MODERN-DAY REEFER MADNESS

Sophie Tucker, a Russian-born vaudeville entertainer who alternately shocked
and delighted U.S. audiences in the early 1900s with her brazen wit, is
probably best remembered for her one-liner on financial status: "I've been
poor and I've been rich. Rich is better."

But what is "rich" exactly?

Recently, federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough suggested it was anyone making
$60,000 a year. Those earning minimum wage might argue it's a lot less than
that. And reality-shunning dot-commers likely subscribe to a
one-to-the-power-of-10 definition, at least until they outgrow their
skateboards.

(There is also a sub-section of "rich" popular with well-meaning aunts and
grandmothers, who emphasize qualities one can't put a price on, as in, "He
may not have money or be good-looking, dear, but he's devoted to you." For
the purposes of this column, we'll stick with the cold, hard cash variety of
wealth).

Then there's the age-old assumption that landlords (even the name evokes a
certain snobbery), are well-to-do, rolling in it, Scrooge McDuck rich.

This perception was reinforced this week with the news Surrey is considering
creating a marijuana grow-op tax to be levied on landlords for any reefer
madness committed by their tenants. Officials say homeowners could be on the
hook for $600 - the cost of a police raid.

School levies, secondary suite fees... now a duty on dope? This is user-fee
mania gone out of control.

Borrowing from Ms. Tucker's analogy, I've been a renter and a landlord.
Owning a home is better. But it didn't make me rich.

However, try telling that to a certain tenants' rights organization, which
enthusiastically answered my rental questions until it found out I was from
the Dark Side, and then curtly referred me somewhere else.

Or play the Evict Me, I Dare You game with a renter who is methodically
destroying your property far beyond what any lousy damage deposit will
cover.

I once had to replace a carpet, kitchen faucets and a commode ("Choo haff a
piece uv vood in jor toilet!" the horrified Roto Rooter man exclaimed) after
a six-month occupant left. She said it was normal wear and tear.

In fact, after grappling with the ups and downs of housing - buying,
selling, renting and squatting - for nearly 20 years, I know one thing:
tenants have it made.

A lot of laws are on their side, and now Surrey wants to add one more.

Got a grow op? No worries. Once you shrug off the milquetoast punishment the
courts give you, your landlord will pay the municipal fines and cover any
renovations that are needed due to the unauthorized alterations you
performed in quest of the ultimate bud.

I say bill renters for their illegal activity. Otherwise, landlords will
have to resort to surprise inspections, which won't sit well with whiny
tenants accustomed to privacy rights.

Or how about including a marijuana grow-op clause on all rental contracts:
"The tenant agrees to share with the landlord, all profits (percentage
negotiable) accumulated from lucrative pot sales."

After all, homeowners aren't rich, you know.