Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jun 2015
Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC)
Copyright: 2015 Times Colonist
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/letters.html
Author: Jack Knox
Page: A3

STINK OF GROW-OP STIGMA LINGERS FOR HOMEOWNERS

Bad enough to have a nightmare. Worse when it comes back to haunt you 
six years later.

Which is what a Cowichan Valley couple are finding as they try to 
sell a house that a tenant once tried to turn into a marijuana grow-op.

Banks are leery of such properties. Ditto for insurance companies. 
Brokers warn off prospective buyers. A sale fell through last weekend 
because of that.

Never mind that owner Sue Livingston and her husband remediated their 
house and have lived in it for the past six years. The red flag is up.

"This thing hangs over it like a bloody albatross," says a frustrated 
Livingston.

It's not an uncommon story in B.C., where the province's real estate 
body says the inconsistency of disclosure and remediation practices 
often makes banks and insurers reluctant to touch any property with 
drugs in its past. The blanket approach causes people like Livingston 
to lose out.

The tale goes back to April 2009 when the couple rented out their 
North Cowichan investment property. The tenant seemed ideal: friendly 
guy, 35 or 40, with a young kid in tow. Said he was moving up from 
Victoria with his fiancee. His references checked out. Always paid 
the rent on time.

The mask slipped off that August when a neighbour saw smoke coming 
from the house. Firefighters found that a hot grow-lamp had fallen in 
a storage area holding between 75 and 250 marijuana plants.

There was no fire, just a lot of smoke, but it soon became apparent 
that the tenant was in the process of converting the whole house to a grow-op.

He hadn't even been living there. The kitchen, living room and dining 
room were furnished, staged right down to the plates on the tables, 
but that was just to fool anyone looking through the windows. There 
were no beds in the bedrooms. Carpets had been ripped out and holes 
cut in the floor for venting. Charcoal filters had been brought in. 
Windows were covered. More grow trays were being built in the garage.

What really hurt is that the owners were the only ones punished. RCMP 
said issues with the evidence and identification of a suspect 
prevented them from laying charges. "He walked, and we got left with 
this absolute mess," Livingston says.

Because the damage was caused by illegal activity, the owners' house 
insurance didn't kick in. They were on the hook for tens of thousands 
of dollars worth of painting, new insulation, electrical work, 
flooring and more. Livingston's husband, a contractor, did much of 
the work, but that meant he wasn't available to earn money elsewhere 
for a couple of months.

There was also a $3,500 bill from North Cowichan, which has a bylaw 
that lets it recover its costs - police, fire, building inspection - 
when dealing with drug houses.

The owners paid another $3,500 for an extensive environmental 
inspection, to prove that the remediation was complete.

Yet even after all that, they can't shake the stigma.

"This is a never-ending problem," Livingston says. "Even the banks 
are saying, 'Once a grow-op, always a grow-op.' I'm just stumped by 
all of this."

The B.C. Real Estate Association says the situation illustrates why 
the status quo must change. As it is, the definition of "remediation" 
varies so widely from municipality to municipality that some lenders 
and insurers hesitate to touch any home with a history of drug 
production, says spokesman Damian Stathonikos. Likewise, 
municipalities vary in their willingness and ability to tell realtors 
and prospective buyers about such homes.

The association's website cites anecdotal evidence that B.C. has up 
to 18,500 illegal grow-ops and 500 clandestine drug labs. The group 
wants the province to adopt consistent standards for reporting and 
remediating such properties. As it is, buyers, renters and real 
estate agents "have no consistent method of learning whether a 
building has been identified as having been used in drug operations, 
or whether it has been remediated to a standard that will ensure 
health and safety risks have been eradicated."

The website goes on to talk about mould, electrical fires, chemicals 
chucked in the backyard, even the possibility of invasion by 
criminals looking for drugs.

OK, says Livingston, but none of that describes her home of the past 
six years. "Our house is in better condition than when we purchased 
it." The blanket approach to former grow-ops is smothering her, unfairly.

It was frustrating to see last weekend's sale fall through.

"The sad thing is they would be getting an absolutely lovely home."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom