LAX REGULATIONS LEAVE BUYERS OF FORMER GROW OPS VULNERABLE

No Consistent Way To Find Out If The Home You'Re
Interested In Purchasing Has A Toxic Past

Gord McCrea and Susan Kammerle bought a home on a
quiet cul-de-sac in Maple Ridge last year on the
understanding that a marijuana growing operation
that once occupied the basement had been small
and that there hadn't been any major tampering with the home=92s
infrastructure.

Provincial Court and municipal documents,
however, reveal that the basement growing
operation busted by police in May 2008 consisted
of almost 900 plants and that city inspectors
ordered the replacement, cleaning, fixing or
testing of the home's air ducts, gas lines, water
lines, plumbing fixtures and circuits.

After reading the documents for the first time,
the couple, who have two teenage children, went
silent. This information would have been nice to
have from the beginning, they said.

It's your home. It=92s a big investment,=94 Kammerle said.

Their case illustrates the challenge that
homebuyers across Canada sometimes face to get
detailed information about a home's history and =AD
in cases where they do learn about a past
clandestine growing operation or drug lab =AD to
decide whether it's safe to move in.

Some politicians, real estate associations and
building experts are calling for better
disclosure practices and uniform standards for
cleaning up homes that may contain toxic mould
and chemicals to give homebuyers greater peace of mind.

Right now, there is no consistent way for
prospective homebuyers to learn about a past growing operation or drug lab.

They might get information from a seller or
realtor. Some public agencies, such as Alberta
Health Services, and some police departments,
including those in Winnipeg and Ottawa, maintain
web pages that show the addresses of illegal drug operations.

And interested buyers might also request records
from municipal building departments or get
information by talking to neighbours.

Some industry observers say a better way to serve
prospective homebuyers would be to require
municipal or provincial authorities to insert
notices about growing operations and drug labs into land title documents.

But an inevitable question follows: How long do
you keep this information in a property's file? Forever?

Some in the real estate industry suggest there
wouldn't be a need for the records once the home has been rehabilitated.

Is it fair to have a permanent stigma attached to
a home, especially if a lot of money was spent to
clean up the house? asked Robert Laing, chief
executive officer of the B. C. Real Estate
Association. According to some estimates,
remediation jobs can range from $ 20,000 to $ 50,000.

University of Calgary professor Tang Lee, who has
studied the issue, suggests keeping the original
notice in the property's file but adding a
followup notice to show that the home has undergone remediation.

If the remediation has been done properly, the
value of the home shouldn't drop and might even improve, he added.

But even if disclosure methods are improved, that
only takes care of part of the problem, observers say.

While many Canadian municipalities have bylaws
that prevent homes with drug operations from
being re-occupied until remediation has been
done, there are no provincial or national standards guiding the process.

Jesse Schmidt, owner of Medallion Healthy Homes
of Canada, which oversaw the remediation work at
the Maple Ridge home in 2008, says national standards should be in place.

I know there are a number of fly-by-night
companies that have come and gone here in B. C.
It's a very lucrative industry to be in. I think
standards and credentials got lost in the whole mix of things,=94 he said.

The key for homeowners, he said, is to hire
companies that have been certified by
professional industrial hygiene boards in Canada or the U. S.

Just because a home was used as a grow-op doesn't
necessarily mean that the stigma should carry over forever,=94 Schmidt said.

Sitting on the porch of his Maple Ridge home,
McCrea said he's confident in the remediation
work that was performed on his home before he
moved in. In fact, before he bought the home, he
hired his own inspector, who found no problems.

Who else are you supposed to trust?=94 he said.