[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Invasive house inspections by bureaucrats costing homeowners $5000 ome homeowners in Mission, B.C., are planning a class action lawsuit to battle municipal inspections intended to find marijuana grow-ops, but that often result in nothing but a big inspection bill. Provincial legislation empowers municipal inspectors to enter homes with unusually high hydro use and look for evidence of a marijuana grow-op. But the process is hit and miss. When inspectors searched Stacy Gowanlock's home, all they found was faulty wiring for a hot tub, not a grow-op. 'They're trying to cheat the system and go through the back door of municipal law to do criminal law searches.' — B.C. Civil Liberties Association executive director David Eby" Its embarrassing," said Gowanlock. "They're in there in the middle of the day. They're there in their inspection van. They have the RCMP waiting outside." "But they still administered the fee, the $5,200 fee," he said. In another case, a 67-year-old man who was found to be growing cucumbers — not marijuana — in his basement was still slapped with the inspection fee. The homeowners' lawsuit will claim the municipality is wantonly and unfairly targeting them, Gowanlock said. Councillor concerned "I believe it's a cash grab," he said. "I think it's a way to generate revenue. I think that $5,200 for 15 minutes of work is an awful lot of money." District Coun. Jenny Stevens said she is concerned after learning that in half of the homes inspected, there was no evidence of marijuana growing. "Those people have still suffered the embarrassment and the difficulty with their neighbours," said Stevens. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association hopes to use the legal case to fight similar bylaws elsewhere in the province. "The problem is, they're trying to cheat the system and go through the back door of municipal law to do criminal law searches," said executive director David Eby. "That's a real problem." A similar bylaw in Surrey has been successfully challenged in court. Inspectors in that city now either ask consent before entering a home or conduct a search armed with a warrant. With files from the CBC's Meera Bains and Susana da Silva Read more: www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...l#ixzz1AtmZXabc B.C. homeowners fuming over grow op search law By Douglas Quan, Postmedia News January 21, 2011 7:38 PM www.montrealgazette.com/n...search/4147393/story.html Vancouver police seized a million-dollar home allegedly used as a grow-op, the most valuable yet under civil-forfeiture legislation introduced in 2006. Photograph by: Submitted, VPD VANCOUVER — 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 one community, 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 grow op. But even if a grow op 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 grow ops, the driving force behind them is safety, said Plecas, whose research has found that grow ops constitute a fire hazard because of the way electrical wiring is configured. "Should we ignore these safety hazards?" he asked. But critics say municipalities are unfairly tagging 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 grow op, 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 this 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 levied 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. "I believe as the fire chief, it's made an impact in the community in terms of reducing the number of properties with safety concerns." Len Garis, the chief in Surrey, B.C., one of the first municipalities to do inspections, said the vast majority of residents who are slapped with inspection fees never complain, an indication to him that 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. Read more: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
(Edited)
deleted
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||