BUYERS BEWARE OF FORMER GROW-OPS

There's No Consistent Method to Find Out If a Home Has a Toxic Past Or
Not

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's
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's a big investment," Kammerle said.

Their case illustrates the challenge home buyers across Canada
sometimes face to get detailed information about a home's history and
- - in cases where they do learn about a past clandestine growing
operation or drug lab - 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
home buyers greater peace of mind.

Right now, there is no consistent way for prospective home buyers 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 home
buyers would be to require municipal or provincial author-ities 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 follow-up 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 said.

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, said
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.," Schmidt said.

"It's a very lucrative industry to be in. I think standards and
credentials got lost in the whole mix of things," he added.

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," 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?" he said.