XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, van.general   
   From: £oquitur@hotmail.com   
      
    . . . .  and then be sent a bill for the 'inspection'.  What happened to a   
   homeowner's right   
   to 'privacy and peaceful possession' ?  It's one thing to be fined or arrested   
   for wrong-doing.   
   But to be fined for being SUSPECTED but not proven for wrongdoing?  Time for a   
   review of   
   legislation that treats us like criminals when we're not criminals.  And the   
   kinds of   
   governments that introduce these kinds of legislation.   
   ___________________________________________________________   
   January 11, 2011 - From Wednesday's Globe and Mail   
      
      
   War on grow-ops in B.C. has unexpected casualties   
      
      
   Innocent homeowners are presented with large bills following safety   
   inspections that critics   
   say are a substitute for police raids   
   In the war on marijuana grow-ops, municipalities across the Lower Mainland are   
   slapping   
   homeowners - including those with no link to illegal drugs - with a hefty bill   
   for an   
   inspection of their property, saying the fees cover the costs involved.   
      
   But those cost-recovery fees vary by thousands of dollars. In Mission, the   
   bill for an   
   inspection is $5,200, but Surrey assesses a fee of $3,200.   
      
   Mission resident Stacy Gowanlock, who was given a bill for $5,200 after his   
   property was   
   inspected, said Tuesday he believes Mission charges more because the   
   municipality is strapped   
   for funds. He has been unable to find out how Mission arrives at its fee.   
      
   Mr. Gowanlock said he paid $350 for a six-hour home inspection when he bought   
   the house. "They   
   were here for 15 minutes and it was $5,200," he said.   
      
   Ten municipalities in the Lower Mainland have safety inspection programs that   
   send inspectors   
   armed with B.C. Hydro statistics on abnormal energy consumption into homes. In   
   addition to   
   Surrey and Mission, Richmond, Coquitlam, Langley, Langley City, Abbotsford,   
   Pitt Meadows,   
   Chilliwack and Port Coquitlam use the inspection process.   
      
   The safety inspections came about as a result of concerns over grow-ops that   
   pose electrical   
   hazards from faulty wiring and the overloading of residential electrical   
   circuits.   
      
   Critics say the safety inspections are a substitute for police raids of   
   suspected grow-ops.   
   Police cannot enter a home without reasonable grounds for believing that they   
   will find illegal   
   activity. However, safety inspectors can just go in and look around. If they   
   find a grow-op,   
   they call police, who are usually waiting at the curb.   
      
   B.C. Hydro said 15,213 residential accounts last year had unusually high power   
   consumption, a   
   figure that includes farms, multifamily dwellings and home-based businesses,   
   as well as   
   single-family homes. About one-third of the high-consumption accounts are in   
   the Lower   
   Mainland.   
      
   The 10 municipalities conducted 3,528 inspections between 2005 and 2009.   
   Safety violations   
   associated with grow-ops were found in 2,311 homes, Surrey Fire Chief Len   
   Garis said in an   
   interview.   
      
   However, many of the homeowners who were inadvertently caught in a crackdown   
   on marijuana   
   grow-ops say they were doing nothing more than using power to run their hot   
   tubs, baseboard   
   heaters or air-conditioning units.   
      
   Mr. Gowanlock has a 4,500-square-foot home with six children, landscape   
   lighting, a hot tub, a   
   pool and a 1,200-square-foot shop that is used as a pool house and to store a   
   boat. He has been   
   fighting city hall for more than a year over the inspection fee. In recent   
   months, he has heard   
   from more than 100 homeowners in Mission who were also inspected and assessed   
   a fee, although   
   they were not charged with doing anything illegal.   
      
   Mr. Gowanlock said he is now speaking to lawyers about launching a   
   class-action lawsuit,   
   challenging the right of a municipality to inspect his home as if it were a   
   crime scene and to   
   impose a fee. He felt he was being fined for something he did not do.   
      
   "They [the safety inspectors] are violating the rights of many people," Mr.   
   Gowanlock said   
   Tuesday in an interview. "The city should not be fighting crime. They should   
   be allowing the   
   RCMP to conduct their own investigation. [The RCMP] are trained professionals,   
   whether it   
   involves drugs or firearms. [The inspectors] are untrained."   
      
   Micheal Vonn, policy director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said   
   the inspections   
   appear to be "an end-run around the need for a criminal warrant," with police   
   often waiting   
   outside while safety inspectors go into the homes. "It's not about safety,"   
   she said.   
      
   Ms. Vonn said she believes the inspectors need an administrative warrant   
   before entering a   
   home. They have to show the evidence to somebody, to go through a process of   
   review for the   
   city to assess it, she said. "This is what we think is required."   
      
   Municipalities say the fee is imposed only when evidence of a controlled   
   substance is found on   
   the property, Ms. Vonn noted. But when inspectors fail to find marijuana   
   plants, they have   
   pointed to mud from potted plants, mould and hooks on the wall as evidence of   
   a grow-op and the   
   grounds for assessing the fee, she said.   
      
   The association has also received a complaint about a fee based on an empty   
   room that   
   inspectors found to be suspicious. The room was empty in order to be painted   
   for a new baby,   
   Ms. Vonn said.   
      
   Mission Fire Chief Ian Fitzpatrick said the inspection fee is assessed "if   
   there are enough   
   observations made and the team believes that the property is in violation of   
   the Controlled   
   Substance Property bylaw."   
      
   The indication of a violation could include alterations to the structure of   
   the house, vent   
   holes, new drywall, mould, alterations to the gas lines, remnants of plants,   
   and soils or   
   fertilizers.   
      
   Chief Fitzpatrick also said no fees are levied if a legitimate reason can be   
   identified for   
   higher-than-normal electricity usage. The fees are meant to be brought only   
   against those who   
   are violating the regulations, he said.   
      
   Surrey has collected $5.3-million in fees from the inspections. Chief Garis   
   said the   
   inspections are conducted at no charge if inspectors do not find any problems   
   with electrical   
   safety or alterations to the building that have been made without a permit.   
   "If there is   
   something found that is wrong that is associated with a controlled substance,   
   then the full   
   effects of the inspection will be charged," he said. "It's not a fine, it's a   
   cost-recovery   
   fee," he said.   
      
   Mission has collected almost $1-million in fees since introducing the safety   
   inspections in   
   September of 2008.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)