TRACKING DRUG HOUSES ESSENTIAL

Buying a new home is scary enough without worry that it might have a
criminal past, especially when prospective homeowners are operating
at the outer limits of affordability.

As we've seen in the past couple of months, future risks can be
significant. The housing market can cool and prices decline, eroding
your equity to the point where you could end up owing more than it's worth.

Your mortgage could come up for renewal at a time when interest rates
have gone up, rendering your payments unaffordable.

But, historically, over time those risks have been less important
than the risk of hidden defects, such as we've seen with leaky condos.

A home inspection can reduce the risk, but even trained home
inspectors may not spot any physical signs that a house was
previously used as a marijuana growing operation, leaving it with
hidden damage that can require tens of thousands of dollars in repairs.

The risk is not just financial. Growing operations can leave homes
with hidden electrical or structural hazards in addition to mould
that can cause respiratory problems that can be serious for some people.

Four years ago, the British Columbia Real Estate Association amended
its standard Property Disclosure Statement to require sellers to tell
buyers if they were aware that their property had been used as a
growing operation or for the manufacture of illegal drugs.

That was a good start, but it's reasonable to assume that sellers
willing to ignore criminal restrictions on marijuana cultivation
might also be willing to lie.

Buyers need access to a more reliable source of information on
whether the home into which they are about to pour their life savings
has had any scrapes with the law.

So the suggestion by Kevin Neufeld, president of the Fraser Valley
Real Estate Board, that a provincial registry be created to list
residences used for growing operations has merit. Such a registry
would not capture every house used for growing marijuana, since many
go undetected by authorities.

It's probably not worth trying to create a registry that tracks
renovations that can make a house fit again for habitation because it
will be expensive and add to the cost of buying a house.

By creating a registry that simply lets buyers know that a residence
has been used as a growing operation will provide a caution flag that
would allow them to insist the vendor provide proof that the home he
or she is selling is indeed safe.

It would also add an economic incentive for landlords to make sure
that prospective tenants are not planning to use their property for
illegal agriculture.

Growing operations are not good neighbours. A registry could help
drive them out.