News (Media Awareness Project) - CN AB: Homegrown Solution |
Title: | CN AB: Homegrown Solution |
Published On: | 2009-09-02 |
Source: | Lethbridge Herald (CN AB) |
Fetched On: | 2009-09-03 19:19:56 |
HOMEGROWN SOLUTION
Province-wide standards are being proposed to ensure Albertans don't
get burned by unwittingly buying or renting homes formerly used as
marijuana growing operations.
New guidelines being proposed by the Alberta Real Estate Association
would set uniform remediation standards for such properties across
Alberta and would legally require sellers to disclose whether homes
have any history as grow ops, even after they've been restored.
"We're looking at this strictly as consumer protection," said Bill
Fowler, director of industry and government relations for the
association. "Our fear is always that someone is going to give it a
five-gallon overhaul and not do the work that needs to be done.
The proposed guidelines are based on work by a team of researchers
from the University of Calgary. The association plans to present the
recommended guidelines to the provincial health and municipal affairs
ministries this fall for consideration.
Right now, there is no consistent standard for what constitutes a
satisfactory remediation for former grow op houses, said Tang Lee,
the U of C environmental design professor who led the research
project. In addition to reducing potential health risks to future
occupants of former drug houses, uniform guidelines would ultimately
reduce costs as well as the likelihood of legal action after such
properties have been sold, said Lee, an internationally recognized
expert in building failure and indoor air quality.
The local health region follows remediation standards used in Calgary
which are higher than standards in some other cities, notably Edmonton.
"Every municipality has a different way of approaching former grow
ops and how they're remediated. It's variable right across the
province. It's variable right across Canada," he said.
"There are differences of opinion in what constitutes proper
remediation of these homes," he said, adding some requirements go too
far while others don't go far enough.
Typical problems in grow-op houses are toxic moulds from the damp
conditions, structural damage from holes being drilled in exterior
walls, and overloaded electrical systems. Because power is usually
cut off to such homes as a precaution, mould problems can also arise
because of burst water pipes due to a resulting lack of heat during winter.
Public health inspectors issue orders condemning such homes as unfit
for human habitation, and those orders aren't lifted until adequate
remediation work is completed. But that doesn't prevent a condemned
house from being sold at a discount to someone who thinks he can fix
it up easily.
"There are a lot of houses that sell as is, where is," said Heather
Langemann, a local health inspector for Alberta Health Services.
"There's a lot of people who think they're do-it-yourselfers," she
said. "(Remediation) is not cheap, it's not easy."
Costs for remediation, including the required air quality testing,
typically range between $25,000 and $30,000.
The proposed guidelines also include tighter disclosure requirements
so sellers would be legally required to indicate on their sales
contracts whether homes have been previously been used as grow ops.
Audrey King, president of the Lethbridge and District Association of
Realtors, said she would welcome the proposed guidelines.
Even after they've been fixed up, former grow op homes are still
harder to sell, she said, because they carry a stigma. A uniform
stamp of approval might help lessen that stigma and give prospective
buyers a greater level of assurance, she said.
Tighter monitoring and accreditation of contractors who do remedial
works are also being recommended.
"We're finding out that the consultants who come in do this moulds
remediation are not necessarily qualified. There's no standard as to
who can call themselves a moulds remediator or an indoor air quality
consultant," Lee said. "Some may be very good, but others may be very
inadequate."
Homeowners could themselves having to pay twice for remediation work
if the original work fails to meet structural and air quality
standards, he added.
Province-wide standards are being proposed to ensure Albertans don't
get burned by unwittingly buying or renting homes formerly used as
marijuana growing operations.
New guidelines being proposed by the Alberta Real Estate Association
would set uniform remediation standards for such properties across
Alberta and would legally require sellers to disclose whether homes
have any history as grow ops, even after they've been restored.
"We're looking at this strictly as consumer protection," said Bill
Fowler, director of industry and government relations for the
association. "Our fear is always that someone is going to give it a
five-gallon overhaul and not do the work that needs to be done.
The proposed guidelines are based on work by a team of researchers
from the University of Calgary. The association plans to present the
recommended guidelines to the provincial health and municipal affairs
ministries this fall for consideration.
Right now, there is no consistent standard for what constitutes a
satisfactory remediation for former grow op houses, said Tang Lee,
the U of C environmental design professor who led the research
project. In addition to reducing potential health risks to future
occupants of former drug houses, uniform guidelines would ultimately
reduce costs as well as the likelihood of legal action after such
properties have been sold, said Lee, an internationally recognized
expert in building failure and indoor air quality.
The local health region follows remediation standards used in Calgary
which are higher than standards in some other cities, notably Edmonton.
"Every municipality has a different way of approaching former grow
ops and how they're remediated. It's variable right across the
province. It's variable right across Canada," he said.
"There are differences of opinion in what constitutes proper
remediation of these homes," he said, adding some requirements go too
far while others don't go far enough.
Typical problems in grow-op houses are toxic moulds from the damp
conditions, structural damage from holes being drilled in exterior
walls, and overloaded electrical systems. Because power is usually
cut off to such homes as a precaution, mould problems can also arise
because of burst water pipes due to a resulting lack of heat during winter.
Public health inspectors issue orders condemning such homes as unfit
for human habitation, and those orders aren't lifted until adequate
remediation work is completed. But that doesn't prevent a condemned
house from being sold at a discount to someone who thinks he can fix
it up easily.
"There are a lot of houses that sell as is, where is," said Heather
Langemann, a local health inspector for Alberta Health Services.
"There's a lot of people who think they're do-it-yourselfers," she
said. "(Remediation) is not cheap, it's not easy."
Costs for remediation, including the required air quality testing,
typically range between $25,000 and $30,000.
The proposed guidelines also include tighter disclosure requirements
so sellers would be legally required to indicate on their sales
contracts whether homes have been previously been used as grow ops.
Audrey King, president of the Lethbridge and District Association of
Realtors, said she would welcome the proposed guidelines.
Even after they've been fixed up, former grow op homes are still
harder to sell, she said, because they carry a stigma. A uniform
stamp of approval might help lessen that stigma and give prospective
buyers a greater level of assurance, she said.
Tighter monitoring and accreditation of contractors who do remedial
works are also being recommended.
"We're finding out that the consultants who come in do this moulds
remediation are not necessarily qualified. There's no standard as to
who can call themselves a moulds remediator or an indoor air quality
consultant," Lee said. "Some may be very good, but others may be very
inadequate."
Homeowners could themselves having to pay twice for remediation work
if the original work fails to meet structural and air quality
standards, he added.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...