This is an archived comment posted by Ryan O'Connor. You can view the original
here. I don't know if dude's motion is in response to ours, but I conjectured (not argued) that our belligerent resolution designed to melt the mayor to our iron will only resulted in resistance on her part and alarm on the community's.
The rationale for the inclusion of the bus pass clause in the resolution was two-fold: to draw the city's attention to the student hosuing issue in a forceful way, as well as to illustrate the irony of the Mayor's support for a u-pass, which was partly precipitated by the increasing distance some students live from the universities because of the lack of good quality accommodations in the area.
I fail to see how being forceful with City Hall would cause a backlash among residents; perhaps it's because students have taken a more visible stand on the issue than in years past. Previous Feds Executives have tried to illustrate students' concerns about the 75m MDS, but to no avail. Council's course was appropriate given the circumstances.
(My parents are homeowners in the area and I can tell you they've received all sorts of anti-student flyers since those events (much of with I agree with).
These 'anti-student' flyers aren't necessarily the result of our housing campaign as much as they are a reaction about the growing number of students in the area, which, of course, can be partly attributed to the MDS driving students into Beechwood. Do you really think students want to live in an area with few amenities which cater to them, far away from campus and other students?
The point is, the bus pass res. was council's only serious resolution last year, and it had absolutely no positive effects.
Student housing was a brief discussion point in the draft copies of the Height and Density Policy Study; after the Feds' presentation to City Council in October, the draft returned with an entire section devoted to student housing. This is obviously a positive effect. Our agenda is at least being discussed.
I honestly can't think of anything else they accomplished, oh right the horribly botched extension to the bomber patio, oh wait there is no bomber anymore. Oh, and after 5 years of waitng the used bookstore is online. Whoopee.
Come on, Matt. You've obviously read the Imprint article regarding the circumstances surrounding the pation expansion--the university failed to file the liquor licence application, even after being constantly reminded by us, and after telling the Feds that it was taken care of. This was no fault of our own.
I'm not old enough to drink, I disagree with most official FEDS policy,
Which of our 'official policies' do you disagree with?
I'm writing this more as food for thought than to effect change (because, like the student body in general, I too am apathetic (well, only wrt student governance I am very concerned about actual university issues)
You're clearly not so apathetic as to not have an opinion about the organisation; why not come down to the office tell us what the Feds can do to better serve you. [ Parent ]
| 
