GROW-OP BYLAW COULD BE TEMPLATE

Last week the municipality of Saanich came up with an interesting solution
to the problem of marijuana grow-operations that end up destroying the
house or apartment they are found to be occupying.

Saanich council unanimously passed a draft bylaw that would force the
owners of so-called grow houses to pay for the cleaning of carpets and
heating ducts, along with thorough safety inspections that need to be
carried out before a tenant can safely move back in.

Assuming the bylaw passes, Saanich would be the first municipality on the
Island with legislation to deal specifically with grow-ops. Similar bylaws
were enacted by councils in Abbotsford, Surrey and Langley following the
recent proliferation of grow houses in those cities.

While police in Ladysmith say grow-ops are not a huge concern in town, at
least one of the busts before Christmas was a grow raided by police once
before - with the same tenant and the same owner - raising the disturbing
spectre of collusion between landlord and tenant to grow marijuana on the
property.

Police confirm some landlords purposefully charge less rent than market
value in the hopes of attracting a tenant they can use as a sort of
indentured pot farmer.

While opponents of the Saanich bylaw argue it does nothing to discourage
criminals because it does not penalize them, the law is a good start
because it puts the onus on landlords to be responsible for their
properties. Good landlords would make the necessary repairs before a tenant
moves in anyway, so the law really only punishes irresponsible landlords,
both those who would rent out their houses chock full of toxic mold to
unsuspecting tenants, and those landlords mentioned above who enter into a
"grow arrangement" with their tenants.

As a further measure to prevent grow-ops, which would also offer some
protection for responsible landlords, police say the Landlord & Tenant Act
should be amended to allow landlords to regularly inspect their properties.
Most responsible tenants would not have a problem with such an amendment,
so long as there is reasonable respect for a person's privacy written into
the law.