taylor to review governance options past and present. For good reason called the ‘founding father of the UNA’, Mr. Taylor—with ex-tensive experience practicing law—has presented the UNA with an expansive review of governance that identifies the four available options UBC residents may consider as they debate how they wish to be governed. Mr. Taylor identifies the following four options: (a) Retain and further enhance the pres-ent UNA arrangement (the “enhanced status quo”); (b) Amalgamate with the City of Van-couver (a process which would legally be referred to as a “boundary extension”); c) Incorporate as a regular municipal-ity; and (d) Incorporate as a “special” munici-pality. The UNA has posted the full review by Mr. Taylor, GOVeRNANCe OPTIONS FOR UNA ReSIDeNTS, on its website www.myuna.ca, and encourages all resi-dents to access this report. On Page 3 of this issue of the Campus Resident, we provide the ‘SUMMARY’ from the report by Mr. Taylor.

UNA Acts to Heighten

Awareness of Residents on

Campus Governance

Jim Taylor is commissioned to write report on

governance options; four options are identified

Jim Taylor

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012page 2

OUR continued from Page 1

Five of the co-founders of OUR sat, or stood, at the front of an elegant meet-ing room at Tapestry dressed in snappy, light-green T-shirts marked with the slo-gan ‘OUR Town. OUR voice’; they were Mr. Dickinson, of Hawthorn Place; elea-nor Laquian, of Hampton Place; and Ms. Robson, Richard Alexander and Sheldon Nathanson, all of Wesbrook Place. To the amusement of all in the room, Ms. Laquian said, “I have a confession to make. I am the wife of the president and chair of the UNA (Prod Laquian). But I want to assure you that we do not fight about this issue at home.” Mr. Laquian did not attend the meeting, but as reported in the June issue of the Campus Resident, he wishes the group well. After Ms. Robson—at the micro-phone—had welcomed residents and a sprinkling of non-residents, Mr. Dickin-son offered a brief explanation of OUR and summary of its origins. “OUR is not the start of a residents group,” he said. “Rather, it is the continu-ation of what has been going on for years. We like where we live and we want to make it better.” Unfortunately, according to Mr. Dick-inson, there “is a growing sense of disen-franchisement on campus”. He said one of the priorities of OUR is to prevent this unwelcome event from having further effect by making residents partners in the development process, “not an after-thought”. Mr. Alexander described the residents association much as he might have de-scribed a political party, saying, “The role of OUR is to tender candidates for UNA elections.” According to Mr. Alex-ander, OUR will give those candidates it endorses back-up in the UNA elections, do research for them, and consult on their election campaigns. With this, Ms. Robson announced that OUR had endorsed Charles Menzies, Shaohong Wu and Richard Alexander for election to the board of the UNA at its September annual meeting at The Old

Barn Community Centre. She then pre-sented Mr. Menzies, of Hawthorn Place, and Mr. Alexander to the meeting, but said Mr. Wu was unable to attend due to business commitments overseas. Mr. Menzies introduced himself to fellow-residents as a faculty member at UBC. Mr. Alexander said he was retired from an administrative position in the air-line industry. (At a later meeting, Mr. Wu introduced himself to the Campus Resi-dent as a manager in the research and de-velopment business). In response to a question from a Hamp-ton Place resident about whether OUR would push for municipality status to be conferred on campus, Mr. Dickinson said, “It is not on the agenda for now. We have to deal with the structure which we have.” Mr. Dickinson also said OUR will not be like a political party in the sense that

OUR team at inaugural meeting: Sheldon Nathanson (seated); from left: Richard Alexander; John Dickinson; Claire Robson; and Eleanor Laquian.

recreational activity takes place amid continuing growth of the residential com-munity in Wesbrook Place. Ashley Bauman, of UBC Properties, advises that the current population of Wesbrook Place is about 2,200—making it home to over 25% of the entire popula-tion of campus (8,000).

WESBROOK continued from Page 1 Ms. Bauman says, “We grow by ap-proximately 600-800 people a year.” This means that with Hampton Place, Hawthorn Place and Chancellor Place all fully—or nearly fully—populated neighbourhoods, and with east Campus a relatively small neighbourhood, Wes-brook Place will soon become the most populous neighbourhood on campus if it hasn’t become so already.

everyone it endorses must tow the party line. Rather, to be endorsed by OUR means candidates will need to agree to its major policy statements, but no one will ‘whip’ them into political shape on every issue confronting the UNA board—as-suming they succeed in gaining seats. (Three seats come available in Septem-ber.) Through direct questioning of residents at the meeting, Ms. Laquian determined: 20 residents learned about OUR and its inaugural meeting through flyers posted in their buildings; 12 through news cov-erage provided by the Campus Resident in its June issue; nine through talking to neighbours, and so forth. Mr. Dickinson said OUR would explore the use of social media and town hall meetings as means of informing residents of future meetings. In a cluster of ‘break-out workshops’ (all running simultaneously with each lasting about twenty minutes), residents discussed “concerns and priorities” in re-lation to community life at UBC. Select-ed members of the groups then reported discussions to the meeting as a whole. Not surprisingly, the issue of gover-nance arose as one of the main concerns of residents. A resident went so far as to say, “If you solve the governance issue, all other things will fall into place.” Another resident compared UBC to ‘a military junta’. This probably ranked as

the most radical comment of the evening meeting, which was in general conducted in sober and businesslike fashion. Yet another resident proposed terminat-ing the presence of two UBC directors and a UBC student director on the UNA board. “It’s odd to have mature people ruled by non-elected ones,” he said. The UNA came in for criticism for “not doing enough”—but overall criticism did not extend far beyond residents urging the UNA “to be a stronger voice in the community.” Another resident noted the small num-ber of Asian residents at the meeting, and wondered if a special effort could be made to communicate details of the next OUR meeting more efficiently to this large and vital sector of the community. This suggestion brought warm applause. A resident appeared to capture the mood of the meeting by saying the incorpora-tion of OUR was a sure sign campus residents “were pushing back” against neighbourhood development plans made without their input—hence the validity of the slogan ‘OUR Town. OUR Voice’. The meeting lasted just under two hours. Two UNA directors, Thomas Beyer (elected by residents) and Kiran Mahal (appointed by UBC students) attended the meeting along with former UNA chair Brian Collins.

More than 500 UBC residents enjoyed a day of sunshine, music, food and commu-nity at the first UTown@UBC Summer Festival. Glorious sunshine and a raft of free events attracted big crowds of UBC resi-dents to the festival, held on Saturday, July 7th. The festivities began with Skating Play-day at the Thunderbird Arena, featuring free skating lessons and pick-up hockey. Next up was the main event, held at Spen-cer Field between 11 AM and 3 PM.“It was great to see so many people out there enjoying the weather and getting to know their neighbours,” said Bennett Oh,

a high school student and Wesbrook Place resident. Bennett manned a booth pro-moting some of the attractions of UBC. “Our booth was giving away bubbles and popsicles,” he says. “The kids devas-tated the popsicles!” Other stands included a games area; a kids’ tent, where AMS volunteers offered free face painting; and a photo-booth (the photos will be made into a collage show-ing UTown@UBC members and what they bring to the community). A delicious, low-cost BBQ was also pro-vided, courtesy of UBC Food Services. After the main event, residents cooled off at the UBC Aquatic Centre during the free Aquatic Playday, which featured an open pool and inflatables.

Sun and Fun at UTown@UBC Summer Festival

Entertainment at UTown@UBC Summer Festival. Photo Credit: Katy Short

By Scott Steedman, UBC

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 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

Resident owners need to understand the underlying legal structure applicable to resident owners in the University residen-tial community, how our present gover-nance structure -- the University Neigh-bourhoods Association (“UNA”) -- came to be, and what our governance options are. In this Summary I do this by brief bul-let points which I expand on in the paper: • Under our leases resident owners are leaseholders and tenants of UBC. UBC has obligations to the residents (tenants) as a landlord. This is the only legal relation-ship that resident leaseholders have a right to. Anything else depends upon negotia-tions or taking advantage of what legisla-tive regimes there are. • In the very early days (when we were only Hampton Place) UBC “governed” (administered) residents through one of its divisions (then named Land & Building Services). • During this period there was no pretense to true “governance”. UBC ran our com-munity as a landlord (even if an enlight-ened landlord) managing its tenants. • As the result of a provincial study and an agreement between UBC and the GVRD the UNA came into being. The UNA was charged with the responsibility of, devel-oping and providing services to the resi-dents as if the UNA were a municipality (the UNA is not a municipality in fact). • One governance option -- Option (a) -- is to continue to incrementally develop the role and authority of the municipal-like entity which the UNA has become. • The relationship of today between the UNA and UBC developed through two Neighbours Agreements. The first was in 2002. It was drawn up before the UNA came into being and had no resident in-put. The second was in 2008 (“NA 2008”). Over the period 2002 to 2008 the rights, re-sponsibilities and authority of the UNA, as a result of a series of working agreements with UBC that were eventually reduced to writing and are found in NA 2008, in-creased dramatically, including, early on, the UNA becoming controlled by elected resident directors. • Those entitled to vote at UNA meetings (and to vote to elect our directors) are de-scribed in the UNA Bylaws. These bylaws require that voters be a UNA member and a resident but it is not necessary that the person be a Canadian citizen (as is required for municipalities). • One concern some raise about our cur-rent arrangement is that there is a “demo-cratic deficit”. While member residents elect resident directors who control the UNA Board the UNA ultimately is subject to the direction of the University’s Board of Governors which derives its authority from the University Act and is effectively the landlord’s representative under our leases. • Several consequences flow from the UNA’s lack of legal status as a municipal-ity. These are detailed in the report. • The UNA Board has never regarded NA 2008 as an end in itself. The Board has

SUMMARY OF GOVERNANCE OPTIONS FOR UNA RESIDENTSBy Jim Taylor always regarded it as a further evolutionary

step which will continue or not to wherever the community decides to, and is able to, take matters. Indeed, at the present time the UNA Board is in negotiations with the University to effect a series of changes to NA 2008. • In the event that the residents were to form a true municipality provincial law and our leases together provide that our obligation to pay rural tax and services levy would disappear and be replaced by whatever tax we pay to the new municipal-ity. This would be true whether we become part of Vancouver in some way or we in-corporate our own municipality. • While at present in UNA elections one has to be a resident to vote and we do allow non-residents to vote, if we were to join Vancouver or become a municipality these provisions would disappear. This would have the effect of disenfranchising a num-ber of UNA residents (and because of the nature of our community as a University town there are a substantial number) who while they live in our community, and own or rent residences in our community, are not Canadian citizens. It would also have the effect of giving a vote within our com-munity to non-resident absentee owners of properties. • One unavoidable question regarding governance change here is whether the physical territory of any new municipality would include within it institutional UBC. It could simply be the five UNA neigh-bourhoods that we presently have (includ-ing any new ones that are created). That is one possibility. It is, however, more likely that it would have to include UBC as an institution. • The question that arises is how can we effect a change in our status from an unor-ganized territory “governed” by the Board of a Society to being part of a regular mu-nicipality such as Vancouver or to having our own municipal status. • There are a number of policy positions that the Province has taken from time to time which indicate a preference for these sorts of new arrangements only occurring if the people who are going to be affected by them vote in favour of the arrangement. Having said this, some of the options would not require resident support even on the basis of existing law and, in any event, the Province has the absolute right to make whatever rules they wish in order to create a municipal arrangement (either by mak-ing us a part of Vancouver or making us a separate municipality) without reference to previous legislation. • Another governance option -- Op-tion (b) -- is that we might be “amalgam-ated” (actually the process would occur by Vancouver extending its boundaries) with Vancouver. • Because Vancouver is governed by its own Charter (the Vancouver Charter) and not by the act that governs all other mu-nicipalities (the Local Government Act) the general legislative safeguards that do exist to provide for the support of those people about to be included in a different arrangement do not pertain in the case of Vancouver.

• If we were to amalgamate with Vancou-ver, as noted above, our franchise would change. Those residents who are not Ca-nadian citizens (either faculty or students) who have been able to vote in UNA elec-tions, would not be able to vote. Absentee property owners (who have not been able to vote in UNA elections) would be able to vote. • There would be an issue as to what would become a part of Vancouver – just the residential neighbourhoods or the en-tire UBC campus (including perhaps the UeL). • If we were “amalgamated” with Van-couver the rural tax would no longer be levied and the Services Levy would be replaced by Vancouver’s property taxation regime (to the effect that our property tax burden would not change). • It is very hard to see, objectively, a practical benefit, from the point of view of the residents, of amalgamating with Van-couver. There is the theoretical benefit of eliminating the democratic deficit – be-cause the residents would vote for those people who were elected to Vancouver City Council and ultimately we would then control our legislators. I call this a “theoretical benefit” because it is very dif-ficult to see how the particular interests of a group of atypical properties (because they are leaseholds), atypical to the west side of the City (because we live in multiple fam-ily developments) and on the outer edge of Vancouver, would have any significant practical say amongst the Vancouver popu-lation of over half a million people. • One can identify a number of negatives that would unavoidably arise upon amalga-mation with Vancouver: o The level of maintenance of our pub-lic realm would diminish. This would un-avoidably adversely affect property values. o There would be a policing change. We would lose the RCMP as our police force and would gain the Vancouver City Police. There would be no local police presence (Vancouver would not establish a community policing office here: indeed it is possible that the RCMP office here would, if we were no longer a part of their responsibility for policing, remove itself to Richmond (our RCMP detachment already has a working arrangement with the Rich-mond RCMP)). o Whether or not residents get good value for paying an access fee for preferred ac-cess to UBC’s facilities and reduced costs for certain activities, this benefit would be lost upon our joining Vancouver. o Some local flexibility would disap-pear. For many years we chose to provide an evening security service. Vancouver would not do that for us. o We have accumulated a series of re-serves in the Neighbours Fund. There are no equivalent reserves in Vancouver. Vancouver follows the traditional munici-pal practice of borrowing to acquire those services that our reserves are anticipated to pay for – replacement of capital projects, replacement of infrastructure, etc. In Van-couver the borrowing is simply added to the property tax burden. • Another governance option -- Option

(c) -- is incorporation as a regular munici-pality. • This raises all of the issues referred to above such as who would be entitled to vote, what would geographically become a part of the new municipality, what hap-pens to the Services Levy under residents’ leases and what happens to our reserves. • We do not have a right to incorporate as a regular municipality. For a whole va-riety of reasons the Province would have to agree to whatever arrangement we pro-posed (in part because if we wanted to in-corporate simply the residential portions we would not look like any other munici-pality in the world – being comprised of 5 areas of residential population not connect-ed at any point). There is also the question of what our continuing relationship would be with the surrounding campus (institu-tional UBC) which we would have to deal with. • If we were to incorporate a municipality that did not include UBC that would raise one series of issues. If we incorporated a municipality that includes UBC then that would raise other issues (in part very sig-nificant financial issues that such a munici-pality would face). As just one example, if UBC were a part of the new municipality it would incur something like 85% or 90% of the municipal cost to operate it. However, the municipality would not be able to tax UBC (because institutions such as UBC, under provincial law, are exempt from taxation). Rather the new municipality would have to go to the provincial govern-ment each year asking for a grant in lieu of taxes. There are obvious risks involved in this process. • One possibility that might work is creat-ing a municipality which had two separate wards. One ward (the institutional ward) would be everything UBC, and the other ward (the residential ward) the residential neighbourhoods. This option has some attractions but it would not be an entirely simple exercise. First, it would involve the approval of the Province. Second it would mean reaching agreement between UBC and the neighbourhoods on how areas where they touched up against one another would be affected. Third, we would have to consider what services the municipality might be able to acquire from UBC and what services it would choose to provide on its own – as an example, would the new community set up a new utility service, ac-quire water direction from the GVRD, set up its own safety inspection system, etc., etc., or would it continue to deal with UBC. • The last option -- Option (d) -- is cre-ating a special municipality. • While the words special municipality put you in mind of some exotic arrange-ment, a special municipality has generally been restricted to a series of enumerated entities like a resort municipality. A dual ward municipality that is part of a univer-sity campus is not covered in a special mu-nicipality.

Please go to www.myuna.ca for the full version of GOVERNANCE OPTIONS FOR UNA RESIDENTS.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012page 4

Prod Laquian

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 UNA was set up as a society a de-cade ago. While designed as a quasi-mu-nicipal body to deliver public services to residents, it was essentially a volunteer-based organization. The UNA Board of unpaid directors was to set policies and a full-time executive Director would implement them. The UNA was to have a very small staff. Most functions were supposed to be carried out by volunteers. However, after ten years, the population in the UNA neighbourhoods has grown to more than 8,000 and the UNA budget has passed the $4.0 million mark. Many activities are still carried out by volun-teers but major services are provided through UBC contracts. Meanwhile, the UNA staff has grown (salaries and ben-efits now account for 17.7 percent of the annual budget). These developments in-dicate that the UNA has been evolving

“Should the UNA become a Municipality?”into a governance system approximating a municipality. Should the UNA become a municipali-ty? If so, what type? Should it merge with Vancouver city? Should residents accept the claim of Metro Vancouver that it is the local government for our area? How about the view of some residents that the status quo should just be enhanced? The unique situation in the UNA com-plicates the setting up of a municipal government. UBC dominates events on campus as landowner, planner and de-veloper. Tax rates are pegged to those in Vancouver. The UBC Board of Gov-ernors approves policies but is not ac-countable to residents. While residents elect four UNA Board members (soon to be five), UBC appoints two Directors and the AMS appoints one. Under the 2008 Neighbours Agreement between UBC and UNA, the University can exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and abol-ish the UNA if it wants to. If the UNA becomes a municipality,

a number of issues need to be resolved. Should the UNA Board exercise execu-tive functions (say through the Chair and Vice Chair) instead of relying heavily on the executive Director to implement pro-grams? What authority should be exer-cised by UBC and AMS representatives on the UNA Board? At present, UNA Di-rectors get a stipend of $5,000 per year (the Chair gets $7,500) – should they be paid like traditional mayors and council-ors at a rate commensurate to the time and effort they devote to their duties? What should be the UNA’s role in de-velopment planning, the enforcement of bylaws, granting of permits, imposition of charges and fines, and other functions normally carried out by a municipality? The upcoming UNA Annual General Meeting on September 26 provides an excellent venue for discussing if the UNA should consider becoming a mu-nicipality or not. The election of three resident Directors also provides the op-portunity to choose leaders who will

guide the UNA in the years ahead. Hope-fully, UNA members and residents will take these opportunities to air their views on what governance system they would like to have.

By Prod Laquian, Hampton Place Resident

The May issue of the Campus Resident published my open letter to the UNA chair, Prod Laquian, concerning local governance for the UNA neighbourhoods and the process for exploring change. In his response in the June issue, Mr. La-quian took issue with much that I said, including my comment that the UNA can never be a fully empowered local govern-ment. By this, I meant that the UNA will always lack some of the essential pow-ers and characteristics of a municipality. Since the extent to which the UNA can be transformed so that it comes closer to being a municipality is central to any dis-cussion of local governance, I would like to comment further. 1. What municipal powers does the UNA lack? Power to tax. The UNA cannot impose property tax. In place of a local govern-ment property tax, UNA residents pay provincial rural property tax and also a services levy under the terms of their leases. Residents have no ability to de-

“The UNA will never be able to become a local government with the powers of a municipality.”

By Bill Holmes, Hampton Place Resident

termine, through elected representatives, the tax and levy rates. Power to enact bylaws. A municipality enacts its own by-laws. In our case, rules (analogous to bylaws) must be enacted by UBC’s Board of Governors. While the UBC Board has agreed that it will enact rules for our neighbourhoods only on the recommendation of the UNA, these can-not be considered bylaws enacted by a democratic body. Land use planning and development powers. A municipal government has full control over land use planning and development. As residents have come to learn only too well, the UNA has no power with respect to such matters. All the power is held by UBC. Space constraints preclude a compre-hensive listing of the powers held by mu-nicipalities but not by the UNA. These examples suffice to demonstrate that the UNA’s powers are substantially less than those of a municipality. 2. Can the UNA acquire all the pow-ers of a municipality? The UNA gets its powers by delegation from UBC. It could acquire additional powers if UBC were willing to delegate them. For example, UBC could give the UNA control over development in the UNA neighbourhoods. But UBC does not have the capacity to give the UNA any governmental powers that UBC does not hold, most notably the power to tax. Furthermore, UBC’s authority to enact rules probably cannot be delegated to the UNA. even if it could, the categories of rules that UBC can enact are more lim-ited than the categories of bylaws that a municipality can enact. The only way in which the UNA could acquire all the powers of a municipality

would be for the Province to pass legis-lation giving it those powers. I don’t see this as a realistic possibility. Thus, in my view the UNA will never be able to be-come a local government with the powers of a municipality. 3. What other characteristics of a municipality does the UNA lack?The UNA Board of Directors is less democratic than a municipal council. The Board includes non-elected members, two of whom are appointed by UBC and one by the AMS. The UNA’s powers are not as secure as those of a municipality. The powers held by a municipality are granted by legis-lation and so can be eliminated only by legislation. In contrast, since the UNA’s powers are delegated by UBC, UBC can cancel the delegation. The UNA lacks the independence of a municipality. UBC has direct or indirect influence over the UNA through several avenues, not the least of which is UBC’s broad right to cancel the Neighbours’ Agreement 2008—the agreement under which the UNA obtains its powers from UBC. 4. Do residents want to explore the option of a fully empowered local gov-ernment? The UNA can never be more than a half-way station on the road to a fully empowered local government for our community. Are residents interested in the possibility of a local government like that enjoyed by residents of practically every other urban area in the Province—including approximately 100 communi-ties with populations less than ours? The obvious way to find out is to conduct a survey. But for a survey to produce meaningful results, residents need to be

adequately informed. Unlike Mr. Laqui-an, I don’t think that they currently are. For example, there is no website to which residents can turn to find out the pros and cons of the UNA versus a municipality. No information pamphlets are available.An information campaign and a survey are the initial steps. If there is sufficient demonstrated interest in examining whether our community should become a municipality, much more work would need to be done to flesh out all the finan-cial and other implications. Only then could the option of becoming a munici-pality be put to residents for a vote. If there are residents who want the for-mation of a municipality to be explored, I would encourage them to make their views known. The more interest in this option that is shown, the greater the like-lihood that it will be seriously examined.

Hampton Speakers Stake Positions in UNA Debate

OP-ED PAGE

Bill Holmes

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012 page 5

See my strawberries grow! says Wendy Luo with pride and delight. In the last month, Ms. Luo has become one of 76 campus residents who have purchased the right to toil lovingly in a new community garden at UBC. Ms. Luo has never had the chance to till the land before. “It’s long been my dream,” she said at the site of her five feet by ten gardening plot in Nobel Park, the latest amenity made available to resi-dents of UBC. The Nobel Park community garden, located in the Wesbrook Place neigh-bourhood in South Campus, lies between Wesbrook Mall and UBC Farm. The right to till this plot of land costs Ms. Luo $40 a year. Heather Friesen, who chairs the Uni-versity Neighbourhoods Association community gardening committee, ex-plained that the popularity of community gardening among UBC residents—none of whom have gardens at home—never

Gardening Gets Boost at New Campus Park

Nobel Park community gar-den is located in Wesbrook Place neighbourhood; its

76 plots are all in use

seems to wane. In 2008, Ms. Friesen presided over the launch of the first community garden for permanent residents beside Main Mall in the Hawthorn Place neighbourhood. All 78 plots in the Hawthorn Place commu-nity garden remain in cultivation as do another 27 beside Rhododendron Woods, which was opened not far away in 2010. While the Rhododendron Woods site operates on a ‘transitional basis’ until the land there is put to other use and while the Hawthorn Place community garden is subject to a three-year lease agreement (recently re-signed) with research and de-velopment company Forintek, the Nobel Park community garden has a guaranteed future. “It is part of the Usable Neigh-bourhoods Open Space (UNOS) arrange-ment,” she said at the Nobel Park site. The Nobel Park community garden, prepared for—and presented to—the University Neighbourhoods Association by UBC Properties Trust, consists of 48 full-size plots and 28 half-size pots (five feet square). Would be gardeners signed up in June ($20 for half-plots), and con-sidered themselves lucky. “We had a big waiting list,” Ms. Friesen said. “People just love to come out and get involved.”

The concerns of residents in a campus high-rise that tall trees beside their build-ing might fall and damage it do not ap-pear to be justified. A company of professional arborists as-sessed the stability of seven trees stand-ing beside the Corus high-rise in Chan-cellor Place and concluded the trees have a low risk of failure at this time. How-ever, they also concluded the stability of the trees in the Iona Green area should be monitored by the University Neigh-bourhoods Association and re-assessed in three years time. In March 2012, the UNA received an e-mail from the treasurer of the Corus strata council, John Bourne, asking that the trees located in Iona Green behind the Corus Building be assessed for stability. Mr. Bourne indicated a concern had been expressed by residents that the trees were quite old and very high, and that they swayed significantly during high wind conditions. Corus council expressed concern about the impact of any of the trees hitting the building. UBC Properties Trust, under the direc-tion of the UNA, contracted with Dia-mond Head Consulting Ltd, who under-took a risk assessment of the trees by a certified arborist in April 2012. The consultant’s report indicates the trees are at low risk of failure with no ac-

Arborists Assess Iona Trees as Safe

UNA was advised of con-cerns by high-rise residents about potential damage to

condos; risk assessment was carried out

tion required at this point. This said, the following recommenda-tions were also made: (1) The trees should be assessed again in three years or after a major windstorm (sustained winds of over 80kms/hr); (2) Garden maintenance crews should alert management of any changes in the condition of the trees that may warrant an assessment earlier than in three years; (3) No work (excavation, movement of large machinery, installing hardscape) should occur without first consulting an arborist trained in tree assessing. At the July meeting of the UNA board, directors voted to instruct staff to com-municate the results of the assessment to the Corus strata corporation.

Arborist says trees in Iona Green be-side Corus high-rise are at little risk of falling

Garden plots planted in Nobel Park

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012page 6

TRIUMF scientists and student-scientists who worked on Higgs boson project: (from left) Reda Tafirout; Isabel Trigger; student Philippe Allard Guerin (Univer-sity of Montreal); student Lohrasp Seify (University of Calgary); student Ewan Hill (University of Victoria); and student Matt Leblanc (University of Victoria)

Neighbouring TRIUMF Scientists Celebrate Breakthrough

in Search for ‘Higgs Boson’

A group of scientists at TRIUMF—neighbours of the residential community on campus—played a significant role in the breakthrough search for the famous Higgs boson nuclear particle. Canada’s national laboratory for parti-cle and nuclear physics, TRIUMF stands but a few blocks south of where thou-sands of residents live in South Campus, and scientists and students at TRIUMF belong to a group of more than 150 Ca-nadian scientists involved in the global search for the Higgs boson. Worldwide, scientists seeking to sight a Higgs boson count in the thousands. Nigel S. Lockyer, director of TRIUMF, likened the quest for the Higgs boson to Christopher Columbus’s voyage of dis-covery to the New World. “With ATLAS (detection system) and the Large Hadron Collider (particle accelerator in Switzer-land), we set sail in the direction toward what we thought was the land of the Higgs. Last December, we saw a smudge on the horizon and knew we could be getting close to land. With these latest re-sults, we’ve seen the shoreline! We know we’ll make it to dry land, but the ship is not in to shore just yet.” Scientists from CeRN, site of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), presented the latest results in this hunt for the Higgs boson early on the morning of July 4th at a global press conference in Geneva—with thousands around the world viewing it. They gave technical details indicating that a series of particle-physics experi-ments had observed a new particle in the mass region around that consistent with the Higgs. The announcement prompted instant celebration at TRIUMF and associated laboratories across Canada—as well as around the world.

TRIUMF is Canada’s national laboratory for

particle and nuclear physics; its facility is

located at the southern end of Wesbrook Mall

TRIUMF has been a focal point for much of the Canadian involvement that has ranged from assisting with the con-struction of the LHC accelerator to build-ing key elements of the ATLAS detector and hosting one of the ten global Tier-1 Data Centres that stores and processes the physics data for the team of thousands. During an interview with The Cam-pus Resident, Isabel Trigger, a member of the TRIUMF team seeking to detect the Higgs boson, cautioned that the re-sults presented July 4 must be consid-ered “preliminary”. “They are based on data collected in 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 data still under analysis,” said Ms. Trigger who estimated she and her colleagues have been searching for signs of the Higgs boson for twenty years (the same length of time UBC has been build-ing residences on campus). Further analyses of the results are ex-pected around the end of July. A more complete picture of current observations will emerge later this year after the LHC provides the experiments with more data.TRIUMF scientists say the next step will be to determine the precise nature of the particle and its significance for our un-derstanding of the universe. Are its prop-erties as expected for the long-sought Higgs boson, the final missing ingredient in the Standard Model of particle phys-ics? Or is it something more exotic? The Standard Model describes the fundamental particles from which we, and every visible thing in the universe, are made, and the forces acting between them. All the matter that we can see, how-ever, appears to be no more than about 4% of the total. A more exotic version of the Higgs particle could be a bridge to understanding the 96% of the universe that remains obscure. “We have reached a milestone in our understanding of nature,” said CeRN Director-General Rolf Heuer. “The dis-covery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson opens the way to more de-tailed studies, requiring larger statistics, which will pin down the new particle’s properties, and is likely to shed light on other mysteries of our universe.”

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012 page 7

UBC Earns Top Honours in Bike-to-Work Week - Again!

Hundreds of cyclists participated in the summer edition of Bike to Work Week (B2WW), a competition designed to en-courage and support cycling across Metro Vancouver. And for the fourth consecutive time, UBC came first in all three categories in the competition: most kilometres cycled, the highest participation rate for organiza-tions of more than 1,000 people and the highest participation rate for an institution of higher education. B2WW is coordinated by HUB (formerly the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition), a non-profit society that works to make cy-cling an attractive choice for everyone in Metro Vancouver. It began as a summer event in 2007, and a second, winter week was added in 2009. Organizations and in-dividuals track their daily commutes on-line for the working week (May 28 to June 1) and compete for various prizes. For the five days of the event, hundreds of cyclists registered online and logged their trips to and from UBC. On the afternoon of May 30, two hundred cyclists passed by UBC’s Celebration Station on University Boulevard, one of two dozen across the city. A BBQ with beef and veggie burg-ers was provided by Mahony & Sons, a stalwart sponsor of the event. At 6:30, the BBQ was followed by a group ride home organized by the UBC Bike Co-op. Riders enjoyed free ethical Bean cof-fee and breakfast snacks (the granola bars—donated by UBC Food Services—are hugely popular, and have become a trademark of the event). Mechanics from UBC’s student-run Bike Kitchen were also on hand to offer free tune-ups and bike advice, and fix the odd punctured tire or broken spoke. Stromer Bikes demonstrated their innova-tive electric bicycles (a great way to get up that steep hill between Alma and Blanca) and CiTR Radio provided the soundtrack. “Bike to Work Week is fun, and a great way to encourage people to cycle more,” says Adam Cooper, transportation planner at UBC’s Transportation Planning Office. “We have been very involved for many years, and this year’s event was particu-larly successful.” “Lots of local businesses supported the Celebration Station, and we gave away some really cool prizes, including lights from MeC and gift cards donated by UBC Food Services, Mahony and Sons, Urban Racks and Save-On Foods. It’s great to see so much support from the campus commu-nity.” “It’s a good reward for our established cyclists, and a great opportunity for new cyclists to try riding to campus,” Mr. Coo-per adds. “It’s always exciting when we

can highlight how fun and easy it can be to cycle to UBC.” Over the five days of Bike to Work Week, UBC cyclists covered more than 9,000 ki-lometres on their commutes, and saved more than 1,800 kg of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. To further encourage cycling to, from and around campus, UBC has invested in new bicycle infrastructure, including bike lanes, signage and nine secure (and free) storage facilities, plus a brand new facility under construction in the Chemistry court-yard. The University also added another 54 bike lockers this spring. The Transportation Planning Office has also raised the bar on end-of-trip facility requirements via the Vancouver Campus Plan prepared by Campus and Community Planning, and continues to explore the fea-sibility of a public bike system in coopera-tion with the UNA, the AMS and the City of Vancouver. “To really support sustainable transporta-tion on campus, we have to build the infra-structure and encourage people to use it,” says Mr. Cooper. “Bike to Work Week is a great way to encourage people to try cy-cling and see how realistic it is for them to make it part of how they get to, from and around UBC.” Mr. Cooper adds that they were very happy with the turnout, despite the unsea-sonable weather. “It was a bit wet and cold, for the time of year, which doesn’t seem to matter—we’ve had more riders every time we stage this event, and we hope to con-tinue to break our record again.” “UBC is unbeatable!” adds Shana Myara of Hub, program manager for Bike to Work Week. “We are so impressed and thankful to UBC for helping to make B2WW a big success. even with the weather — which was pretty dismal.” “UBC’s support — financial, promo-tional, the BBQ, all the riders — helps recruit more and more people to cycling as an everyday commuting option. This spring we increased registration by 1,000 participants compared to last year. And we recruited 900 people who have never be-fore cycled to work to try it for the week. Our numbers show that once people start the habit for the week, they tend to keep it up as part of their commuting habits.” Collectively, the entire region traveled just over 300,000 kilometres, the equiva-lent of riding around the earth seven and a half times, during the five days of the event. There were 4,453 active participants in Metro Vancouver, in 1,052 teams; be-tween them they logged just under 30,000 trips and saved more than 62 tonnes of greenhouse gases from entering the atmo-sphere.Reprinted with permission from June issue of campus and community plan-ning June e-newsletter

Babylon – Summer Day CampCome along and take a journey back to ancient Babylon…

without leaving the neighbourhood!

On our Journey, we will do crafts, play games, sing songs and hear great ad-venture stories from the Bible. Sign up today for this adventure of a lifetime!

For children 3-10 years oldAugust 15-19th

2 options : 9am-12 noon or 5.30-8pmregistration fee: $35, Family rate $60 (siblings only)

Location: University Chapel, 5375 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1K3

Contact : (604) 222-0800 or tabea@universitychapel.orgonline registration at: www.universitychapel.org

By Scott Steedman, UBC

UNA and UTown@UBCSponsor UBC Grand Prix

Kids Race

UNA Resident Sasha Hansen gets ready to race in the UBC Grand Prix Kids Race, held on July 10, 2012. Around 200 children aged 5-8 and 9-12 raced the 1km track, with the younger kids completing one lap, while the older kids completed two. Many children from within the UNA enjoyed the race, and afterwards, the Kids Zone provided fun with bouncy castles and food

University Neighbourhoods Association

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

In accordance with the UNA Constitution, there will be an election for 3 UNA Resident Directors to take place at the UNA Annual General Meeting.

Eligibility Requirements:To be eligible for nomination a person must be a resident of the “local area” (those five areas currently identified for non-institutional development in the Comprehensive Community Plan and Hampton Place) and otherwise meet the

requirements of our By-laws.

The UNA Constitution and By-laws requires that no more than three (3) directors may come from a single area and at least one (1) director must be elected from the Faculty / Staff or Co-Development housing. To read the UNA Constitution and By-laws and recent amendments to the By-laws, please see the UNA website www.myuna.ca. Three (3) directors to be elected this September will initially hold office for two (2) years. Directors may be re-elected (subject to being eligible) for

up to two (2) more terms.

Nominees for the UNA Board of Directors may contact the UNA office by phone, fax or email to be sent nomination forms or may print a copy from the UNA website www.myuna.ca. To be eligible, nominations require the support of 5 members of the UNA. Nominees are requested to submit a 1 page biographical sketch and photo with the completed nomination form to the UNA office. Biographical information will be posted on the UNA website and / or the UNA publication The

Campus Resident.

Deadline for Nominations:The deadline for nominations under the UNA Constitution is 4:30 pm on Monday, August 27, 2012. Completed nomination forms should be mailed or delivered to the UNA office, #202-5923 Berton Avenue, Vancouver BC, V6S 0B3. The names of persons nominated for election as Resident Directors shall be published in a ballot and delivered to the membership with the notice of meeting and related

material by September 5, 2012.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Cathie Cleveland UNA Administrative Manager 604.827.5540 or email Cathie@myuna.ca

A meeting for members of the UNA and residents of the “Local Areas” as defined in the Comprehensive Community Plan including Hampton Place,

Hawthorn Place, Chancellor Place, east Campus, and Wesbrook Place

Wednesday September 26, 7 p.m. – 9 p.m.at The Old Barn Community Centre (6308 Thunderbird Blvd., UBC)

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012page 8

Sustainability Corner

UNA Community News

Ralph Wells, UNA Sustainability Manager

In April, you may have participated in the UNA e-Waste Drop, one of our earth Day events, by dropping off an old computer or television for recycling. What you may not have known was that this was possi-ble because of a BC Product Stewardship program which is responsible for e-waste programs across the province. In fact, product stewardship programs such as this are responsible for much of the expansion of recycling in BC. In May, I attended the 38th annual Re-cycling Council of BC Conference, in which stewardship programs were a cen-tral theme. I thought it would be useful to share some of what I learned, and more importantly, to give you information on how you can access these important recy-cling programs. First, some background. BC Product Stewardship programs are designed on the principle of extended Producer Responsibility (ePR). ePR programs require producers of designated products to take responsibility for the life cycle management of their products, in-cluding collection and recycling. Manu-facturers and distributers are required to develop self-funded recycling programs for product classes such as personal elec-tronics or fluorescent bulbs. You have likely noticed ‘eco’ fees on some prod-ucts when you purchase them . These fees contribute to the operating costs of the re-

BC Product Stewardship Programs

cycling programs – and ensure that you, the consumer, take financial responsibility for the recycling of the products you pur-chase. Programs now exist for twelve different product classes. Some are likely familiar to you, including programs for bottles and beverage containers, personal electronics computers, televisions and a/v equipment, cell phones and small batteries. Others you might be less aware of include such items as fluorescent bulbs, paints and sol-vents, oils and antifreeze, and tires. There is even a program dedicated to recycling old thermostats. A new program for re-cycling small home appliances was imple-mented last fall. Finally, a medication return program allows you to return ex-pired medications to your local pharmacy for safe disposal. New programs are un-der development, including programs for product packaging, large appliances and carpeting. Stewardship programs have the advan-tage of covering a wide range of products without additional burden to tax payer funded municipal recycling programs. However, because each program has its own collection system, it can be confusing for individuals to access. In some cases, items such as compact fluorescent bulbs can be returned directly to local retailers. In other cases, items can be returned to private recycling depots such as those run by encorp. Fortunately, there are resourc-es to help you access these programs. A useful online manual (and iphone app) is

available online at BC Stewards.com. The www.metrovancouverrecycles.org web-site is also an excellent online resource for finding product stewardship and other recycling options. You can also recycle personal electronics locally though the UNA – UBC e-waste program (www.myuna.ca/recycling) or at one of our public e-waste drops (watch for our next one this fall). We are work-ing on ways to expand local UNA options for product stewardship recycling – stay tuned to this column for more informa-tion. In the meantime, you can contribute to reducing waste and pollution by educat-ing yourself and participating in the BC product stewardship programs available nearby.

Nomination papers must be filed by August 27th; election will be held at the September 26th UNA annual meeting

2012 UNA ELECTION

Campaigning Kicks Off with Three Announcements

With three residents already having an-nounced they intend to run as candidates in the 2012 UNA election, campaigning this political season on campus has got off to a notably quick start. Charles Menzies, of Hawthorn Place, Shaodong Wu, of Wesbrook Place, and Richard Alexander, of Wesbrook Place have all announced they intend to run for a seat on the UNA board. Three seats will become available at the September 26th UNA annual general meeting. Meanwhile, Prod Laquian, UNA presi-dent and chair, has announced he does not intend to stand for re-election in Septem-ber. Mr. Laquian, 77, a UBC professor emeri-tus in community and regional planning, said his decision not to run was work-re-lated: his work as an international consul-tant requires frequent travels abroad. By the September meeting, Mr. Laquian will have served two two-year terms on the UNA board—this last year as president and chair. UNA directors may serve up to three terms of two years each though not necessarily in succession. Prospective candidates in the 2012 elec-tion have until August 27th to file their nomination papers.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012 page 9

Arriving early in Hampton Place in the moist morning air, the four volunteers, Ryan Xia, Alan Chen, Raymundo es-calona and I met Ralph (Ralph Wells, sustainability manager) on time, and soon started setting up the tent and tables for the June 23rd UNA Yard Sale togeth-er. After twenty minutes, everything was done, and we stood by the line of empty tables, waiting and hoping for sellers and a burst of guests! Actually, we were at first worrying about the weather: the rain might keep the activity from much popularity. However, soon it turned to be cloudy with gentle winds, which was kind of pleasing. Then followed groups of sellers busy with dis-playing their things of great diversity: all kinds of books, things made by them-selves like head bands, collections that came from all over the world and have been kept for years and even high-tech products which were bought just months ago, by some shopaholics, even includ-ing Mac book Air! I walked around the tables, feeling so curious about the vari-ous goods as well as sellers—their ages ranging from teens to sixties—who rarely troubled us volunteers. At about 9 a.m., lots of people came, searching and bargaining, meeting their friends or neighbours with surprised greetings. Then the atmosphere became more and more excited and lively, and the sun also came out! What amazing weather it was! It just changed with our mood and

Yard Sale is “Fun andFull of Excitement”

By Ivan Zhou, youth volunteer at The Old Barn

Community Centre

popularity, and took us by great surprise, with lots of curious customers and visi-tors moving in the street. There were not many things for us, so I went shopping with my mother, searching and entering the fascinating noise. This fantastic feeling lasted for hours. After noon, sellers began to leave, full of enjoyment of selling the old or gaining an uncommon memory, and volunteers started to take down the tables. I think it was a great activity for the residents here, and especially for me: a newcomer to the city. It was indeed the best time for me to be exposed to the life, the citizens and the culture here, to experience people’s daily interaction and attitude towards life and collections. In short, it was full of fun and excitement, just like the weather!

Ivan Zhou, UNA volunteer

Hampton Place sidewalk sale best yet for UNA

Hard bargaining at UNA Yard Sale in Hampton Place

Searching for forgotten treasures.

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012page 10

Biodiversity in your backyard

Stephen Harper’s Conservative govern-ment profoundly changed Canada’s en-vironmental legislation with its “budget” bill (C-38, passed June 2012), including habitat protection in the Fisheries Act (FA), Canada’s envied and longest serv-ing environmental legislation. These changes have serious consequences for Canada’s freshwater fish biodiversity be-cause habitat loss and degradation are the most important threats facing freshwater fishes. The old FA The FA provided critical protection for fish, their habitats, and fisheries because subsection 35(1) stated that “No person shall carry on any work or undertak-ing that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” (aka HADD). This provided broad pro-tection of habitat because demonstrating “harm”, ‘disruption”, or “destruction” was straightforward. Also, the FA defined “fish” very broadly in a way that included all fishes for their aesthetic, ecological, commercial, recreational, and cultural values.

The new FA The new FA subsection 35(1) states: “No person shall carry on any work, un-dertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery”. Thus, the Harper Government has: (i) removed all explicit references to fish habitat thus rejecting the importance of habitat to the persistence of fish, (ii) replaced HADD with the vague “serious harm to fish”, and (iii) narrowed prohibitions against harm to fish to only species that are ex-ploited in, or support, a fishery. Why the new FA is harmful and why we should care Most Canadian freshwater fishes will now receive no habitat protection under the FA and we’ve lost an effective way to “make the polluter pay”; of 84 fresh-water fish species at risk (threatened or endangered) in Canada, only 33 (39%) could even potentially qualify as part of a fishery and receive protection under the new 35(1). Canada’s Species-at-Risk-Act (2004) still provides some habitat protec-tion, but only comes into effect after a species is deemed at risk - the new FA re-duces motivation to prevent species from becoming at risk. Changes to the FA counteract our com-

mitments to the Rio Convention on Bio-logical Diversity of 1992, i.e., those of “Agenda 21”. The new FA rejects bio-diversity’s inherent value and imposes a purely utilitarian one and, despite Con-servative ministers’ claims of what “Ca-nadians want”, conflicts with the broad values Canadians place on biodiversity – not just on species from which we make money. Finally, bill C-38’s changes to the FA violate the spirit of democracy. The outcome of parliamentary “debates” on changes to the FA was never in doubt, and in devising changes to the FA, there was no consultation by the Harper gov-ernment with their own or independent scientists (i.e., those not employed by government or by industries benefiting from changes to the FA). The new FA is bad for freshwater biodiversity and the benefits it provides Canadians and sig-nals a sad chapter authored by the Harper government in the development of public policy. For a more detailed version of this arti-cle visit the Beaty Biodiversity Museum blog at: beatymuseum.ubc.ca/blog In the UBC Biodiversity Collections – All summer long we’re exploring the di-versity of predator-prey relationships at the Beaty Biodiversity Museum includ-ing the breathtaking photography of Brad

Small streams with complex habitats like this one in BC’s Garibaldi Park are critical for sustaining freshwater biodiversity. Photo credit: Daniel Mosquin

Recent changes to the Fisheries Act and what it means for Canada’s freshwater fish biodiversity

Eric B. (Rick) Taylor, Fish Collection Curator, Beaty

Biodiversity Museum

Hill in an exhibit called Feast (runs until July 22). Are you still looking to enroll your children in summer camp? It’s not too late to register for UBC Botanical Garden’s Young explorer Summer Day Camp (botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/camp)

Shopping for liquor? Before the end of the summer, campus residents, UBC students, University faculty and staff, and members of the public who favour the help of a little libation will need to head for Wesbrook Village—not Univer-sity Village—to make their purchases.

UBC Liquor Store Switches Location from One Village to OtherSeveral benefits seen to

store in Wesbrook Village; lower than expected sales in University Village cited for liquor store closure there

The new store in Wesbrook Village—in South Campus—will open at the same time as the old store in the University Vil-lage, located in the University endowment Lands, closes. The B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch opened its University Village store seven or

eights years ago. However, sales there have not met expectations, and in the meantime, Wesbrook Village has sprung up on UBC land a kilometre south. A senior liquor store official did not wish to be quoted for this article, but The Cam-pus Resident understands the move is based purely on business considerations. A primary business consideration for the liquor branch has to be the location of its Wesbrook Village store—still under con-struction—immediately across Berton Ave-nue from Save-On-Foods. Indeed, shoppers at both stores will use the same parking space. Moreover, drivers shopping at the new liquor store will enjoy free parking. In University Village in contrast, drivers need to feed parking meters while they shop for liquor. The retail strategy of situating liquor stores adjacent to supermarkets has a long and successful history, and the prospect of other retail outlets opening around the Save-On-Foods/BC liquor store hub in Wesbrook Village has only added to the at-traction. Until recently, lack of transit might have detracted some from shopping in Wesbrook Village. Now, however, the #41 bus runs up and down Wesbrook Mall between 16th Avenue and Southwest Marine Drive regu-larly. All this adds up to the prospect of greater liquor sales at UBC. On the strength of this, the liquor branch has built a larger store in Wesbrook Village (4,200 square feet) com-pared to the one it has in University Village (3,000 square feet).

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012 page 11

Bradley’s Story

By Simon Hayes, principal, Eaton Arrowsmith School

(EAS), UBC Campus

I distinctly remember the day almost four years ago when Bradley came into my classroom with his mother on the first day of school. A resident of the UBC area, Bradley was incredibly nervous, shy and worried about coming to his new school. He was a Grade One boy with limited social abilities and an apprehen-sion to make eye contact with anyone. Firmly attached to his mother’s leg and with tears in his eyes knowing that she would have to leave him at school for the day, Bradley was unwilling to enter the room. After about 45 minutes of sitting in the hallway and talking with him and his mother, we helped Bradley to enter into the classroom with his new class. At this point, I still had not looked into Bradley‘s eyes or even heard his voice. His anxiety overwhelmed him to the point of silence. Over the next few weeks we would face a similar situation each morning as he arrived to school. With consistency and support, the nervousness that initially had caused Bradley to fear school began to decrease and he was now feeling more and more comfortable at eAS. After weeks into the school year we did not have the chance to make much progress in our daily work. As a teacher, you worry about the amount of work that is taught and how your stu-dents retain that information each day, but in this case it was not our concern. Our goal was to provide an atmosphere for Bradley to feel safe in and one that

Hyperactive Child Changes through Hard Work, Determinationallowed him to come to each day with-out worry. The cognitive change that his parents so badly wanted to see would not have been possible without setting up the foundation for Bradley early in his pro-gram. This is something that is often tak-en for granted as we set up classrooms. Teachers work so hard each September to have a colourful room with posters and excitement but at the end of the day if a student does not feel comfortable in the room all of these things go unnoticed and do not add to the learning. After the month of September, well into the school year, Bradley was begin-ning to feel much more confident with himself. Once Bradley began to feel more comfortable in the classroom we began to recognize some of the behaviours that caused him difficulties there. These were the behaviours that most likely caused his previous teachers to view him as a child with severe ADHD (attention deficient hyperactivity disorder) and an inability to function in the traditional classroom. The combination of his Non-Verbal Dis-abilities and his social anxieties were now beginning to compromise the others around him. In meetings with Bradley’s parents, we worked together to come up with a va-riety of tools to help Bradley reduce the distractions in the classroom. We used ideas like tennis balls on the feet of the chairs, sensory cushions on the seat, and frequent runs down the hall: all ways to get out the energy in order to allow him to focus on his cognitive exercises. even with all of these techniques, the level of focus needed to make significant cogni-tive change was not as high as we would have liked. At six years old, Bradley was unable to sit and attend to a task for even 10 minutes. However, we stayed con-

sistent and gave Bradley all the room he needed to be himself and stay in the classroom. In roughly December of that year, we decided to split up our classroom and take seven of the more energetic students to a classroom where they had more freedom to be themselves without causing distrac-tions to their fellow students. This move proved to be very important for Bradley and a crucial shift that allowed his work to be completed. He was able to be him-self in the class and be with the other stu-dents who he naturally had made friends with in the larger classroom. Typically our goal is to have our students work on their cognitive exercises for 35 minutes each class period. In the smaller room our goals for the group were closer to 15 minutes of active engagement. From that point we slowly moved to push the levels of active engagement up by 5 to 7 min-utes each month. By spring break my small group was ready to move back into the larger class-room with the goal of working alongside the other students. Bradley did excep-tionally well in this transition and this was another sign that he was making significant cognitive progress. He was now more able to attend to his work and meet his goals. This did not come without some level of hyperactivity and we still had to be mindful of the need for runs in the halls and breaks throughout the day, but by and large Bradley was now ready to start the serious work on his cognitive program. Over the last three years Bradley has completely changed who he is as a learn-er. He has dramatically improved his ability to reason, memorized his multipli-cation tables, learned to read, and made a whole group of significant friendships.

More importantly, his ADHD tendencies are drastically reduced and his ability to attend to a task is extremely improved. These are all areas of his life that would have been incredibly difficult if his fam-ily did not make the decision to come to our school when they did. Bradley is a student who would have fallen through the cracks and would have needed seri-ous support in the classroom and on the playground. Now as he prepares to leave our school and complete the eAS pro-gram, Bradley is ready for the next steps in his education and is ready to transition back to Grade Five with a cognitive ca-pacity much more suitable for success in the traditional classroom. I am pleased to have taught Bradley and to watch him change his own life though his hard work and determination.

Dedicated to improving cognitive func-tioning, Eaton Arrowsmith School re-cently completed its seventh year on the UBC campus.

Simon Hayes

UBC campus and community planning department and the University Neigh-bourhoods Association will jointly fund a new round of ‘community grants’ total-ing over $5,400. The current round of grants under the UTown@UBC community grant pro-gram brings to over $23,000 funding provided to projects that contribute to building a strong sense of community on campus. The program began in 2011.Grants cover project expenses up to $1,000. The following seven projects will re-ceive funding this time around. Neighbourhood Crisis Care, Bridget Corriveau - $475; The Neighbourhood Crisis Care Team will coordinate community members in the provision of crisis care to neighbours in need. Funding will be used to develop a volunteer package with information on local resources and cultural sensitivity training materials. Funding will also sup-port the development of program promo-tional items. All program materials will be made available to the campus com-munity to assist other neighbourhoods in implementing a similar program.

Community Grant Program Puts Seven More Projects to WorkOver $5,400 in funding is approved; program is jointly funded by UBC

and UNA

Youth Summer Fitness Club, Kerri Zhang and Florence Luo - $1000; The Youth Summer Fitness Club is a project being coordinated by commu-nity volunteers. Twice a week, youth will meet to engage in physical activity and sports such as ultimate frisbee, vol-leyball, basketball, and swimming. Not only will the program promote physical activity and healthy choices, it will also foster leadership and team-building skills in participants, and introduce families to the world-class recreational facilities on campus. Funding will be used to hire UBC students to organize the club’s ac-tivities and to purchase healthy snacks for participants. Exploration of Nature Summer Camp, Ae Kim - $1000; The exploration of Nature Summer Camp will provide young children liv-ing on campus with an opportunity to explore and learn about nature. Over five days, the group will visit the Pacific Spirit Park, UBC Botanical Garden and UBC Farm to explore and learn about nature in the community. The group will participate in activities such as adventure walks, visual presentations and celebra-tions. Funding will be used for program materials such as t-shirts and booklets. The UTown@UBC community grant will also support honoraria for speakers from the UBC Botanical Garden, UBC Farm and Pacific Spirit Park.

UBC Baby-Sitting Co-op, Lisa Schroder - $850; The UBC Baby-Sitting Co-op is a group made up of parents in the commu-nity who support each other with child-care needs. The group was founded in the 1980’s and functions as a childcare support network. Members of the group support each other by swapping childcare hours, keeping track on-line using a point system (1 hour per child = 1 point). Fund-ing will be used to host a fun and inclu-sive event to welcome new members to the co-op. The event will provide an op-portunity for interested families to meet others in the co-op and learn about how to get involved. Acadia Park All Stars End of School Year Championship Soccer, Lilach Marom - $450; The Acadia Park All Stars end of School Year Championship Soccer is a tournament that was held for a group of children aged 6 – 13 who gather weekly during the school year to share their pas-sion for soccer. The tournament was held at the Acadia Park Community Centre on June 16th, 23rd and 24th. Funding was used to purchase soccer equipment and t-shirts for tournament participants. Green UBC Lipdub, Bennett Oh - $817; Lipdub is a single roll video created to promote and celebrate a particular group or region, integrating music, danc-ing and lots of energy. The Green UBC

Lipdub will showcase the unique, eco-friendly culture and lifestyle of the UBC community, and along the way discover some hidden talents from residents. The UTown@UBC community grant will fund the development of promotional materials and the costs of producing the video (e.g. equipment, media technician). Children’s Garden, Patrick Moore - $835; The children’s garden next to the Old Barn Community Centre not only en-hances public space, it also engages chil-dren and youth with the source of their food. The project will build on the great successes of the community garden, fos-tering knowledge and social relation-ships. Funding will help support the chil-dren as they plant, care for and harvest vegetables, berries and fruit and contrib-ute to the community through agriculture education and outreach.

Published monthly by the University Neighbourhoods Association

Advertise with us! email

advertising@myuna.ca

THE CAMPUS RESIDENT JULY 16, 2012page 12

WESBROOK PLACE COMMUNITY CENTRE DESIGN OPEN HOUSE

Tuesday July 24, 2012 4:30pm - 7:00pm

University Neighbourhoods Association invites you to view and comment on

preliminary designs for the future Wesbrook Community Centre.

MBA House - 3385 Wesbrook Mall

For more information please view the designer’s blog www.wesbrookcc.com

EvEnts In Your nEIghbourhood This summer!Eveningin the Park

Friday Concert Series

July 13 - The FlanagansJim Taylor Park @ Hawthorn Place

July 27 - Quintessential Jazz Iona Green Park @ Chancellor Place

August 10 - Greenwood**Location change - tbc**

August 24 - TBCJim Taylor Park @ Hawthorn Place

FREE5-6:30pm

EAGLES DRIVE

THUNDERBIRD BOULEVARD

THE OLD

BARN

COMMUNITY

CENTRE

JIM TAYLOR PARK

WESBRO

OK M

ALL

IONA GREEN DRIVE

WALTER GAGE ROAD

IONA GREEN PARK

The

www.oldbarn.ca 604.827.4469

For more information, please contact the old barn Community Centre 604.827.4469 www.oldbarn.ca

Join us on FACEBOOK!