Pubdate: Wed, 30 Jul 2014
Source: Tri-City News (Port Coquitlam, CN BC)
Copyright: 2014 Tri-City News
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/3X3xlf9Y
Website: http://www.tricitynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1239
Author: Gary McKenna

NO GROW OP BUT $12K FINE ANYWAY

No Charges for Tenant but Big Fine for Landlord

The owners of a Port Coquitlam home have been slapped with a $12,000 
fine after receiving a controlled substance property declaration, 
despite the fact that there was no marijuana grow operation in the 
rental house.

PoCo council voted against reducing the charge after the Mary Hill 
Road homeowners appealed the decision, asking that the fee be waived. 
They stated in a letter to the city that the tenants who were renting 
the home when it was raided by police last winter were never charged 
with a criminal offence and there was no evidence of controlled 
substances being found on the property.

"The house was not a grow op and, to the best of our knowledge, there 
were no drugs found in the house," owners Robert, Christopher and 
Harvey Douglas stated in their appeal to the city. "We have asked the 
[Coquitlam] RCMP and the city to show us any evidence of proof but 
neither are willing to do so, stating privacy rules for the tenant."

The issue stems from an incident last winter when the Coquitlam 
RCMP's Prolific Target Team raided the home. Police say they found 
knives, bear spray, scales, the magazine for a Glock handgun and a 
small amount of drugs.

But according to a city staff report, it took Mounties 18 minutes to 
gain entry to the home, during which time investigators believe the 
suspects flushed drugs down the toilet. Empty baggies and 
white-powder residue were found on the floor of the washroom, the 
city document said.

There was also a note on the bathroom door written in jiffy marker 
that stated: "Do not use for shooting. Thanks. PS. You smash in here! 
You get smashed!"

Police did not lay any criminal charges in the incident but bylaw 
officers declared the home a controlled substance property and 
ordered that it not be occupied until remediation work was completed.

The city's bylaw prohibits the use of land and buildings for the 
production of drugs, noting that homes with grow operations are more 
likely to catch fire and pose significant safety risks to emergency 
crews and neighbouring property owners.

But language in the regulations also states that homes where the 
storage, trade or barter of drugs is taking place can also be hit 
with a controlled substance property declaration, a stipulation that 
caught at least one city councillor off guard.

"I have always thought that this was something to do with grow ops," 
said Coun. Dean Washington. "[The tenant] was never charged with an 
offence. He wasn't growing anything in his home. I am not sure how we 
can charge him the fee."

The $12,000 charge is in place in order for the city to recover its 
staffing costs related to inspections and remediation prior to 
allowing re-occupancy of the home. Bylaw services manager Dan Scoones 
said the amount is an average, noting that some controlled substances 
property declarations cost more while others are less. He did not 
have the exact figures for the home on Mary Hill Road, but estimated 
that the expense incurred by the city was slightly less than the average.

Councillors Mike Forrest and Michael Wright put forward an amendment 
to cut the fine in half but the motion failed. They argued that a 
home where only the sale of drugs was taking place would not require 
the same level of inspection and re-inspection as a property that 
housed a grow operation, where electrical problems and air quality 
concerns are often an issue.

PoCo Mayor Greg Moore said changing the fee levied against the 
homeowner at this point would set a precedent for all future appeals. 
He added that he is open to making changes to the bylaw but that 
those discussions should take place once the current process had concluded.

Coun. Darrell Penner concurred with Moore, noting that the issue 
before council was a reminder to all landlords that they are 
responsible for what occurs on their property.

"I don't want to live in a community where it is easy for drug 
dealers to operate," Penner said, later adding, "I am a landlord and 
we do extensive background checks... It's part of the due diligence."

But landlords may have a more difficult time keeping tabs on their 
tenants in cases where drugs are only being sold out of a home, 
rather than manufactured, said bylaw manager Scoones. He said 
disguising a grow op is difficult because it typically takes 90 days 
to produce a marijuana crop and a landlord is permitted to inspect 
their property with 24 hours' notice every 30 days. But in cases 
where drugs are only being sold out of a home, tenants have an easier 
time hiding their activities and removing any evidence prior to a a 
landlord's inspection, he said.

"The owner of this property - had they exercised their right [to an 
inspection] - would have had quite a difficult time assessing whether 
illegal activity was taking place," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom