Pubdate: Sat, 15 Jan 2011
Source: Abbotsford News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2011 Abbotsford News
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/BkAJKrUD
Website: http://www.abbynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1155
Authors: Neil Corbett and Kevin Mills
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

POT BYLAW 'CASH COW,' SAY CRITICS

The District of Mission is facing a class action
lawsuit from residents who say their homes were
illegally searched by the grow-op busting Public
Safety Inspection Team, and the B.C. Civil
Liberties Association, working on their behalf,
is in discussion with lawyers this week.

The litigants claim the program, with its $5,200
inspection fees, is little more than a cash cow for the municipality.

In 2009, Mission dealt with 219 files and levied
137 inspection fees, bringing $712,400 to the district for the year.

Many Lower Mainland municipalities developed such
teams to combat grow-ops, including Abbotsford.
But Gordon Ferguson, Abbotsford's manager of
bylaw enforcement, is not worried about a lawsuit.

The city's team is far less active than when it
first was formed, and now generally links its
safety inspections with police busts.

The Abbotsford Public Safety Inspection Team
formed in 2005, and by 2007 there were three
teams of inspectors. They investigated 725
properties, and 150 confirmed grow-ops were shut
down that year. Those in violation faced $4,500 in inspection fees.

Now there is only one team, and no longer a
separate manager for the program. In 2010,
Abbotsford performed 47 inspections. Of those, 45
were found to be engaged in illegal activity (43
marijuana grow-ops and two meth labs). The 45
successful inspections generated $33,000 in fines
and approximately $250,000 in fees.

Ferguson said the number of grow-op tips from the
public are way down from when the program
started, and it's likely many growers have packed up and left the city.

In light of the Mission lawsuit, Ferguson is not
overly concerned about legal challenges.

Bylaws are subject to challenges. All bylaws are,=94 he said.

One of the leaders of the lawsuit is Mission
resident Stacy Gowanlock. Gowanlock said his
property came onto the PSIT team's radar because
of high hydro usage =AD properties are flagged at
93 kWh per day. He has a 6,000-square-foot home,
a detached 1,200-square-foot shop, an outdoor
pool, a hot tub and landscape lighting. His
property was using between 102 and 140 kWh per day.

And they feel it gives them the right to come into your home.=94

He says it took just 15 minutes for inspectors to
say they had found evidence of a former grow-op.

Gowanlock has been fighting city hall for more
than a year, and has found other Mission residents with similar stories.

In November, the district said it would be
reviewing the process which allows the PSIT team
to enter homes. But Monday, chief administrative
officer Glen Robertson said =93the program is operating as it always has.=94

David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association
said his group is concerned that municipal
officials are using bylaws to get around the
constitutional requirements of police officers,
which he called =93an unconstitutional approach to the law.=94

The association was an intervenor in a Surrey
case in May 2010 that found Surrey safety
inspections were contrary to the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. He said the case against
Mission could be expensive if the courts order
that fines are to be refunded, and particularly if damages are awarded.

Municipalities should leave police to police work,=94 said Eby.

The B.C. Court of appeal ruled that Surrey's
municipal grow-op program, the first of its kind,
violates the Charter. However, Surrey's program
continued with =93minor tweaks,=94 according to fire chief Len Garis.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom