NoToBuildSFU

We were also on-air last Wednesday on "SFU Ideas & Issues" and will be again this coming Wednesday at 12.00 pm. Maybe this time the Simon Fraser Student Society will have some answers to our questions. Tune in at CJSF 90.1 FM or online at www.CJSF.ca! From the original post: "Just before the January 2015 Special General Meeting, the Simon Fraser Student Society and NoToBuildSFU came by CJSF 90.1 to talk about why students should vote Yes or No to the proposed plan, and students didn't vote the loan and levy through needed to continue the process. now the SFSS is bringing the question back Sept 22, 2pm. Check out our previous coverage to get up to date. cc: TSSU GSS at Simon Fraser University Embark Sustainability SFU Women Centre Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG) FNSA SFU First Nations Student Association"

RIP Democracy. #SFSSAGM2015 #WeVotedNo #BuildSFU #SFU

One last reminder: please vote tomorrow. We understand that many of you are actually unable, not unwilling, to attend (thanks, SFSS), which is why it's so important for those of us who are able to show up. Whether you're for or against the project, don't let someone else decide for you. Oh, and bring friends. Tuesday, September 22 in West Gym. Registration begins at 2:00 and meeting begins at 3:00.

Oh. Very well. The end. Unnecessary Environmental Impact We are well aware that the SUB will be built to LEED (not LEAD) Gold Standard. To begin with, we would point out that UBC’s much larger SUB has been built to Platinum Standard. But we’re not about competing with UBC. We think we can do better than that.... In short, the LEED standard isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But even if, in the case of the SUB, LEED delivers on all of its promises, there is always a tremendous environmental impact in construction. It’s one of the largest, and one of the least-considered, causes of environmental degradation. Of course, there are some things we truly need, and in such cases, LEED’s guidelines would be useful for minimizing a necessary impact. The situation at SFU is different. Our campus truly needs some TLC, but the old buildings, not new ones, are what require our attention. Despite what the SFSS says, it would be entirely possible for students to do something about deferred maintenance if they decided to do so. Instead, we may be asking for SFU to divert precious maintenance dollars to the proposed new buildings. On the subject of environmental impact, our generation needs to learn to be resourceful with what we have and to treat it with care--it’s kind of a university student thing: http://www.earthporm.com/poor-college-students/.

Oh. Very well. Part 3. Lack of accountability and transparency in management For just one example, because there are too many examples and too little time, General Manager Marc Fontaine told fee-paying students at an SFSS Townhall in Fall 2014 that Build SFU had spent, in total, a few hundred thousand dollars. The actual amount at that time would have already been in the millions (now standing at just under $5 million).

Oh. Very well. Part 2. Buildings to be owned by the University This must always be a concern with the endowed, unceded Coast Salish land of Burnaby Mountain. We cannot be sure that what students pay for now will be under student control for the indefinite future. ... Build SFU, while a financial burden to students, represents a huge boon to SFU’s administration. The administration is focusing less and less on quality of education and more on branding, and we do not wish to contribute in any way to this trend.