Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:46 am Post subject: City of Victoria Finds a Way to Profit off of Crystal Meth
It seems Victoria's Mayor and Council is considering a by-law that could have all landlords pulling out their cheque books - should they rent to an addict.
I spoke with a Constable knowledgable of the meth initiative here in Victoria. He supports this draft by-law from Chilliwack in principle: http://www.chilliwack.com/main/attachments/files/1130/Draft%202%20-%20Model%20Controlled%20substance%20Bylaw.doc. The Officer informs me that this by-law will target landlords who knowingly rent with the intent to use the home to prepare, use, and/ or distribute amphetamines, dextroamphetamines and methamphetamines. I am told this by-law will target landlords who accept excessive monthly rent payments, which are usually paid by cash, with the understanding that the landlord will not provide a periodic home check. However, if Council leave the by-law as is, like they did in Kelowna, ALL landlords will be affected.
The City will be able to order discontinued water or other service to the home, at the request of anyone the City deems. A Peace Officer will also be able to enter without meeting the current expectations for legal entry. Contamination experts can then go into the home to consequence landlords with the list of renos that must be done to decontaminate - including ripping out ceilings, walls and carpets - within 2 weeks. If you don't move fast enough, the City will renovate for you - at your expense. Before the home can be rented again, another inspection must occur. Each step has a cost and, if the charges and fines are not paid in a timely way, they all get added onto your taxes.
Has it not occurred to our Mayor and Council that there is already a consequence to anyone who finds themselves dealing with crack users/ meth labs etc? All landlords, who are victim to a lab and/ or the use of crack/ meth in their home, face hefty reno costs due to the toxic environment left behind when the tenant moves out. The smell is distinct. Crystal meth does not dissipate; crystal meth permeates.
The draft by-law will penalize all landlords who fall victim to meth users; at the same time, it opens the door to serious privacy concerns. Despite all the problems I have had dealing with my meth addict boarder, I take exception to the idea that enforcement should have the right to enter any residence without proper process - particularly as policy makers ease Victoria into private-for-profit enforcement.
Currently, Victoria contracts a private-for-profit "peace officer"; this contract gives the business agent the authority to purchase a shiny new badge with which he can detain anyone he deems suspicious. This fellow (and his hand-picked field platoon) can demand your personal information on the street, and enter onto your property but may not enter the residence. The private-for-profit authority is not required to have formal police training; no instruction in mental health/ psychology, and no social/ human service education. Victoria's taxpayers pay this particular contractor nearly $400,000 annually to provide service.
Sadly, landlords are still left with a grinding Residential Tenancy Act process; this is particularly disconcerting considering the tenant's shaking security for shelter, never mind the detriment of the illegal activity. The Provincial Arbitrator's rulings remain completely unenforceable. Drug induced tenants are able to stay in the home, and ignore formal notices to inspect the suite.
Happily, once landlords find out the Arbitrator has no authority, they can pay private-for-profit "bailiffs" between $900 and $3000 for an eviction. When I told Envoy Bailiffs, which is another private-for-profit enforcement agency, that I don't have that much money to officially remove threat from my home; they threatened to have me arrested should I take it upon myself to move my boarder's things out or changed the locks! And the contamination of my home continued.
Unfortunately, landlords are not blessed with a crystal ball to discern who will become an addict after 6 months, one year, or even 3 years of tenancy. As a landlord, I am extremely concerned that the draft by-law will encourage landlords to refuse to accept (discriminate against) tenants who "might" turn to this drug.
We all heard Dan Scoones, Victoria's Senior By-law Enforcement Officer, lament over having to repeatedly contact deadbeat landlords who refuse to clean up their contaminated property. To remedy this, Victoria's Mayor and Council adopted a by-law to give Mr. Scoones more power just last year: http://www.victoria.ca/common/pdfs/bylaw04-65.pdf Definition of noxious: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=noxious So, why does Victoria now need another by-law that so heavily penalizes so many, and why doesn't Mr. Scoones enforce a by-law Victoria has had for over a year?
The draft by-law reminds me of a municipal cash grab at the expense of all landlords, and that is wrong. We are talking about a living poison here. In my opinion, Councillor Helen Hughes' proposed draft by-law penalizes all landlords - with or without an addicted tenant. Housing will be impossible for anyone to find, should this proceed.
Helen, this bylaw has no recourse on addicts or property owners who rent to addicts.
The bylaw is applicable where property owners decide to permit, through willfull blindness, a clandestine lab to manufacture drugs at a premises. The bylaw is solely designed to protect the local community from the massive policing costs borne by a municipality once a lab is uncovered. Taxpayers are, without such a bylaw, responsible for the disposal costs of all seized chemicals, manufacturing equipment and associated contaminated paraphernalia. These items must be transported, stored and disposed in a manner respecting environmental regulations and court evidentiary process. Presently, all items seized from a clandestine laboratory must be shipped to the lower mainland and later disposed in Alberta, Quebec or Washington state.
These costs are quite staggering and come on top of the expenses charged to municipalities (taxpayers) for additional specialized police and fire personnel and their equipment.
Jurisdictions without such a bylaw may very well attract individuals looking to establish drug laboratories. People who support these labs should be held accountable and responsible for the disposal.
Property owners who demonstrate an interest in their property have nothing to fear other than a property owner who believes financial gain is more important than community health.
Thank you for your reply, Constable Fraser. I have not heard the results of the City's lawyer's opinion to your endorsed by-law thus my comments may be redundant. In response to your generous reply, however, I do have one other question I hope you will answer.
As you are aware, meth can be produced in larger commercial-sized operations or in small labs almost anywhere - in houses, garages, back rooms of businesses, apartments, hotel rooms, storage facilities, and vacant buildings and even in vehicles. The majority of clandestine labs are located in rural areas - mostly due to the ease of ingredient availability, and innocuous/ discrete location.
What statistics/ reference have you to justify introduction of a law that will permit gross privileges of entry, likely by private for profit enforcement, but that will penalize only landlords who decide to permit, through willful blindness, a clandestine lab to manufacture drugs at a premises, within the urban City of Victoria?
The fact is, with increased communication ease, specialized progressive enforcement will always be a need. Citizens have confidence in technology available to ensure the highest caliber of training to keep you, and those depending on your expertise, safe. In addition, I do hope policy makers will work to open communication between businesses, health, schools, Social Services, and the legal system as this is a very important part of the solution to most complicated problems. The "bad guys" will never go away but behaviour can be kept in check - by working together.
brad wrote:
Property owners who demonstrate an interest in their property have nothing to fear other than a property owner who believes financial gain is more important than community health.
Along with my family, and the seniors in my immediate neighbourhood, I lived in absolute terror. My Boarder and his sketchy friends drove me to sleepless nights; I had no idea when or if we would all simply blow up. I worried while at work and I worried while at home. My elderly neighbours were sick by all of this - they feared for me and my family, for their homes and for their welfare. My addict had no problem knocking on neighbour's doors in search of money. In all, we called the police! Please do not minimize the horror we experienced. We lived in fear - justified fear - and each of us demonstrated an interest in our property.
Thank you once again for your reply *edit: and for the focused leadership you and the rest of the team are taking in this initiative.
And Victoria is eased a bit further into unregulated private for profit enforcement.
helen
_____________________
Animal control and more
Private patrol officers to enforce city bylaws
Malcolm Curtis, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, March 10, 2006
Victoria's dog catchers will soon be responsible for more than ensuring Rover is licensed and on a leash in city parks.
The capital's animal-control officers will be able to deal with such park issues as illegal campers, cycling in prohibited areas, lighting campfires, littering and the picking of flowers.
Council agreed Thursday to beef up on a trial basis the powers of the three officers employed by Victoria Animal Control Services.
The city has contracted the company, headed by Ian Fraser, to provide animal-control services throughout the community.
People often approach the uniformed officers in parks to deal with violations unrelated to dogs or other animals, but they have been powerless to take action, said Mike Leskiw, city parks manager.
The proposal to increase their role "seems reasonable," said Mayor Alan Lowe, although several councillors were concerned about employees of a private company taking on the job of a bylaw officer.
Lowe noted that the animal-control officers are trained in bylaw enforcement.
Leskiw said there are cost advantages to having the animal-control officers doing double duty. Council has backed spending $13,650 more to expand the animal-control program by an extra 455 hours per year to provide year-round coverage.
The change is expected to take effect later this month. A review is planned in September to determine whether it will continue beyond the one-year pilot period.
Leskiw said the new enforcers will fill a security vacuum, particularly in Beacon Hill Park. Parks staff have refused to enforce regulations since a city employee was stabbed by an illegal camper there last September.
The worker was injured in the stomach with a pitchfork grabbed from a city vehicle by a camper who was upset when the worker took his photo. The incident happened as the employee was doing a routine check of the park for illegal campers and drug paraphernalia.
Coun. Dean Fortin said the police should be dealing with such issues, and Coun. Sonya Chandler raised questions about how accountable the privately contracted employees will be to the city.
Leskiw said the animal-bylaw officers will be dealing with minor cases and alerting police for more serious matters.
Coun. Geoff Young supported the proposal, saying that he doubted the public would accept a "policy of non-confrontation" with park scofflaws.
Donna Atkinson, parks and community development director, said one of the primarily roles of the officers will be educational.
"They're not about to expand the Gestapo in the parks," she told council.
Now, city workers contact police when they, for example, come upon someone who is sleeping in the park. But police, who may have other more serious cases to deal with, often arrive too late to deal with the offender.
Animal-control officers, by contrast, are constantly patrolling parks. One was in the vicinity of Beacon Hill's protected heron rookery recently when a cyclist illegally pedalled through the nature sanctuary, Leskiw said.
The officer was helpless to deal with the incident because his powers were insufficient to act on the violation.
_____________________
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in
