Pubdate: Fri, 01 Aug 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

LANDLORD VOWS TO SUE POCO OVER $12,000 FEE

A Port Coquitlam homeowner said he intends to sue the municipality
after his appeal of a $12,000 controlled substance property
declaration was denied by council on Monday.

Harvey Douglas, who owns a Mary Hill Road home with his two sons, told
The Tri-City News on Wednesday that he is being unfairly penalized. He
said there is no evidence the home he rented out was used for the
production or sale of drugs and that the charge imposed on him should
be waived.

"I am going to take them to court," he said. "This is unjust and
uncalled for. It really isn't fair."

Douglas and his sons, Rob and Chris Douglas, purchased the home as an
investment property more than a year ago and rented it out. According
to Douglas, the tenant, who no longer resides at the home, was a nice
person who was easy to get in touch with and always paid the bills on
time.

According to the Coquitlam RCMP, however, the tenant was a prolific
offender with a history of interactions with police.

In January Mounties raided the home, finding knives, bear spray, the
magazine for a Glock handgun and a small amount of drugs.
Investigators said they believe some drugs were flushed down the
toilet in the 18-minute period between the time officers arrived on
the scene and when they gained entry to the home.

Police did not lay charges against the tenant but a PoCo city staff
report said there was enough evidence to indicate that drug dealing
had been taking place on the property. A do-not-occupy order was
issued and the owners were charged $12,000, a fee the city said is
required to recover the costs of inspection and staff time.

Typically, the fee applies to homes that have been used as grow ops
and require extensive repairs and renovation - as well as testing and
city inspections - to make them habitable again.

Douglas said he and his sons have already spent a considerable amount
of money repairing the home after the police raid. Floor boards had to
be replaced, an atmosphere test was conducted and the electrical and
plumbing systems had to be upgraded, he said.

Douglas also noted that during the three months the property was
boarded up under the do-not-occupy order, the home was broken into and
most of the copper piping was stolen.

The city's $12,000 charge is an additional hardship he said he cannot
afford.

"We racked up an enormous bill," he said. "We are up to $25,000, which
could easily bankrupt a person."

But during Monday night's meeting, council voted against an appeal
that would have waived the $12,000 charge.

Mayor Greg Moore said that the city needs to be consistent with how it
applies its bylaws while Coun. Darrell Penner said responsibility for
what went on at the property rests with the homeowner.

"I am a landlord and we do extensive background checks," Penner said
at the time. "It's part of the due diligence."

Douglas acknowledges that illegal activity may have taken place at the
home but notes that none of the residents have every been charged.

But PoCo's bylaw services manager, Dan Scoones, said whether police
pursue a person criminally has no bearing on the city's actions
against a property. He estimated that in 90% of cases where a home has
been deemed a controlled substance property, police have not laid
charges against the residents.

"The civil standard for proof is much less onerous," he said. "Just
because=C2=85 there is a decision not to push criminal charges doesn't me
an
the thing didn't happen."

He noted that police tie charges to a particular person while the
city's focus is only on a nuisance property. For example, if the city
receives a noise complaint, it does not need to determine which person
in the home is responsible before laying a fine.

He also disagreed with Douglas' assertion that there was no evidence
of drug trafficking at the property.

"The evidence was there that it was used for trafficking," he said.
"That is what triggered the declaration."

CLARIFICATION

* The Wednesday, July 30 edition of The Tri-City News erroneously
reported that the $12,000 charge levied against the Douglas family was
a fine. In fact, the charge is considered a cost-recovery fee and is
not considered a penalty by the city.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt