Hello and welcome to Channel 17's Town Meeting Television and another in our 2019 candidate forums. In this episode, we are interviewing and speaking with candidates for the South District City Council. I'm your host, Matt Kelly. I'm pleased to be sharing the stage this evening with City Councilor Joan Shannon, incumbent Democrat, Paco de Francis running as an independent, and Mohamed Jafar also challenging as an independent. Our format for this evening begins with 60-second opening candidate statements followed by questions from the audience. A reminder that our phone number is 862-3966. You're welcome to dial in and ask questions and we'll do that in a round-rabin format followed by closing statements from each candidate. Ladies first, Joan Shannon, your opening statement, please. Thank you. I'm Joan Shannon. I'm the current City Councilor for the South District and I'm running for re-election because I love Burlington and I want to keep working on city issues that make a difference in the lives of our residents. I believe it's important to attract and keep livable wage jobs in Burlington and I'm proud to have led the way to change zoning on Pine Street to allow office space, cafes, dance studios, and other entrepreneurial uses that have been transformative for the South End and they weren't allowed prior to the 2007-2008 zoning rewrite and the initiative to make those changes came from me. To just let you know a little bit about my values, the environment is very important to me. We need to fight climate change, improve air quality, and make Burlington a more walkable, bikeable city. I want to continue to work on initiatives to reduce energy consumption, source clean energy, and improve stormwater management, and hold developers to higher environmental and energy standards. We always need more affordable housing in Burlington and like communities nationwide, we are challenged by decreasing federal subsidies and an increasing need. We need to look at creative housing solutions to attract developers to build more affordable housing through infill development and reuse of underutilized sites. Fostering economic development and cultural diversity in Burlington is critical. I don't want to see Burlington become a boutique community but rather want to do all that we can to create an economically and culturally diverse community. I apologize, we're going a little longer. So talk to Francis, your opening statement please. Yes, so I'm talking to Francis. I'm running as an independent for City Council and I agree and so I'm really running as for City Council because Burlington I feel like has become too expensive and is combined with kind of a lack of opportunity especially for younger people to kind of get their lives and their careers and get really rooted in the city. So I agree with a lot of what Councillor Shannon had said and as more of her vision but I don't really see the policy from the current City Council and you know it's a 12th member council only one councilor can do so much but I don't see the policy there that can realize that vision. So we talk about affordability, we have a big housing affordability crisis in this city and it's at the point where and it's you know really the market rate of housing is just it's not affordable for people making the median income which is why over 40 percent of our population is rent burdened. So what we do that is and again infill development that's a great idea but we can't it's too hard to make infill developments feasible under the current zoning so we never really look at inclusionary zoning is it can we make it more accommodating for developers so we can get more housing units economically feasible and then same thing parking requirements maybe a downtown in those downtown infill developments don't need park requirements because we have the it was have bus transit and bike lanes and you know the walkable neighborhood and then as additionally what about building housing on Pine Street in the enterprise district I know that the current mayor has even talked about doing that but you know the current council has not accommodated is not accommodative of those types of pro-growth policies so that's really what I'm kind of pushing for I like the vision but I don't think we're going quite far enough from a policy angle. Very good. Mohamed Jafar your 62nd opening candidate statement. Hello everyone my name is Mohamed Jafar and first and foremost before I delve into why I'm running for city council I'd like to take this opportunity to address some recent tweets of misogynistic and sexist nature that have come to light from my past. I want to apologize personally to every single person that has been impacted by these tweets and moving forward I'd like to take the time to learn from the people that I have impacted when you hurt someone you don't get to decide that you didn't hurt them you just don't get that decision and I am here to move forward and to learn from the people I've hurt. With that said I'm running for city council to address a lot of issues that have been persistent since I was since I came here from Kenya as a seven-year-old issues around housing you know housing in itself has again is an issue that we all deal with the entire city of Burlington deals with homelessness child care these are all issues that you know made it difficult for my parents and a lot of other parents and families to go about their day-to-day lives and you know it's it's it's saddening coming back from college and watching my parents do circles trying to figure out you know what and how they're gonna feed everyone the next day after coming back from college so I'm involved to address those issues because I think our city can do a lot better very good candidates a pleasure sharing the stage with you you won't we'll now begin our round robin question and answer here with the questions that have been provided to you ahead of time our reminder to you our audience that you can dial in and ask questions of these candidates yourselves the phone number is 862-3966 Paco de Francis will begin with you how would you characterize Burlington's economic development strategy is it something that you support and do you have alternative proposals if not yes so you know I see there's a lot of things we talk about economic development it's you know big umbrella term there's a lot of things going on there's all this the CEDO office is doing a lot and then there's it depends what kind of development are we talking about are we talking about you know trying to really grow the major employers like we have like the dealer comms and you know other seventh generation both the south end as well as employers in the downtown where a lot of south enders work and then you know but then there's also the entrepreneurial aspect to make sure that you know our entrepreneur or entrepreneurs have a good opportunity of you know making a small brewery getting a coffee shop because that's what really gives Burlington life that attracts both tourists as well as potential residents that we really need to bring in to get our population or get our workforce better developed so what I really see is our economic development strategy it is too dependent on the UVM Medical Center UVM Medical Center is the bulk of most job growth in the city and we really a branch out from being so dependent on the hospital and you know getting more doing more to create tech and you know there's some excitement going on the south end but what can the city do to and I think the I hate to say this and I think a lot of people in city government hate to say this but or don't want to acknowledge this but oftentimes the best way to really encourage more growth is for the city to take a step back reduce taxes reduce regulations get out of the way so we can really create good good longstanding innovation. Malcolm Jafar do you support the city's economic development strategy and what do you think the city needs to do going forward? So my message in general is the growth of the city of Burlington and in terms of the economic development of the city of Burlington again around that issue of being inclusive I don't think it's entirely inclusive and so while I support a lot of the economic developments that are moving forward I think that it is very important that we make sure that everyone is being taken into account and I think it's very important that we make sure that the residents of the people that live here and that actually make Burlington what it is are being you know taken into account and those people's voices and their concerns are truly being you know attended to. Joan Shannon economic strategy for the city you're obviously on the city council and I mean driver to it can you share your thoughts about where the city's headed and I think that the city has kind of limited tools to address economic development and we do the best that we can. With regards to Paco's statement about reducing taxes if we reduce taxes on on businesses then we're increasing the tax burden on residents and that's the unfortunate truth of that. As for what Mohammed is suggesting I'm not really sure how that translates into actual economic development strategy but what the city is doing and what I support are initiatives like what I put forward in the south end to change the zoning. Zoning did not allow offices in the enterprise zone and I put forward that initiative that's why we have dealer.com in the south end that's why we have the EIC in the in the south end and and many other businesses. The other really important initiative of the city is BTV Ignite which does attract tech businesses to Burlington and tries to coordinate between public nonprofit and government to give the support for tech industry and make the best use of our gigabit telecom system. Very good. We have a caller here so we'll go right to that and move away from the questions that are on our forum here. Coller you are dialing in live. Do you have a question for our city council candidates for the south district? I do. My question is for all the candidates and regards ballot question number four the downtown improvement district and I would like to know which of you have actually read the proposed charter change language and then what specifics from the plan haven't formed your opinion. Very good. Good question. Mohamed we're gonna begin with you city charter changes and ballot question number four. What are your thoughts in terms of what has kind of dictated what my point and decision on this is it's not actually the language in the ballot in itself but what residents are saying and again just circling back into that idea of there are people that live here that aren't getting treated and represented the way that they should. So my informed decision on the downtown improvement district which I am against is in complete synchronization with the very residents that live in the downtown area. There are people that live in the downtown area that are going to be pushed out when we expand our downtown area. There's people that we are neglecting to take into account and so it's the residents themselves that are informing my decision it's not the language in the ballot at all. John Chan in downtown improvement district your thoughts on the charter change and the ballot question? I think the question was have we read the charter change and yes of course I have read the charter change I'm the chair of the Charter Change Committee and I've gone through the language line by line. So my position on the downtown improvement district is based on the actual language and I think that leadership is it's important to convey to constituents what's actually in that language and then get feedback from them because most people I've been out there doing opking and most people are not intimately familiar with what is with the details of the downtown improvement district. I support it because I think that we're in a new age with online retail. Our downtown is very challenged. We need to ensure the survival of our downtown and I believe that it's important to bring private funds to enhance and improve and bring public benefits to the downtown which is what the downtown improvement district does. It was always envisioned by the founders of the Church Street Marketplace and there you know I'll leave it at that. Okay thank you. Paco de Francis your thoughts on the downtown improvement district and the wording of the charter change? Yeah so I'll just begin I definitely you know I've looked over the downtown improvement district but I was I've been more looking over that the you know charter change language how it relates to other downtown improvement districts. I'm sure I'm not as familiar as Joan is with the I wasn't you know in the room writing up the way she must have been but so you know I can't speak to the as many details I'm sure she could speak to but you know from philosophical angle I think this is a great idea again talking about lowering taxes on residents and on businesses maybe not inside the downtown so they can you know grow and continue to kind of add to their properties. This downtown improvement district kind of helps get the city you know it removes some of that burden on the downtown from the city and allows those downtown businesses to improve their own you know their own little area a couple blocks off of on Church Street and off of Church Street to meet their own needs so that the city doesn't have to spend all that you know use those services so we get a better we get a better outcome you know for less money from taxpayers because it's covered inside the district and I really like that yeah and then I think the other thing is Councilor Shannon talked up touched on this a little bit but you know the downtown I think it is is a lot more challenging than we all realize and you know we have these institutions on Church Street both retail as well as the restaurant and you know bars and pubs that you know have been there for years and it's I think it's a lot more challenging for those business owners than a lot of residents realize in this economy time great we're gonna move on here but I'm gonna actually kind of continue with this because there are two city properties that have lain dormant and not expressed to their highest capability in the city Memorial Auditorium and Moran and Joan Shannon now we'll begin this question with you what are your thoughts of what should be done with both of those properties two minutes starting with Memorial Auditorium I am a big fan of Memorial Auditorium and I think that the public really wants to save Memorial Auditorium as a community gathering space I mean that's definitely what we have heard the reality of it is that that's going to cost money and it's easy to say I support that but it we actually will need the voters to pass a bond in order to make it happen so I think the goal for us is to try and bring something forward to the voters that is affordable that saves Memorial Auditorium as a community gathering space and I you know we're coming very close to having a proposal that does that on Moran we have been having some meetings on the the frame concept that's being put forward now where it's a partial demolition and using the literally the frame of the existing structure to bring some enhancements to our waterfront modest enhancements that could be built on from that point and it has been tremendously well received by the public it can be done with existing TIF funds and and I support moving moving that forward very good Paco your thoughts on Memorial Auditorium and its future as well as the frame concept for Moran and if you supported or not yep so you know I look at these these are two properties very different the Moran plant of course is in subject to the Vermont public trust doctor doctrine so we you know that's gonna that's pretty much gonna be a public asset I mean if it has no there's no real value to that in the private real estate world just because because of the public trust doctrine there's so many you know it's gonna have so many things on it that you know it has to be used for public public we could break into the museum something like that right but you can't use kind of that higher value those higher value uses that the private sector be more interested in so the frame concept I'm a big supporter of I am a little you know I'm cautiously optimistic that'll be kept under that five point seven million dollar price tag you know you see that same thing City Hall Park that's supposed to be one and a half million now it's four and a half million Memorial and Memorial I think the best way to do is sell that to the private sector get back onto the tax rolls and I think the private sector could be able to have a lot of great opera you know great uses for that that have community benefit very good Mohammed Jafar your thoughts on Moran and Memorial Auditorium in terms of the Moran plant as it is designed currently I do support it I do again just want to make sure that it is public and for everyone and it is inclusive but in its current form I do support it as for the Memorial Auditorium I went to Edmunds Middle School and right after school we often go to the Memorial Auditorium so that's a very very important space for me excuse me growing up and and I think it's important that we keep it a public space I don't think we should sell it off to private to private interest and though Councillor Joan Shannon says that we you know that takes money to keep to you know to fix this thing I think it's really important to also acknowledge the fact that we do take initiatives on a lot of things that you know take even more money for instance the big hole that we have in our downtown space you know decisions like that should be a little bit more transparent and so in my opinion I think we do have the money to make sure that we do keep that space for the kids that grew up and and such 30 seconds we have callers so if you can 30 seconds my point about Memorial Auditorium costing money is that the taxpayers will have to pass a bond for that the comparison with City Places really not an apples to apples comparison because we do not own that property nor are we spending money on that property that's a private development 30 seconds yeah so again Memorial Auditorium I think it's it's a great you know there's a lot of history there it has time but unfortunately I don't think it's something that the city can afford it's going to take a tremendous amount of money to bond out for those you know for those renovations to get it back up this you know get back up to a usable modern space 30 second response again going back to just like the downtown improvement district that we just you know are ready to throw money on there's more important things and if we aren't able to prioritize the things that actually are for the residents and the people of Burlington and itself then you know okay we're gonna move right on we've got the phone tree lighting up here so we're gonna go right to our caller caller you're live on the air here with City Council candidates for the South District you have a question for our candidates yes I do my question is regarding job growth in the city of Burlington is what specifically would each candidate do to help professional development for youth in the city and specifically for Mohammed in promoting women and professional development what kind of programs would he support in that area okay thank you caller Mohammed will give this question right to you and then we'll go right down okay so in terms of just looking at the the the job prospect for the next 20 years I think the new American community in itself is a big base we can look at if we can get that community immersed so that they are getting the resources that they need at job so that you know they're getting past just that initial initial you know getting the job so that they can advance and we can get a lot more of these people in places where they already do have the skill set and they may not be able to communicate it that would be great I think in terms of job growth that in itself I think will will will bring a lot more people and there are a lot of jobs already that are quite vacant and we can create a lot more jobs and we do need a lot more jobs as a lot of people are you know we we spend and invest in our schooling system and a lot of folks that we educate are now leaving the state of Vermont to go find opportunities in other places so there's definitely a lot more we could do and in terms of in terms of creating our opportunities for women I think first of all just addressing the fact that you know for every dollar that a man makes a woman makes 80 cents is something that maybe we should we should talk more about and I don't specifically have specific proposals but I would love to you know learn more about what we can do as a community to move that forward and to create those opportunities for women as you suggest. Joan Shannon the question was about job development job growth and opportunities for women. Yeah I think in terms of job development and job growth I I've already spoken to the fact that there are certain initiatives in the city where we have been successful particularly BTV Ignite and attracting tech companies to Burlington also zoning that allows businesses to move to Burlington in order to benefit youth women and everybody else we need to actually make sure that we can still support businesses in our downtown and in our industrial zones with you know I think that that pretty much sums it up. Paco de Frances the question was about job development job growth in the city of Burlington and development for workforce development for women. Yep so I think there's a couple different areas here that we can improve on and it's you know they kind of go hand in hand so first of all if we don't have the workforce here to begin with it's very it's you know it can be a virtuous cycle or it could be a vicious cycle and I think we're kind of in the middle of a vicious cycle right now where we don't have the education system to be able to handle that we you know see most of our most young graduates from Champlain College and UVM leave the state as Muhammad said and then you know that causes divestment from companies and the company I work for Curric we used to be a 400 Fortune 500 company with headquarters in South Burlington about three four years ago they started moving those headquarters in Massachusetts because the business climate was that much more favorable than is in Chittenden County so you know I get that we're doing stuff but it's not quite enough and what I would do to change that is is you know again zoning we have to zone for growth that means less zoning not more zoning and then as far as the workforce development Vermont is at the bottom for higher ed funding for you higher education funding so we the city needs to pick up that slack and you know invest I so I have a tax plan you could go on to pocket of Francis calm where I'm gonna where I would plan to invest 1.75 million new dollars in higher education for Berlin Tony and so they can you know especially more the alternative higher education so you can get into those you know licensed jobs okay very good we've got another question here so I apologize we're gonna move right on here collar you're on the air here with the South District candidates for city council do you have a question for our candidates yes I have a question for all the candidates recently the Vermont Senate passed a ban on corporate campaign contributions and I'm wondering one if all the candidates have committed to not taking money from any corporation or any business entity regardless of the size and two depending on that answer do you agree or disagree with the Vermont Senate decision the Democratic leadership and progressive leadership in the Vermont Senate to ban corporate campaign contributions very good thank you for the question Paco this one now begins with you bank campaign contributions campaign finance reform your thoughts yep so yeah campaign finance reform definitely and you know you're coming home problem-ac issue I do think it's more of an issue at the state level than at the local level so I myself I'm not taking any corporate contributions I'm not you know looking for them either and then what I really want to see from that is we need to make sure that that extends to the parties the state parties I mean most corporate more most corporate campaign contributions don't go to individual candidates they go to political parties so we also have to ban those and but then again it's like it comes this murky area because you have political action committees those could be taking corporate campaign you have you know things like a plan or you have whole sorts of political action committees from you know all different angles on the political spectrum and you know if they if they're able to you know you just kind of get this double dipping situation where they're able to get corporate campaign contributions and then just give them to the candidate so does that really do anything if we just limit you know just direct to the candidates that when we have these packs okay Muhammad Jafar the question was about campaign finance reform and whether you yourself are taking campaign contributions from corporations and businesses I am personally not taking any contributions from any corporations or and I certainly agree with Paco I think you're right it should be extended to you know state parties and not just individuals again that reroutes you know who gets to make those decisions and it's not about who has money and who has connections with money it's about everyone and everyone is brought to the table when we actually do fight when we if we do implement these reforms and I do agree with the state legislature and passing that for the simple fact that again it brings everyone at an even playing field and that's important don't shan and campaign finance reform your thoughts yes I do agree with the with the policy and I don't accept corporate donations I also agree with Paco that this is it really hasn't been an issue in local campaigns I mean the extent of corporate contributions and local campaigns is often things like a guy who owns a painting company makes a donation from the painting company rather than from his self personally I think what we're really worried about is really some some untoward influence the corporations might have and hiding behind a corporation where you don't really know who is that making the donation whereas to the extent it's happened in local politics I think we we probably really do know who that person is but no I support the policy I don't expect accept corporate donations very good Joan we're gonna stay with you here with this next question here and it's very timely you being on the city council and it has to do with ballot advisory questions should all citizen advisory questions automatically go on the ballot or should it continue where the city council has final say what goes on the ballot or not I I think that the city there's a good reason why in in state law and why the city council gets to decide whether or not to put these questions on the ballot I don't think we want to live in a direct democracy we've chosen a representative democracy and there are good reasons for that one one thing is the timing that when you put something on the ballot when it's gone through a whole lot of process and permitting and you're you know halfway into a project you can't come back and put the project on the ballot it doesn't make sense you have very limited information from a yes-no vote on a ballot referendum question where oftentimes you need a more nuanced answer to if you don't like that what is it that you do like what is it that you want the city to do people often vote for their personal benefit rather than the fairness to the community this is an example is in South Burlington the rebel name for the high school is that something that should be put on a ballot or do we want to recognize that there are civil rights issues here and there are that there's a concern for the entire community that may not play out in a public vote I'm sorry we'll have to leave it there and I'll ask Paco de Francis for a 60-second response on that question as to ballot advisory questions should they automatically go on the ballot or do you like the process as it stands now I mean I do think the process that stands now with you know having them to go through city council makes sense because just it yeah I think the process is good but I think we do need to hold our you know direct city councilors accountable you know at the ballot box if they are you know if you disagree with that if they're not putting those you know I think that each the voters needed to really look at that and say is my city councilor not putting on these you know these ballot items that it that should be going on or is he or she not and kind of you take take that to the thing you know take that to the ballot box itself okay Muhammad Jafar your thoughts on the ballot questions should they automatically go on the ballot if they get 3,300 signatures my answer to that is yes they absolutely should and my reason for that is very simple if I'm elected as a city councilor I'm elected by the people and I'm elected to represent the voices of the people I don't get to go there like a parent and decide what the decision is that's not my job as a city councilor my job is to represent those that are you know that are seeing me as their representative so in my opinion I think it you know it undermines the process of democracy in itself especially that's why we have the item in itself or that's why we have the process for the signatures for the petitions whatever it may be so it is important to understand that if we are gonna have you know those processes they shouldn't be such it shouldn't be a facade they should be real and if people get what they and they meet the prerequisite or the requirements I think people should get those items automatically on the ballot otherwise why have the process at all okay about that 30 seconds please yeah the reason we have the petitioning process is because there are certain decisions that can be made directly by the public and so that requires this petitioning process and then those items can go on the ballot so the petitioners have access to the ballot and in a lot of Vermont the voters actually have decisions over everything in their town down to whether or not to buy another plow so that's why we have that process in place but I do agree we need to be more clear with petitioners about what our parameters are for what's going on the ballot or not yes so I think but you know we're really looking at is we'll talk about advisory ballot items and that's different than a binding referendum and you know because of the nature of an advisory ballot item I think that is a you know it becomes a little bit less serious because the city council if you put every advisory ballot item on the you know on the ballot and then and they all pass but then the city council can still go and you know not you know not choose to push any of them in or enacting them into law or you know make that policy change that was suggested so because of that you know I don't see a need to put every advisory ballot item on the you know on the ballot if they the if they meet the signature requirement because the city council already has the discretion in the end at the end of that so to go back to what councilor Shannon said earlier sometimes people city council may be hesitant to go back on an item and put it on the ballot due to the fact that it's already gone through so many processes but the fact that people don't know and are still having to garner so many signatures for a petition is due to a lack of transparency and that has to be discussed as well because if people are aware of you know what what this process is or what the development is or whatever it may be then obviously they aren't you know they would be knowledgeable enough not to not to have a petition so if 35 hundred people sign a petition there wasn't transparency people don't know about it all right we'll move right on here this is a question that is very close to the heart here at channel 17 and it has to do with funding for public access channels there is a rule change that the FCC is considering in July of this year that would remove the funding for public access channels Burlington telecom is in fact encouraging cord cutting which directly impacts the funding for public access channels which employ over a hundred people here statewide so Paco de Francis your thoughts on future funding for public access and ensuring its continuation yeah public access television public access radio other forms of media that is public access is critically important to the education of the citizens and you know to be able to kind of get you know both these candidate forums as well as you know other city you know get in that contact with your city counselors if you're you know you might have kids at home single mothers they're not able to make it to the meetings but they have that what do you think the funding though should I mean if the funding should come from the feds but if it if they cut it we have to pick up the slack as a city so the city yes but again it becomes a priorities thing if we do all these things that Muhammad and counselor Shannon are talking about the public access that might you know that that's what that's one of the reasons why I want to sell the memorial auditorium for example so that we can we have more resources as a city to focus on things where it's really needed like public access television Mohammed Jafar the future of public access funding your thoughts on it and I agree with Paco in many senses I think if the federal government in itself won't pick that up it is on us to to take that slack and I haven't decided whether it should be at a state level or a local level but going back again to the type of things that we are willing to fund and then taking away from things that are important like these public access channels you know what are we prioritizing like what is important to us and what are we so willing and ready to defund and take funding away from school is one of the biggest things and quickest things we're ready to take funding from and it looks to me like just another you know important asset and facet of our community that we're ready to just kind of hey let's let's cut funding on that so if the federal government in itself does not and is not willing to fund that it's on us it's on the city and it's on the state. Joan Shannon the future of public access funding just to be clear here so that the public also understands public access is funded through a $3 fee on your cable bill and that is through a law that the FCC has enacted they are thinking to take away that that that requirement so your thoughts on the future funding for public access and the role it serves the community. Yeah I think that you know cable and telephone are both soon to be things of the past and the utility of the future is the internet and so public funding for channel 17 needs to be done through internet providers to say the city should pick up the tab you know I don't think you serve a lot more than just the city of Burlington and I don't think that the city itself can can pick up the tab but we do need to look at it statewide because it's certainly a statewide problem and I don't think we can rely on the federal government sadly to help us out but your service is essential service in our communities and we do need to find a way to fund you so thank you for raising that issue. It's time for closing statements we have a little bit of extra time to do so so up to two minutes for closing statements and Mohammed Jafar will begin with you. So again I'm running for city council to address issues that have persisted for forever I've been here since I was seven years old I grew up here I serve on several boards my friends and I started a peer mentorship group in which we look to assist new youth at risk new American youth in helping kind of navigate and figure out dual identity in that dual culture I also serve on the committee that actually brought my family here and helped us get on our feet when we first came to the United States which is which was formerly known as the refugee resettlement program but now is the United States committee for refugees and immigrants as well as a couple other youth advisory boards that I serve on I'm running for city council because it's time we start representing everyone it's time we stop putting on this facade where we pretend like we represent everyone we start representing everyone home owners home renters you know young people that are fleeing the state of Vermont because there are no opportunities I mean we have a state policy that pays people to come out of state to come to Vermont and to the city of Burlington to find out to find opportunities that our young folks aren't able to find here and I think that's problematic so again I'm running for city council because these things do need to be addressed I'm running for city council because I've lived the experience of not knowing if my parents were gonna have enough food for me to eat tomorrow or my other 10 siblings so people need to realize that there are people sleeping outside in sub-degree weather in that are homeless that are on church street that you know and so it's important that we reprioritize we redirect where our our priorities truly lie very good thank you John Shannon your closing statements please thank you I just want to address one thing that was was said here which is about throwing money at the downtown improvement district and to be clear the downtown improvement district is an opportunity to use private money for public benefit it's not something that the city is throwing money at it's actually a tax that comes from the property owners in the business property owners in the district and that's I think as an elected official it's very important to be accountable to the voters and to be accountable for delivering accurate information which I always try to do I think that one of the things that I've always really worked on is to be responsive to my constituents and my constituents have many different issues it depends on where they live what that issue is going to be and over the years I've really enjoyed working with neighbors to make sure that we have you know roads and sidewalks and city services that are serving our community and when they're not being responsive to bring people together to bring people to the table to make sure that everything is working for the citizens of Burlington I really believe that government is here to serve the community and it worked very hard at making sure that that is how how things work in Burlington and I want to thank channel 17 for this opportunity to have this discussion I want to also thank my fellow candidates here for a productive discussion on issues and I want to thank all of the people who have invited me into their homes as I've been door-knocking around the around the south end so thank you Paco de Francis your closing comments please yes so again I run for city council mainly because Burlington is no is becoming unaffordable for residents it's becoming unaffordable for businesses and that's hindering growth that's driving out growth that's driving out our young people especially our young college graduates as well as other young people as well as other people who could attract the city and we're not right now so you know we really need to go in we need to get Burlington into a growth phase we need to rethink the way city government is you know its functions and start thinking about it more as from a departmental perspective start running it as a business rather than just as you know a fund and it's become kind of too antiquated in that regard we need to empower department heads to have more control over their spend so that way they can drive real meaningful value for taxpayers and then you know again the other pieces housing is too unaffordable we won't have we won't be able to get out of this affordability crisis if we don't zone for growth and do things like you know allow medium density housing on the pine street district and allow that infill development in the downtown without the parking requirements because though that's really hindering growth you know the market the private sector the free market can solve a lot of our problems in Burlington we just need to do more to get out of the way and let the private sector solve those problems. Paco de Francis, Joan Shannon and Mohamed Jafar thank you so much for joining us here this evening it's been a pleasure sharing the stage with you best of luck to each of you on election day March 5th a reminder that early voting has begun and you're able to contact your local town clerk and pick up and complete your ballot today and a reminder to join us for election night coverage beginning at seven o'clock right here on channel 17 town meeting television for all of us at cctv i'm matt kelly thank you for watching good night


Welcome back to Science Live. Joining me here now is at the studio is Professor and Director of the UWA Institute of Agriculture, Cannonbot Siddique. Welcome Siddique. Thank you, Elisa. Your goal is to feed the world. You've said maintaining crop production to feed the growing population during a period of climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity. How is your research aiding to combat that issue? The climate change is already happening globally and in Australia. For example, our annual rainfall has declined since 1975, 30 percent age. It's not only the declining rainfall, but also the variability in rainfall. So what my research and my group is looking is, can we develop climate-truly crop plants by understanding some of the physiological, biochemical traits associated with the improved adaptation? So for example, we are looking at developing new wheat varieties with the improved drought tolerance, heat tolerance, etc. So in this way, we are having a smarter system before the climate change hits the agricultural production in Australia and globally. What sort of pressures are our agricultural ecosystems facing? We have been very good in increasing production. For example, if you look at the last 15 years, we have increased food production by 138 percentage. So that's about 1.84 billion tons to 4.38 billion tons. Now today, the globe is under tremendous pressure. The amount of arable, cultivable land available is declining. Urbanization is increasing. So we have to produce more food per unit of land. And also some of the past misuse of agricultural land has created land degradation. For example, in Western Australia and Australia, we have salinity, soil pH has gone down, nutrients have declined. So we need to look at an innovative system where we can produce more per unit of input, but also we need to look at our agricultural land through practices such as conservation agriculture. Okay. And why is UWA the best place to conduct your research? UWA has already got the international reputation. We are number 26th in the world in life and agricultural science. We are also located pretty close to the grain belt of Western Australia, about 100 kilometers from Perth. Then we are producing already 50 to 60 percentage of the grain of Australia come from Western Australia. We have a very dry land agricultural system depending upon rainfall. Our soils are hostile. And at the University of Western Australia, we have some very highly talented academics, researchers, and the facilities from basic to applied science and translating that science to the practical application. Okay. And we have also established strong international partnership with the United States, Europe, more recently with China, India, in combating some of the key issues related to agriculture and food production. Okay. What needs to happen to help the world's 1.4 billion people who are poverty stricken and malnourished out of that state? Well, it's a big challenge as you mentioned, Eliza, the 1.4 billion people are undernourished and some of them are not getting enough food. So we've got two things to do. One is to get the food production up because the population is increasing rapidly. The second aspect is empower the 500 million small farmers, meaning they have less than two hectares per farmer. And these farmers are producing 50% of the world's food. So we need to develop the technology and policies to empower these small farmers to produce sufficient food. It's not only the food, the nutrition of the food. For example, one of our PhD students recently discovered that we can enhance selenium, which is an important micronutrient in lentil. This is what we call biophortification. So this sort of innovative science once translated into applied program will help us to alleviate some of the malnutrition and poverty globally in partnership with different countries. Okay. If students are interested in this area of work, where should I begin? I think basically they must focus on science. In this case, they take science as a major with biology, mathematics, and physics and chemistry. And I invite them to come to the University of Western Australia, the Faculty of Science. And once they come in here, there's plenty of opportunities for them into agriculture major, animals, soils, agribusiness, and many other biotechnology and number of options are there. The challenges are enormous and we need young minds, talented minds to come and take up this challenge. And so the food production system, not only in Australia, but globally for the next 20, 40, 50 years. Okay. What sort of major would they begin with to start from? So they will begin with a major as a science. And then by second year and third year, they can specialize into different aspects of agriculture. For example, plant breeding, genetics, soil biology, environmental management, and so on. Okay. So basically if they focus on good science and the science has got the capacity to take those students and then transform them into scientists, policy makers, land managers, food specialists, and so on. A lot of opportunities. Okay. Thank you. We've got a little bit more time today. So going back to the pressures on our agricultural ecosystems, you've compared the agricultural ecosystems current state to the post-World War II green revolution, but now things are considerably more complicated. How do you see them? As I mentioned earlier, we are giving tremendous pressure to the agricultural land. There's less land available than 50 years ago because of urbanization and land degradation. Okay. So what we need is that in the past our emphasis was produced maximum, but now our emphasis should be produced the optimum using optimum input with minimal damage to the environment such as land and water. Okay. And we also need different aspects, not just the science and technology alone. We need the policy. We need the business enterprise. All those aspects needs to be brought into agriculture so we can have a profitable at the same time sustainable agriculture for the future. And it sounds like UWA is a really good place for students to start to do so. Exactly because at the UWA we have the faculty of science and other faculties and students have the freedom to choose majors from different areas. For example, if someone is doing agriculture, they can also take a major from arts or business school. So you can combine your different aspirations and skills and at the same time focus on the key major. Okay. Thank you so much for your time today, Siddique. My pleasure.


A tremendous increase in the use of back belts by companies attempting to control back injury costs has been seen in recent years. Numerous belt designs are being made available to industry based on the premise that they reduce the risk of low back pain. Many claims have been made regarding the effectiveness of back belts. However, not many of these have been based on sound scientific evidence. In fact, there was contradictory information on the value of back belts. Some studies have supported the use of belts, while others have suggested that workers would be better advised to refrain from their use. This video was written by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to review evidence relating to back belt effectiveness and to provide some suggestions relating to their use in the workplace. It is largely based on a review of back belt literature by the noted spinal biomechanist, Dr. Stuart McGill. There are several potential benefits and drawbacks associated with wearing back belts that should be considered before a responsible policy can be established. Let's begin by examining some of the claims regarding the possible benefits of back belts that are typically made by back belt proponents. One claim made by supporters of back belts is that they may decrease the load experienced by the low back. Some feel that back belts may help to stiffen the spine to make it stronger. Supporters also claim that back belts may restrict spinal mobility and prevent hazardous movements. Others state that back belts may provide a safety margin by increasing an individual's tolerance to heavy loads. And finally, supporters claim that the use of back belts has been proven to significantly decrease the number of back injuries in industrial settings. Let us now examine the scientific evidence in support or in opposition of each of these claims. Do back belts decrease the load experienced by the low back? Every time a muscle contracts, a small electrical charge is generated. The harder the muscles work, the more electricity is generated. These electrical charges can be measured using electrodes and help us to see how hard muscles are working. If back belts decrease the load on the low back, we would expect this to reduce the amount of electrical activity of the powerful back muscles. However, studies have shown convincingly that there is no difference in back muscle activity when one is wearing a belt compared to one is not wearing a belt. Thus, back belts do not appear to lessen the load experienced by the muscles of the low back. Do back belts help to stiffen the spine? There is some evidence to support the claim that back belts help to stiffen the spine, but only to a relatively small extent. The added stiffness results from the increase in pressure within the abdomen that results from wearing a back belt. Years ago, abdominal pressure was thought to provide a large amount of force that helped to support the low back. However, it now appears that the benefits of abdominal pressure were exaggerated. Most experts now feel that the benefit to the back from this increase in abdominal pressure is probably fairly small. Do back belts restrict spine mobility and hazardous movements? This slide shows the ability of the spine to tolerate a load as the trunk is bent forward. As you can see, the spine is fairly strong in an upright position and even gets slightly stronger when it is bent forward slightly. However, as you continue to bend forward, the spine becomes much weaker until when fully bent, it can only take 60% of the load it could when upright. Thus, if back belts prevent workers from bending too far forward, they may help keep the spine in a stronger position. Unfortunately, studies performed thus far indicate that back belts do not prevent this forward bending of the spine. Thus, even with a back belt on, the spine is allowed to bend fully, placing it in a weak and vulnerable position. However, while forward bending does not appear to be reduced by back belts, some studies have indicated that twisting and side-to-side bending of the trunk may be slightly reduced when wearing a belt. This reduction in side bending and twisting is probably somewhat helpful. However, it is important to realize that people wearing back belts may still be putting their spines in very dangerous positions. Do back belts provide a safety margin by allowing workers to withstand heavier loads? Many people believe that use of back belts permits workers to handle heavier loads or more weight. However, data from recent studies do not support this claim. Workers wearing a belt cannot take any more of a load on their backs as workers without belts. Thus, it does not appear that belts provide an additional safety margin for the wearer. Does use of back belts in industry decrease the incidence of back injuries? Several recent studies have been performed attempting to determine whether belts actually do reduce the incidence of injury in the workplace. Unfortunately, the quality of many of these studies has not been very good. However, two studies have been performed which are worth discussing. These studies were performed by Walsh and Schwartz in 1990 and Reddell and others in 1992. The Walsh and Schwartz study is the one pointed to most frequently by back belt proponents as evidence of the effectiveness of back belts. These investigators studied 81 workers in an industrial warehouse setting using a very rigid back belt. Results of this study did in fact demonstrate a reduction in lost time back injuries due to the use of back belts, but only among workers who had experienced previous back injuries. No benefit was observed for previously uninjured employees. The second of these studies examined the effectiveness of back belts using 642 airline baggage handlers. These authors used a more flexible belt than the Walsh and Schwartz study. Results of this study showed no differences in back injury incidence rates between groups wearing back belts and those not using belts. However, these authors did discover a disturbing trend. Workers who started the study wearing back belts and who discontinued the use of the belts had a higher rate of back injury. The authors of this study concluded that back belt use may cause some physical dependency, leaving the back at increased risk when the device is withdrawn. This study also found that workers often quit using the belt, with less than half using them for the full eight months of the study. It is important to note that neither of the studies cited above demonstrated that belt use had any benefits for uninjured workers. However, it is noteworthy that belts did seem to help workers who had experienced prior back injuries. This indicates that the belts may have had some usefulness in the workplace under certain specific conditions. On the other hand, when workers quit using back supports, they appear to be more prone to back injury. We've now examined the claims made by back belt supporters. Now let's examine some of the claims made by critics of back belts. One of the main arguments of back belt opponents is that the use of belts may lead to weaker back muscles, or muscle atrophy. Others are concerned that back belts may lead to a false sense of security, making the wearer think that he or she can lift more than they really should be lifting. Finally, some critics are concerned that back belts may result in some changes in blood flow or blood pressure because they are cinched so tight around the waist. Let us examine the evidence with regard to these issues. Do back belts cause back muscles to become weaker or atrophy? Several studies have examined this issue, and all of these seem to agree that back belts do not lead to a decrease in muscle strength, at least over the short term. However, one recent study suggested that while back belt use does not result in loss of strength, muscles may tire more quickly with prolonged back belt use. Do back belts create a false sense of security? There is some evidence that back belts may lead to a false sense of security in workers. Studies have indicated that workers are willing to lift up to 20% more weight when wearing a belt. Thus, it appears that workers who use belts may be willing to place a higher strain on the back. If workers who wear belts do lift more weight, they may actually be working with a decreased safety margin for the low back. Do back belts result in adverse physiological changes? Back belts do seem to create certain physiological problems. The most important of these is that the blood pressure has been shown to be increased almost 15 millimeters of mercury when lifting with a belt. An increase in blood pressure by 15 millimeters of mercury may lead to serious health problems such as heart attack or stroke, especially in individuals already having high blood pressure. This presentation has demonstrated a somewhat mixed bag of evidence, some in support of back belts and some in opposition. Evidence supporting use of back belts includes some restriction in end range of motion in twisting and side bending, a clinical evidence of a decrease in lost time back injuries among those with prior back injuries, and a suggestion of increased trunk stiffness, which may be of some benefit. Evidence in opposition of back belt use includes an increased risk of injury upon discontinuing belt use, increased blood pressure, and a false sense of security that may lead workers to over strain their backs. This review of the literature indicates that the following approach to the use of back belts be followed, following Stuart McGill's advice in 1993. If you have a job where you think workers need a back belt, consider redesigning the job instead. Job designed to minimize lifting is bound to be much more effective at reducing back injuries than providing a back belt. If back belts are to be used, they should be treated as a prescription item and should be provided only to individuals having had a previous back injury. These workers should be weaned from the belts as soon as it is appropriate. Back belts should not be universally distributed to all workers at a work site, given the lack of demonstrated effectiveness among uninjured workers and a potential increased risk of back injury after discontinuation of use. Individuals considered for back belt prescription should be screened for cardiovascular risk factors due to the increased blood pressure associated with back belt use. Individuals using back belt should be required to participate in a mandatory exercise program and should continue in the program after being weaned from the belt during the period of increased back injury risk. Workers using back belt should be exposed to a mandatory education program to ensure that the back belts are used properly. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that back belts have a rather limited role to play in controlling the costs and incidents of back injuries. Reliance on back belts as a sole method of combating the problem clearly is not an effective solution. Effective back injury control programs tend to emphasize job redesign, where the worker's job is changed to reduce the amount of manual lifting that has to be done. Employers who are interested in keeping the cost of back injuries down are encouraged to focus on job design as a primary method of injury control, and if back belts are to be used, careful consideration should be given to the limitations discussed above.


My name is Amy and I'm a developer at Airbnb in San Francisco and today I'd like to talk about presenting as feminine while working in tech. So first let's take a look at the phrase like a girl. This is from an advertising campaign by Always. Show me what it looks like to run like a girl. Show me what it looks like to fight like a girl.  My name is Dakota and I'm 10 years old. Show me what it looks like to run like a girl. Like a girl. Fight like a girl. What does it mean to you when I say run like a girl? It means run fast as you can. At some age we become convinced that doing anything like a girl means that you are doing it ineffectively, wimply and in a way that can't be taken seriously at all. What then does this mean for women and non-binary people who work in technology and present as feminine? What does it mean for those of us who code like girls? So one category of things I deal with all the time from presenting feminine in tech is no one believes that I'm a programmer.  I have been a TA for weekend workshops that teach women how to code. I've had male co-TAs ask me how I was enjoying learning to program. Apparently presenting as feminine makes you look like a beginner. It's very frustrating, it's very frustrating that I will either look like not a programmer or look like a permanent beginner because I have programmed since age eight. I have basically always wanted to be a programmer. I received undergrad and grad degrees from MIT. I worked as a visiting researcher in Honda's humanoid robotics division in Tokyo doing machine learning research on as a mom. And I'm not saying these things because I feel like they make me a better programmer. I'm saying these things because I feel like if a straight white cis man had all of these qualifications, no one would ever be doubting whether he was a programmer or not. So Tracy Chow, an engineer at Pinterest, shared this story with me. Last year she attended a technical conference to recruit for Pinterest and on the first day she dressed the way she usually does on a daily basis in a cute feminine dress. When she walked around the conference no one came up to talk to her. When she asked people very technical questions about their stack, questions she assumed would indicate that she was a programmer. She was brushed aside and people literally told her, you wouldn't understand so I won't bother explaining. But I could talk to someone else on your team that's more technical instead. She went back to her hotel that night really frustrated and flustered. She almost didn't feel like going to the conference the next day. But she did and instead she wore a nerdy t-shirt and jeans and everyone was interested in talking to her. People came up to her and asked about working at Pinterest. People assumed that she was technical and they didn't dilute their explanations. So what can we as a community do better? First of all, you should assume that people who present a feminine are as or more qualified than you. If you're at a conference and talking to a feminine presenting person. Assume that they're an expert in the field of the conference. Before you're about to explain a paper condescending me to someone in the dress, maybe assume that they wrote it. Never ask who are you here with. Instead assume someone is at an event out of their own interest. Instead of assuming what someone's position or career is, ask and ask politely and don't ask surprise at the answer. Another category of things I experience all the time from presenting a feminine is when I get feedback, I get gendered feedback. I remember giving project presentations during college. We received feedback from peers and the professor would also hand out awards for the projects and presentations they thought were best. Despite several times getting awards from professors on my presentations about deduplication algorithms for backup storage or face recognition algorithms for image processing class, this was the kind of feedback that I always got from my peers. Why are your slides so pink? It's very distracting.  It's very distracting. Your voice goes up after every sentence you say, as well as comments rating my appearance. I also talked to Liz Rush, a new programmer who graduated from the ADA Academy at Ruby Conference last year. In her year of giving talks about tagging civic data with her project partner who was also an ADA Academy graduate she talked about how her most frequent feedback was statements like, I really like your outfit and you're so pretty instead of comments about the actual content of the presentation. One person started asking her a technical question after a presentation and then changed their mind saying actually let me ask your partner instead about this. I think she might have more to contribute. Liz's partner is a woman who doesn't present a feminine while Liz does. These experiences have made Liz decide that she doesn't want to give as many talks next year or maybe only in women-only spaces and that's a huge shame for this community. We can do better. What are some things that we can do better? We can give feedback based on content versus presentation style. And when you think of something as distracting in a presentation and are thinking of giving that as feedback do you really just mean that you are not used to seeing that in a presentation because you're not used to seeing feminine people present and ask yourself would you give this feedback to a masculine presenting white cis man? And by doing these things hopefully we can show women that we value them for their achievements. Another thing that feminine presenting women and non-binary people have to deal with the tightrope walk of professionalism and fashion when deciding what to wear to interviews or presentations. I've seen women tweet before their first technical presentation. Wearing a dress is out of the question for this right? Women worry that if they wear dresses when they present they might not get taken seriously or that they might receive unwanted comments or advances. I've also read so many internet advice columns that recommend to women don't distract from your own presentation. Dress nicely but not flashily. I've seen women worried that if they wear makeup or dress up that they're not being feminist and I've seen feminist child women who present as feminine. It's one kind of progress for people to agree with a statement women can be anything they want. It combats the kind of sexism called oppositional sexism but there's another kind of sexism traditional sexism that we've made less progress on. You could get more people to agree with the statement that women can be anything than to agree to the statement that femininity is as valuable as masculinity. Let's take for example the idea of a strong female character. There are plenty of them in movies but think of what comes to mind as traits for a woman being badass. Loud, assertive, by the motorcycle, maybe she's really good at martial arts. And yes that woman does sound badass but we pretty much never explore the idea of strong female characters that save the world by being feminine, empathetic, and caring. This is also part of the problem of lean in. Women should feel free to be assertive if that's their personality and let's celebrate that instead of criticizing it but let's also celebrate people that display leadership by empathy and encouraging. I once had an ex-partner tell me, you look better in jeans and in t-shirts, why do you wear dresses? Why do you wear makeup? You don't have to dress up to impress me. And that gave me so many realizations. That most people think femininity is an app to impress men.  I was wearing them for me.  So I'd like to say if you feel like you are able to and if you don't feel like you're up for it, that's totally okay because self-care comes before any kind of activism. But if you feel up for it, I encourage you to wear exactly what you want be as flamboyant, fancy, frilly, girly as you would like to be.