150 police files over 5 years and it still goes on. Unbelievable!!

Seems like there must be very little of consequence in those files that they have to go for electrical inspections, give them notice to get it repaired and and if it does not within a reasonable time period, shut down the whole building.

Thank you for the article. Just a couple of quick points of clarification:
1. There’s no “h” in my last name… minor but I guess I’m getting picky in my old age; and
2. the 30 day notice to tenants would likely only be applicable to action the City takes via the Business License Bylaw. Should life safety issues be found by another Department (eg. Fire or Building Inspection) or an outside agency (eg. BC Safety Authority) that in their opinion are an imminent hazard to the occupants then I do not believe the 30 day notice is required. It is my understanding that those agencies have authority that would over-ride the Residential Tenancy Act provision for notice. Having said that, this authority would only exist for as long as the hazard exists — that is, once the property owner corrected/resolved the hazard the building could be re-occupied, if that was the only issue that resulted in the building being vacated. The problem can become very complicated once multiple agencies/jurisdictions are involved.

I hope this provides a little more clarity for the discussion.

The manager of bylaw services is just now learning of “150 police files since 2008”? What has he been doing the past five years?

“What has he been doing the past five years?”

Following the wishes of council and peeking over backyard fences to see if Fido has a current tag?

Should that be “what has he been doing” or should the finger be pointed at the RCMP with “what have they been doing”?

In the world I know, the common situation is that if you have the info (the RCMP in this case since drugs are not a bylaw matter) you share it with appropriate organizations, especially those who can help you do something about it.

I thought there is a joint group working on this which involves the City and the RCMP as two of the participants. I would think such matter would come in front of them.

Then again, they may just be high level speculators rather than on-the-ground doers.

So, how did this come to light now? 250NEWS?

Actually the BC Safety Authority looks after industrial equipment to the best of my knowledge. That is why they were heaviliy invovled with the mill fires since electrical equipment could have been the cause or a factor.

Did the Mayor create a crime reduction task force a month or two ago? Wouldn’t this location have brought up at their meetings?

Gus – the City does not have Electrical and Gas Inspectors. The Safety Authority is responsible for electrical/gas permits and inspections in the City of Prince George.

Gus, I’m glad I don’t know the world that you know:)

Yes, I understand that. Several cities in the lower mainland have their own inspections.

However, that being said, those inspections are only done at time of installation, I believe.

For instance, my Fortis meter was exchanged recently. No one came to inspect that work. I do not believe the BC Safety Authority has jurisdiction over single family residences.

So, the building in question has a commercial retail/small food prep business downstairs to the best of my knowledge plus god-only-knows what occupancy upstairs – individual rooms with shared cooking and bathroom facilites …. loft with sleeping bag opportunities? Single exit maybe. No real real continuous fire separation between upstairs and downstairs to speak of, possibly? Front exit through an alleyway adjacent to a wall which may not be a fire separation?

My first question really is, if a fire inspector would go in, would they even know what they are looking at as far as building codes go?

Under what condition can a building inspector go in to inspect something that should have been inspected when it was built?

Was there a permit provided for the alterations they made a few years ago and was an occupancy permit subsequently issued.

In fact, was there any work done at that time that required BC Safety Authority to come in and do an inspection and was it done.

Finally, the most important question – who is responsible for co-ordinating all these inspection authorities and ensuring that all required inspections have actually been done in buildings that are sitting within the city limts, and in what central location or database are all these approvals kept?

uppercandian …. yes, I can understand that …. it is true for anyone who works in specialty fields …… try GMO … try air quality …. the specialists in any such area know the world they work in. Some will have concerns of what goes on, others will not and merely keep plugging away ….. and the general public is none the wiser ….

The world is changing with respect to access to information to people who really do not know enough about all of that, but are getting more and more concerned as to their safety as well as the use to which their money is being put.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. A very wise saying. ;-)

“The manager of bylaw services is just now learning of “150 police files since 2008″? What has he been doing the past five years?”

Ignoring a million other bylaw infractions around his kingdom!

Of course, no one has brought up the ethical issue and likely even legal issue of finding a place where a possible illegal activity is taking place with respect to drugs and sending in electrical, gas, building and all sorts of other inspectors.

Anyone ever wonder what a judge might say about that? I think the notion of probable cause still applies to all those inspection services. They have to have reasonable cause for going in, to the best of my knowledge.

When the police cannot “close the deal” in real estate parlance, we do not become a police state as a result and send in all the other enforcers to see whether they can find a loophole.

If they are looking into the London Hotel they should also be looking at the Old Ranch Motel on Queensway , its the same stuff going on. How many police files since 2008 has the Ranch Motel got?? I think the new name is Homeland Inn.I think other Citys are sending their problems to P.G.

I would be surprised if the fire department could not find some deficiencies or evidence of non-permitted work. They just have to take a look then send in the building inspector for Structural or The Safety Authority for Electrical/Gas.

Even the Cupcake shop on the main floor has deficiencies. Last I checked a place that serves food and has seats requires washrooms for patrons. If one wanted to get picky handicap accessible ones.

That is one of the issues in this city commercial/business/residential standards are there but never enforced. I’m not talking letter of the law always no exceptions, but they need to take off the blinders and raise the bar a little.

Where the occupant load is not more than 10 persons, or where the area in a Group E occupancy (that is mercantile, which is the classification for the store in question) is not more than 100m2, both sexes may be served by one watercloset.

The Code also makes other provisions for small mercantile occupancies. Any individual group E shop store or supermarket with a total retail floor area of less than 50m2 is exempt from the requirements for persons with disabilities.

The store is smaller than the areas in the BCBC.

There is nothing the BCBC which specifies where the washroom ought to be. Typically, it should be available for staff as well as patrons. I do not think that is typically enforced, especially in older buildings.

A restaurant is classified as an assembly occupancy, specifically Group A, Division 2. This is not a restaurant. Neither are places such as the bakery on George Street which serves sandwiches as a part of its primary occupancy. It is a retail store with a bakery in the back.

I think food wagons should have port-a-poties next to them …. ;-)

Oh Gus???

Just because you type something does not make it true.

Businesses actually want the city to enforce minimum standards, it levels the playing field and raises the bar.