Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
Mission is reviewing its home growop inspection program over allegations the municipality sometimes abuses its power by barring innocent families from their homes and slapping them with fees and repair orders costing upward of $10,000 -- all on questionable evidence.
The Province learned of the unannounced move -- which took effect this week -- while investigating a number of complaints from citizens in Mission.
In Mission and a number of cities across the Lower Mainland, "controlled substance property bylaws" mean municipal inspectors can enter homes with abnormally high hydro usage -- about 93 kilowatts per day or more -- and look for evidence of illegal marijuana grow-ops for public safety reasons.
The programs are all based on provincial legislation allowing local governments to access B.C. Hydro's residential electrical consumption data.
The Province has learned that Mission's council decided in a closed-door meeting to halt its two-step role of judging evidence -- including mould and mildew readings taken from suspected grow-op homes -- pending consultation with lawyers and district staff.
Pressure for the review came internally from concerned councillors, and externally from angry citizens and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).
"We are getting a phenomenal number of people contacting us," Michael Vonn of the BCCLA said. "People are saying a zealousness has been introduced [in Mission] so that inspectors are going out of their way to find evidence of grow-ops that don't exist."
Vonn said the BCCLA has asked to meet with officials in Mission, and "test litigation" is possible. "This is about the sanctity of people's homes," Vonn said. "We're very, very concerned because with the great similarity of concerns, it raises the bar on the likelihood of credible complaints."
Vonn added the BCCLA is hearing similar complaints about growop bylaw programs across the Lower Mainland, and will "absolutely" be opening investigations in other municipalities.
- - -
Stacy Gowanlock, a contractor and father of five, said he was working a job in Pemberton in September 2009 when his wife, Mandy, called. The district wanted to inspect their home on 24 hours' notice.
"We'll let them in. We have nothing to hide," he told Mandy.
He returned to Mission and the next day a team of three inspectors toured his property, which includes a pool, hot tub and a large workshop, with a police car waiting outside.
The electrical inspector identified a problem with the wiring in the hot tub, which Stacy Gowanlock says accounted for the high hydro usage. But the shock came at the end.
"One guy says we have a couple issues; someone has been growing marijuana on the property," Gowanlock recalls. "I said, 'Nobody is. Where are you getting these facts from?'"
The team said a grow-op had been operated out of the family's attic, and they would be getting a $5,200 inspection bill.
The couple insisted they had never grown a single pot plant in the home, and inspectors told them they had a chance to fight the charges. That's what Gowanlock did, appearing before council in July.
But council, said Gowanlock, "pretend to be interested, but they are not."
"I said I don't think you should be coming onto homes without at least saying beforehand it's a $5,200 inspection fee," Gowanlock says.
"It's not just about me.
"How many people are they going to railroad before it comes to a stop?"
Another Mission resident fighting city hall is Trish Banfield.
She insists she's never had a growop in the 56-year-old, 700-square-foot house she purchased in 1989. But on Feb. 4, 2009, after a "brief" home search, inspectors levied the $5,200 search fee and condemned Banfield's home. Basically, she says, authorities had charged, convicted and sentenced her without giving her a chance to defend herself.
She says she hasn't paid the bill. She says she lost a job with the city in the aftermath of the search, and suffers a tarnished reputation.
And when she got her opportunity to argue to council against having her home tagged as unsafe under the bylaw -- affecting insurance and real-estate value -- the politicians were not interested in listening, she says.
"They've condemned my house but I refuse to leave. I'm not guilty, so I'm not leaving."
- - -
Mission was not able to provide to The Province statistics on growop home inspections in time for this story, nor the minutes of private Section 57 hearings in which councillors judge whether to tag homes as unsafe under the grow-op bylaw -- but Fire Chief Ian Fitzpatrick provided a "snap shot" of the program from January to October 2010.
After identifying homes showing high power usage, checking building records, looking at Google Earth images and observing homes, inspectors targeted about 150 properties in Mission.
About 48 residents were charged with a $5,200 inspection fee under the bylaw although no active growop was found; about five active grow-ops were found; eight legitimate medical grow-ops were found; searchers could not access about five homes for legal reasons; and 70 or more citizens were cleared, according to Fitzpatrick.
To levy the fee, Fitzpatrick said, all three inspectors on the team -- a fire inspector, building inspector and an electrician -- must agree there is evidence of past grow-op activity.
The Province learned that one young couple, who asked not to be named, recently had their home searched under the grow-op bylaw and inspectors slapped a "Do not occupy" order on the dwelling. After the couple complained of unfairness, with the support of Mission's retired director of inspection services, Larry Nundal, the order was removed earlier this week.
Nundal and Coun. Jenny Stevens, who both pushed for the bylaw review, say the backpedalling shows the district is acknowledging "checks and balances" need to be built into the program.
In an interview, Mayor James Atebe said council will eventually judge the couple's case, and repealing the do-not-occupy order was a staff decision. Despite the "ongoing review" of the bylaw program -- which Atebe said is not unusual -- inspections are continuing at a rate of about four a week.
While Atebe says he's open to building checks and balances into the program, he says he strongly supports it and, of all the allegations put forward by Mission residents, "they haven't proven to anyone that they were searched unfairly."
"I'm willing to say, 'We screwed up, and let's sharpen the tool,'" Atebe said. "I don't want to lose the tool because it's imperfect. Also, I don't want to keep the tool if it's encroaching on people's rights."
Stevens said she pushed for the review because she has concerns about the "whole process" and is unsure of her role in judging "scientific evidence" of alleged grow-ops -- including mildew, electrical safety faults and mould readings -- presented by inspection teams.
"It's a bit too rubber-stamp-process for me, and I feel ignorant and incompetent, and therefore uncomfortable," she said. "I want to be sure we are being fair and just."
- - -
Grow-op bylaws sprouted in communities across Greater Vancouver after Surrey started its groundbreaking Electrical and Fire Safety Inspection (EFSI) program in 2005.
The bylaws are all based on the Surrey model -- which has levied $2.94 million in fees on a total of 1,928 inspections since 2005, according to the city's records. The fees fund grow-op bylaw costs.
If violations are found, inspectors can order repairs costing about $8,000 and seek a fine of $10,000 in provincial court, in addition to an inspection fee of about $5,000.
Surrey has never once pursued the $10,000 fine.
The same is true of Chilliwack -- which has tagged about 210 homes under its grow-op bylaw, according to an Abbotsford Times article in October citing city documents. And although Mission did not provide information to The Province, Stacy Gowanlock says it's believed they have never pursued the $10,000 fine either. A 2008 Supreme Court ruling on a case in Surrey, which found police could not tag along on "safety" inspections, seems to have put a chill on the willingness of local governments to test cases in court. It has also effectively reduced inspections since, according to a City of Richmond staff report.
Critics like Gowanlock and Larry Nundal say municipalities don't pursue the $10,000 fine because evidence taken in home searches would not win convictions in the justice system. Danny Markovitz, a criminal defence lawyer from Richmond, agrees.
Speaking generally, Markovitz said, the grow-op bylaw "is being used to allow the police and municipality to take a back door into homes when they can't take the front door."
- - -
The grow-op bylaw is the brainchild of Darryl Plecas, a criminology professor at the University College of the Fraser Valley, who helped launch it in Surrey. According to a report by Plecas and his team, the bylaw led to a stunning 80.9-per-cent reduction in residential grow-ops in Surrey from 2004 to 2008.
"The justice system is inept at dealing with this problem so, instead, we've created a system of major disruptions to grow-operators' business," Plecas told The Province in a previous story. But Plecas -- who corresponded with The Province by email -- said while the total number of grow-ops in B.C. has likely dropped from about 17,000 in 2000 to about 10,000 today, "the size of grows has doubled, so overall production hasn't dropped at all."
- - -
Back in Mission, Nundal said he was encouraged after a meeting with district staff head Glen Robertson on Monday. Nundal says he supports the goals of the bylaw, but an arm's length adjudicator must take over council's role of judging cases.
"All I care about is how many innocent people have been affected by this," Nundal said in an interview outside city hall. "Today they agreed to put in some checks and balances. This is the first time I've been listened to, and someone is looking at rectifying the wrong."
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: theprovince.com
Author: Sam Cooper
Copyright: 2010 Postmedia Network Inc
Contact: Contact Us - The Province
Website: 'I'm not guilty, so I'm not leaving'
The Province learned of the unannounced move -- which took effect this week -- while investigating a number of complaints from citizens in Mission.
In Mission and a number of cities across the Lower Mainland, "controlled substance property bylaws" mean municipal inspectors can enter homes with abnormally high hydro usage -- about 93 kilowatts per day or more -- and look for evidence of illegal marijuana grow-ops for public safety reasons.
The programs are all based on provincial legislation allowing local governments to access B.C. Hydro's residential electrical consumption data.
The Province has learned that Mission's council decided in a closed-door meeting to halt its two-step role of judging evidence -- including mould and mildew readings taken from suspected grow-op homes -- pending consultation with lawyers and district staff.
Pressure for the review came internally from concerned councillors, and externally from angry citizens and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).
"We are getting a phenomenal number of people contacting us," Michael Vonn of the BCCLA said. "People are saying a zealousness has been introduced [in Mission] so that inspectors are going out of their way to find evidence of grow-ops that don't exist."
Vonn said the BCCLA has asked to meet with officials in Mission, and "test litigation" is possible. "This is about the sanctity of people's homes," Vonn said. "We're very, very concerned because with the great similarity of concerns, it raises the bar on the likelihood of credible complaints."
Vonn added the BCCLA is hearing similar complaints about growop bylaw programs across the Lower Mainland, and will "absolutely" be opening investigations in other municipalities.
- - -
Stacy Gowanlock, a contractor and father of five, said he was working a job in Pemberton in September 2009 when his wife, Mandy, called. The district wanted to inspect their home on 24 hours' notice.
"We'll let them in. We have nothing to hide," he told Mandy.
He returned to Mission and the next day a team of three inspectors toured his property, which includes a pool, hot tub and a large workshop, with a police car waiting outside.
The electrical inspector identified a problem with the wiring in the hot tub, which Stacy Gowanlock says accounted for the high hydro usage. But the shock came at the end.
"One guy says we have a couple issues; someone has been growing marijuana on the property," Gowanlock recalls. "I said, 'Nobody is. Where are you getting these facts from?'"
The team said a grow-op had been operated out of the family's attic, and they would be getting a $5,200 inspection bill.
The couple insisted they had never grown a single pot plant in the home, and inspectors told them they had a chance to fight the charges. That's what Gowanlock did, appearing before council in July.
But council, said Gowanlock, "pretend to be interested, but they are not."
"I said I don't think you should be coming onto homes without at least saying beforehand it's a $5,200 inspection fee," Gowanlock says.
"It's not just about me.
"How many people are they going to railroad before it comes to a stop?"
Another Mission resident fighting city hall is Trish Banfield.
She insists she's never had a growop in the 56-year-old, 700-square-foot house she purchased in 1989. But on Feb. 4, 2009, after a "brief" home search, inspectors levied the $5,200 search fee and condemned Banfield's home. Basically, she says, authorities had charged, convicted and sentenced her without giving her a chance to defend herself.
She says she hasn't paid the bill. She says she lost a job with the city in the aftermath of the search, and suffers a tarnished reputation.
And when she got her opportunity to argue to council against having her home tagged as unsafe under the bylaw -- affecting insurance and real-estate value -- the politicians were not interested in listening, she says.
"They've condemned my house but I refuse to leave. I'm not guilty, so I'm not leaving."
- - -
Mission was not able to provide to The Province statistics on growop home inspections in time for this story, nor the minutes of private Section 57 hearings in which councillors judge whether to tag homes as unsafe under the grow-op bylaw -- but Fire Chief Ian Fitzpatrick provided a "snap shot" of the program from January to October 2010.
After identifying homes showing high power usage, checking building records, looking at Google Earth images and observing homes, inspectors targeted about 150 properties in Mission.
About 48 residents were charged with a $5,200 inspection fee under the bylaw although no active growop was found; about five active grow-ops were found; eight legitimate medical grow-ops were found; searchers could not access about five homes for legal reasons; and 70 or more citizens were cleared, according to Fitzpatrick.
To levy the fee, Fitzpatrick said, all three inspectors on the team -- a fire inspector, building inspector and an electrician -- must agree there is evidence of past grow-op activity.
The Province learned that one young couple, who asked not to be named, recently had their home searched under the grow-op bylaw and inspectors slapped a "Do not occupy" order on the dwelling. After the couple complained of unfairness, with the support of Mission's retired director of inspection services, Larry Nundal, the order was removed earlier this week.
Nundal and Coun. Jenny Stevens, who both pushed for the bylaw review, say the backpedalling shows the district is acknowledging "checks and balances" need to be built into the program.
In an interview, Mayor James Atebe said council will eventually judge the couple's case, and repealing the do-not-occupy order was a staff decision. Despite the "ongoing review" of the bylaw program -- which Atebe said is not unusual -- inspections are continuing at a rate of about four a week.
While Atebe says he's open to building checks and balances into the program, he says he strongly supports it and, of all the allegations put forward by Mission residents, "they haven't proven to anyone that they were searched unfairly."
"I'm willing to say, 'We screwed up, and let's sharpen the tool,'" Atebe said. "I don't want to lose the tool because it's imperfect. Also, I don't want to keep the tool if it's encroaching on people's rights."
Stevens said she pushed for the review because she has concerns about the "whole process" and is unsure of her role in judging "scientific evidence" of alleged grow-ops -- including mildew, electrical safety faults and mould readings -- presented by inspection teams.
"It's a bit too rubber-stamp-process for me, and I feel ignorant and incompetent, and therefore uncomfortable," she said. "I want to be sure we are being fair and just."
- - -
Grow-op bylaws sprouted in communities across Greater Vancouver after Surrey started its groundbreaking Electrical and Fire Safety Inspection (EFSI) program in 2005.
The bylaws are all based on the Surrey model -- which has levied $2.94 million in fees on a total of 1,928 inspections since 2005, according to the city's records. The fees fund grow-op bylaw costs.
If violations are found, inspectors can order repairs costing about $8,000 and seek a fine of $10,000 in provincial court, in addition to an inspection fee of about $5,000.
Surrey has never once pursued the $10,000 fine.
The same is true of Chilliwack -- which has tagged about 210 homes under its grow-op bylaw, according to an Abbotsford Times article in October citing city documents. And although Mission did not provide information to The Province, Stacy Gowanlock says it's believed they have never pursued the $10,000 fine either. A 2008 Supreme Court ruling on a case in Surrey, which found police could not tag along on "safety" inspections, seems to have put a chill on the willingness of local governments to test cases in court. It has also effectively reduced inspections since, according to a City of Richmond staff report.
Critics like Gowanlock and Larry Nundal say municipalities don't pursue the $10,000 fine because evidence taken in home searches would not win convictions in the justice system. Danny Markovitz, a criminal defence lawyer from Richmond, agrees.
Speaking generally, Markovitz said, the grow-op bylaw "is being used to allow the police and municipality to take a back door into homes when they can't take the front door."
- - -
The grow-op bylaw is the brainchild of Darryl Plecas, a criminology professor at the University College of the Fraser Valley, who helped launch it in Surrey. According to a report by Plecas and his team, the bylaw led to a stunning 80.9-per-cent reduction in residential grow-ops in Surrey from 2004 to 2008.
"The justice system is inept at dealing with this problem so, instead, we've created a system of major disruptions to grow-operators' business," Plecas told The Province in a previous story. But Plecas -- who corresponded with The Province by email -- said while the total number of grow-ops in B.C. has likely dropped from about 17,000 in 2000 to about 10,000 today, "the size of grows has doubled, so overall production hasn't dropped at all."
- - -
Back in Mission, Nundal said he was encouraged after a meeting with district staff head Glen Robertson on Monday. Nundal says he supports the goals of the bylaw, but an arm's length adjudicator must take over council's role of judging cases.
"All I care about is how many innocent people have been affected by this," Nundal said in an interview outside city hall. "Today they agreed to put in some checks and balances. This is the first time I've been listened to, and someone is looking at rectifying the wrong."
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: theprovince.com
Author: Sam Cooper
Copyright: 2010 Postmedia Network Inc
Contact: Contact Us - The Province
Website: 'I'm not guilty, so I'm not leaving'
mber of homeless and drug addicted people and there's a very good reason for it.That reason is Dianne Watts.Thank whatever diety you seek that the bitch has decided not to seek the leadership of the Liberal party which would have made her Premier of the province.BRRRR
