DRUG-HOUSE BYLAW WORRIES SOME CITY COUNCILLORS

Divided city councillors expressed concern Monday night about a new
bylaw that makes landlords responsible for tenants' drug operations.

Councillors Jan Stick and Florence Roberts both said they had concerns
with a proposed drug house bylaw that would likely take effect by
mid-September.

"I don't think we have any business there," said Roberts at last
night's city council meeting, referring to the remediation process by
which landlords would pay to repair properties damaged by drug
production, such as a marijuana grow or amphetamine operations.

The city's administrative director, Robert Fendrick, said this morning
there is currently no system in place to protect unsuspecting
homeowners or tenants from living in a former drug operation house.

"The owner could pretty much paint and paper over the walls and sell
it," he said. Council heard last week that there are health and safety
risks associated with structural and environmental damage to a
building as a result of illegal drug production.

"Even after a grow operation is removed, significant health issues
remain for unsuspecting buyers," said Roberts, reading from a prepared
statement at last night's meeting.

The proposed bylaw sets standards that would prevent mould and
structural damage from being covered up, said Fendrick.

Rather than being a city-led inspection process, however, the bylaw
puts the onus on landlords.

The proposed bylaw says if a landlord suspects tenants are engaging in
illicit activity, he or she must alert city bylaw and RCMP. Otherwise,
the landlord will shoulder the enormous inspection and repair costs of
making the space safe for future tenants, as well as bylaw fines that
can total $84,000.

Fendrick said repairs can include replacing electrical and plumbing
systems, and removing mould.

"I would suggest landlords be checking monthly," Fendrick told council
members last night.

Some have said monthly visits from landlords to check up on tenants
are going too far.

"That's pretty invasive, and we don't want that," said city bylaw
manager John Taylor this morning. Landlords that are diligent and work
with bylaw and RCMP will not be penalized, he said.

"We're not after the fines," he said. "The only time we'd go to court
is if the landlord isn't working with us." He said he would be open to
facilitating a discussion where RCMP tell landlords what to look for
in terms of suspicious behaviour and other clues, so that they would
not have to resort to monthly checkups on their tenants.

"There's always an odour around the house," he said. When landlords
put clues together, such as odour, or very little trash, and various
people coming in and out, they should go to bylaw or the RCMP, and
then they have done their part.

"What we're doing is we're putting one more tool in the tool chest of
crime prevention," said Fendrick.

The proposed bylaw received its first and second readings at last
night's city council meeting.

"I have my doubts about spreading our wings too far," said Roberts,
after the second reading. "We should make demands of other
departments."

She said it should not necessarily be the city's job to clamp down on
landlords, and that perhaps another avenue would be more
appropriate.

Coun. Doug Graham said he would be voting in favour of this bylaw when
it came time for the third and final reading, but that he wanted to
hear from the public.

"I'm interested in seeing what people impacted by such a bylaw have to
say about it." The next council meeting at which Whitehorse residents
could voice their concerns will be next Tuesday, Sept. 4, said
Fendrick last night. Residents can also contact councillors directly
in the interim.

Fendrick said the bylaw could become legislation by mid-September if
it is adopted and passed by council.