Motion to defer Land Use Plan
a potentially futile technical attempt to facilitate improvements in the LUP
Motion to defer referral of the UBC Land Use Plan revision.
A ‘twitter’ essay posted October 16, 2023 in advance of the UBC Board meeting.
Really wasn’t an opportunity to introduce this motion given the way the meeting rolled out.
Whereas we are in the midst of a climate emergency and the land use plan contains no clear, measurable targets to mitigate adverse effects;
Whereas the land use plan seeks to significantly increase population density on campus while simultaneously cutting usable neighbourhood open space by as much as 50% thereby creating and intensify problematic social conflict over limited usable open space use; and
Whereas the land use plan limits UBC’s faculty/staff target housing to 15% of build out in the context of a global housing affordability crisis, and;
Whereas the name ‘Acadia’ has its North American roots in the colonial dispossession and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
Be it resolved that the motion under consideration be deferred until the December board meeting so that responsible executives can review and revise the plan to better reflect a community-responsive, ecologically sound, and people-centred land use plan.
Be it further resolved that Acadia Neighbourhood be immediately unnamed and a name responsive to the Indigenous Strategic Plan be applied in its place.
Unedited Speaking Notes
Pointing to Dr McHales letter to the board in which she speaks from her expertise as an urban ecologist and points out the lack of measurable targets, the lack of real enforceable numbers in term so of ecological outputs in an environment already seriously degraded by settler terraforming. Aside from the language of working towards, which is all through, where are the ‘must’ and ‘shall’ of the actual measurable indicators and thresholds to achieve something that might actually mitigate against climate degradation?
Does calling something ‘bold’ actually make it bold, and does being bold encapsulate what is needed when facing a significant crisis in housing region wide? A 40% target of rental properties, unless significantly below market and managed in a way that doesn’t add to the tax burden of a resident, seems a modest response.
Only two school sites, one the high school, the other a future elementary school, yet the potential for doubling of population.
Governance issues - legislation makes us responsible to attend to university interests ahead of residential community interests, it is quite likely that the board may well be compelled to act against interest of residents to support the best interest of the university. This is part of what ends up excluding residential community as a key actor at the decision making table. In fact, one might suggest that the board is conflicted when it comes to making decisions regarding the residential community.
Indigenous issues - there are title holding nations, but also an internal ubc indigenous community. Both need to be attended to. In the classic route pioneered by bc resource extraction companies, ubc is tending toward a joint-venture model that excludes significant Indigenous communities that aren’t title holders under the campus.
Also, remaining unstated and ill defined is what happens if Musqueam engagement with ubc moves in one direction while residential community engagement moves in a different one - how does ubc plan to resolve that?