Probably won't solve much,but I am suprised it took this long?

If it will not solve much, who cares how long it took?

Oh, wait, people needed to work on this. And we pay those people. So they could have worked on something more productive if this won't solve much.

I wonder how many grow ops there are in BC and how that has changed over the years. Also, I wonder how they are distributed throughout BC and how that has changed over the same time.

I am interested in that information to see which communities have been effective in reducing their grow ops and which communities were chosen to fill the gap left in supply facilities.

The article states that it has helped Surrey. Maybe our resident researcher (read: Gus)could try and find some supporting evidence of that? Im curious. If it helps, great!

So if your a rental property owner you will now get billed for the grow up in your rental that you are not allowed into to inspect.Awesome!

Gus,I am betting you could drive a semi through the loopholes in this bylaw!
In many cases as we all know,these bylaws are politically self-serving and accomplish very little to actually control the problem.
On the other hand,I hope I am dead wrong!

No No Andyfreeze it takes a semi to haul them crap out of city Hall.
Cheers

I'm agree pgmatt - as a landlord it is sometimes very difficult to control what a renter is doing. Some renters are very good at hiding things.
Landlords must give notice before they inspect so catching them is difficult - even if they suspect a grow-op they need proof to evict. Landlords cannot just walk in an inspect the premises anytime, they must give the renter notice which is reasonable for most renters, but to catch illegal activities and get proof is near impossible.
I agree there are some landlords that really don't care, so I assume those are the ones they are after, but will likely end up being the honest ones that get nailed.

It is the landlords house but it is the tenant's home. It is very difficult to kick somebody out of their home. All landlords should be mandated to have a tenancy agreement and if they don't have one receive a hefty fine. There is a landlord in the VLA that owns 20+ houses. He could care less who is in the house and he accepts big cash, no paperwork, no questions asked.....as soon as one crack shack is busted he has another one waiting. He is making big cash bucks and turns a blind eye to what is happening. And everyone wonders why there is a drug problem in the VLA . This guy should be the target of any new bylaws....everyone knows who he is ! A legitimate landlord can write a 14 day or 30 day inspection into the lease agreement until the tenant proves himself. Good tenants have nothing to hide and would agree but the crackshacks would not. Time to make these guys pay. www.gangstersout.com

As a landlord, I too am concerned by the conflict created by the proposed bylaw. Being familiar with the Residential Tenancy Act, my hands are tied for inspection purposes.
I may inspect my tenanted property once a month and must give 24 hours notice first. My tenant can tell me that it is inconvenient for him/her at that time and ask that I change it to another day. If we cannot agree on a time/date then I must apply to the Residential Tenancy Office (RTO) for a hearing date to settle the dispute. This involves fees and in order to succeed, both parties have to be willing to participate. One party to the dispute can get a ruling in their favour if it is proved that co-operation will not occur. This could take 2 - 3 weeks depending on how busy the RTO is at the time. Then the ruling and all the paperwork involved needs to be served on the tenant and a waiting period observed to allow reasonable time to say they have indeed been served and have waived any right they have to dispute the RTO decision on the original dispute. So now at least another week or two has passed. Then I get to apply for an Order of Possession which allows me to take back possession of my house. If the tenant does not wish to honour that Order, I will need to contract the services of the County Sheriff. For another fee, they will evict my tenant. I would guess the whole process will take 5 - 8 weeks, should it not be interupted by a raid by the RCMP. At the end of it who can say what condition my rental property will be in. Was it a grow-op, meth lab or storefront? Will it have been destroyed by the tenant, police or chemicals? Will it be perfectly fine, in need of a paint job only? Would a landlord be protected by using the services of a property management company? I am not sure if I would even know what to look for on an inspection that would alert me to illegal use of my property. I would be in favour of a bylaw that worked within the rules of the RTO. If a landlord violates the Act, the tenant can also file a dispute. How would the proposed bylaw reconcile the potential conflict? It would save landlords a lot of time and expense if there was something with "teeth" to evict bad tenants and possibly reduce the risk of a trashed property.
I too would be interested in hearing the real stories on the situation in Surrey as a result of their bylaw. Is it working how it is supposed to, and are landlords being supported or shafted?

Any bylaw can't and won't trump the Residential Tenancy Act. A municipal bylaw can't trump a provincial statute so you are going to have to work within the best you can. You can write anything "reasonable" into the tenancy agreement....either the tenant agrees or not. If not, red flags should be going up the pole. It is too late once the tenant has moved into your property. You don't what to look for????....ask the neighbours, they will know. Accept only cheques with the tenants name....criminals don't identify themselves ! Don't accept cash from some buddy who happens to show up. www.gangstersout.com

Okay, so I went looking because this interests me as well. One of the reasons is that originally this was coupled with the authority to confiscate property. That is the part I am unsure of whether it was tested in court yet and whether it was upheld. It was the topic of discussion at one time on Opinion 250 as well.

So here is the bylaw from Surrey

http://surrey.fileprosite.com/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=21100

While you are looking at that, see how nicely bylaws of that city are made available on the net. In the meantime this city has said mañana for over 3 years at least when OUR web site is criticized for being totally useless for the purpose a city web site is to fulfil.

That bylaw was enacted in 2006. Actually that bylaw was modelled after the "District of West Vancouver" bylaw of 2005 http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Your_Government/Bylaws/Controlled%20Substance%20Nuisance%20Bylaw%20No.%204417,%202005.pdf

My opinion of the Surrey Bylaw is that there are several elements which apply to ANY activity within private property that could cause some of the changes to be made yet they are not specifically covered for such other possible property problems that one might see in structures with leaking basements, too many animals in a building (typically far too many cats with urine all over the place), just general poor maintenance that allows houses to deteriorate.

Here are a couple of things that actually apply to other properties as well:

1. A person, must not disconnect, tamper with or bypass a meter installed for the purpose of ascertaining consumption of electricity, water or natural gas from an electrical, water or natural gas distribution system.

2. A person must not divert or install exhaust vents for hot water tanks or furnaces to exhaust into or within a building except by way of an exhaust vent constructed or installed in compliance with applicable provincial and City enactments.

3. A person must not store or use dangerous goods in a building in quantities greater than permitted under the British Columbia Fire Code

4. A person must not:
(a) construct or install any obstruction of an exit or an access to an exit required under the Building Code or other enactment; or
(b) remove fire stopping provided or required under an enactment, to contain the spread of fire within a building.

5. A person must not cause or allow a building to become subject to the growth of mould or fungus …..

6. A person must not cause, allow or permit:
(a) a nuisance as a result of his or her use of occupancy of a parcel; or
(b) water, rubbish or unsightly matter to collect or accumulate in, on, under or around a parcel owned, used or occupied by the person.

7. A person must not cause, allow or permit in a building the manufacture, growing, storage, transfer or disposal of a substance that emits odours, fumes or particulate matter that disturbs the enjoyment, health, comfort or convenience of individuals.
--------------------------------------

I question how well this clause will be enforced:
Every person who is the registered owner of a parcel that contains a building, a structure or other premise that is subject to a tenancy agreement:
(a) must inspect the premises, building or structure at least once during every period of three consecutive calendar months to ascertain whether this bylaw has been contravened; ….

That means a lot of places will all of the sudden be inspected 4 times a year in this city by landlords that were never inspected before other than when tenants changed.

And, if the city were to require all landlords to register their buildings that are leased, then the City could require each one to send in their inspection reports 4 times a year. We could create a whole new position or positions at City Hall for that.

Then there is this weasel clause:
Neither the issuance of a building permit nor the removal of a "Do Not Occupy" notice posted under section 7.1 under this bylaw nor the acceptance or review of plans, drawings or specifications or supporting documents nor any inspections made by or on behalf of the City constitute in any way a representation, warranty, assurance or statement that the Building Code, this bylaw or any other applicable codes, standards or enactments have been complied with.

In other words, the inspectors inspect but do not warrant their inspections.

When a qualified professional, professional engineer, architect or other person provides certification or other documentation to the City under this bylaw that the work required by or contemplated by this bylaw substantially conforms to the requirements of this bylaw and that the building complies with the health and safety requirements of the Building Code, British Columbia Electrical Code, this bylaw and all other health and safety requirements established by applicable enactments, the City will rely solely on the documentation as evidence of conformity with these requirements and not on its receipt of plans, monitoring of the work, acknowledgement of completion,

So, as usual, when it comes to the inspection of buildings in this community, the City has all the power and authority but none of the responsibility. Wish I could get a job like that?

The main problem with all of this that I see is that what really should be a general applicability bylaw to ALL building uses and changes in buildings, is only implicitly there for other buildings and is explicitly there for grow ops.

Grow vegetables for the family hydroponically, or install something like a hot tub improperly some of the same problems can occur, yet the consequences with respect to city oversight will not be the same.

THAT is the loophole I see in this bylaw when it comes to a court challenge. Make it generally applicable, which it can easily be done, and you have yourself a bylaw which will likely be upheld in court. I think a good lawyer will take that route if anyone has the money to fight it. And, therein lies the crutch that the city is leaning on in my opinion.

Banner, under 29(1)(b) of the Act

A landlord must not enter a rental unit that is subject to a tenancy agreement for any purpose unless one of the following applies:
(b) at least 24 hours and not more than 30 days before the entry, the landlord gives the tenant written notice that includes the following information:
(i) the purpose for entering, which must be reasonable;

The purpose cited would be the City Bylaw. That would "reasonable" cause.

The problem is that the Act does not allow regular inspections to be written into an agreement because of the wording of this clause: "notice .... not more than 30 days before the entry". So you are left with sending notice 4 times a year.

Since this is not a new bylaw in this province, simply check to see whether the ministry responsible for the Act has provided some guidelines around this.

Actually the City, if they are proactive on this, may already have done some work on this.

I am not sure if the landlord is allowed to assign an agent. There are landlords who are living out of town and they have to come into town every three months. Remember, this is ALL landlords, not just those who are landlords of known grow ops.

Here is the report from Surrey of the effectiveness of the "Electrical Fire Safety Inspection Program".

I think it is important to highlight the content of the article which mainly deals with efforts that are related to the bylaw only from the point of view of fees collected in association with the bylaw and inspection powers which really should be there without the bylaw, in my opinion, since the electrical inspections deal with possible theft of a utility as well as illegal alterations to electrical distribution within a building.

The City has been active in promoting the following four strategies:
1. An increase in tax audits of illegal drug production income through the sharing of information between local and federal authorities;
2. Regulation of the sale of the sophisticated high-wattage hydroponics equipment used in most grow operations;
3. Provision in legislation for local monitoring of LICENSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS, WHICH SHARE THE SAME PUBLIC SAFETY RISKS AS ILLEGAL GROW OPERATIONS; and
4. Support for research focused on eliminating illegal narcotics production, including the development of new detection technology, the assessment of regional programs and the completion of baseline studies of Canada’s marijuana trade.
The EFSI Program will continue to operate in 2010 with one team processing 10-15 files per week, generated from Hydro consumption data or through RCMP Crime Stopper Tips. The program remains completely self sufficient, being FUNDED THOUGH THE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BYLAW.

There has been a sharp decrease in the number of files generated through hydro consumption data provided to the City.


There has also been a dramatic decrease in the instances of residential fires associated with marijuana grow operations.
The assumption is that the number of grow ops have decreased.

However, there is no proof by only looking at that data.

Use a generator to generate the electricity for light off grid. Use gas/oil to heat the building. Or go green and heat with wood and sell carbon credits. :-)

Fires? Be a bit more careful and all that can be done safely.

oops, forgot the link

http://www.surrey.ca/NR/exeres/64BC3C6B-EC00-4585-89ED-3A996F755596,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published

Get real! Do you think for one second that anyone in this business gives one piece of crap what rules, laws, bylaws or any other piece of legislation is enacted? It just complicates things for the honest, hard working Joe's trying to make a living.

Chester. I totally agree with you that it complicates things for the "honest, hard working" people.

Such laws are generally used against those who do not know their rights and/or do not have the ability to protect themselves. The ones to be careful of are the bureaucrats who could not care less who upset in the process.

While some may be guilty of what they are accused of, others are quite innocent. And, as you say, they will be the ones to suffer.

Another law means another 1,000 interpretations of that law, only one of which will be the right one. Many innocent people will have to suffer through the other 999 as they begin to deal with a number of people, several of whom will likely intimidate them.