A controversial B.C. law that allows municipalities to inspect
homes using large amounts of electricity has helped make
neighbourhoods safer and thwarted marijuana-grow operations, says a
criminology professor whose research triggered the law.
But his comments are unlikely to move outraged citizens in the
District of Mission, who are girding for a fight with their local
council and threatening a class-action lawsuit, complaining that
they've been slapped with unjust and excessive inspection fees and
unfairly labelled as criminals.
A change in 2006 to the B.C. Safety Standards Act gave
municipalities direct access to electricity-consumption data from
the province's electric utility, BC Hydro, and the ability to
identify homes with unusually high power usage.
Armed with that data, public-safety teams, consisting of
building, fire and electrical experts, have been inspecting some of
these properties after giving homeowners 24 to 48 hours notice. The
inspectors typically look for tampered wiring and plumbing,
overloaded circuits, mould buildup, pesticides, holes in walls and
extra ventilation ducts -- possible indications of a growing
operation.
But even if one isn't found, which is the case most of the time,
authorities can still find that a home is in violation of safety
bylaws and require the homeowner to fix the problems.
"There has been a tendency for people to view this as
nothing more [than] a backdoor to get at grow ops. This a complete
misrepresentation," said Darryl Plecas, a criminology professor
at the University of the Fraser Valley.
While the bylaws have helped make a dent in the number of
marijuana growing operations, the driving force behind them is
safety, said Plecas, whose research has found that operations
constitute a fire hazard because of the way electrical wiring is
configured.
"Should we ignore these safety hazards?" he asked.
BURDENING LAND TITLE
But critics say municipalities are unfairly tagging alleged
violators' property titles as a "controlled-substance
property," even when no plants are found.
"They are essentially fabricating grow ops," said
Micheal Vonn, policy director of the B.C. Civil Liberties
Association.
"They are designating that a residence is a
'controlled-substance property,' burdening the land title with an
allegation of growing drugs, devaluing the property."
The finding of mould, potting soil and holes in the wall are
hardly solid evidence of a marijuana growing operation, she said,
adding that one resident who was found in violation had been growing
cucumbers.
On top of that, residents found in violation are assessed hefty
fees to cover the cost of inspecting their homes. In the District of
Mission, where much of the attention has been focused, the fee is
$5,200.
"Somebody who goes through and inspects your house when
you're buying your house will charge a few hundred dollars,"
Vonn said.
Seventy-four residents in that community have signed on for a
class-action lawsuit, though a statement of claim has not yet been
filed. One local councillor has put forward a motion to repeal the
bylaw at Monday's council meeting.
But B.C. fire chiefs are standing by the inspection programs.
Ian Fitzpatrick, the Mission fire chief, said Friday that when
inspections started in 2008, his district's teams levelled
inspection fees in about 75 to 80 per cent of the cases. Now that
number has dropped to about 50 per cent.
"The perception we charge everybody is not true at
all," he said.
Len Garis, the chief in Surrey, one of the first municipalities
to do inspections, said the vast majority of residents who have to
pay the fees never complain, an indication they were doing something
they shouldn't have been doing. The disclosure of a violation on a
property title could create a lasting "stigma," but
prospective homebuyers deserve to know if that property has ever
been found in violation of a bylaw, he said
Button
Ads!
Custom Search
