Followup to "It's not a grow-op"

The following was written after seeing 4 weeks of letters to the editor and followup articles in our local News paper following their story on the inspection of our home based on its use of more than 3 times the average power

---

Open letter to the British Columbia Government in general and the City of Pitt Meadows, their inspection department, and Leslie Elchuk, "Public Safety Inspection Team Coordinator" in particular.

On May 24th, 2007, I was subjected to an unwarranted (literally) search of my home. Even though I was given 24 hours notice, I was essentially given no choice in the matter as the notice said that if I didn't allow the search "An Entry Warrant will be obtained" and "Services may be disconnected."

Nowhere in the inspection notice was there any mention of the real law under which this "safety inspection" was being carried out; Bill 25--2006 under the Province of British Columbia which amends the Safety Standards Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 39. Only a vague reference to "a risk to public safety in your home under the Fire Services Act or Pitt Meadows Building Bylaw" was made - certainly not the "reasons for the intended entry and inspection" as required by the amendment (19.3(2)(c))  and there was certainly no notice that 3 police officers would demand that my home be completely vacated before the inspection was carried out.

And not one thing about the intended reason for the above noted amendment - marijuana grow operations.

Neither was there any indication of what was being inspected for - what the level of compliance with whichever law was to determine whether I would be hung with hundreds or thousands of dollars of costs to remediate. Was I to be hung for having copper-only fixtures in my mixed copper/aluminum wiring? (they're all CU/AL, I've checked!) or was I to be questioned under a hot light about the weak ground-fault breaker in my pool shed that runs my sump pump? Or maybe about the 3 power bars under my son's computer desk that connect his X-box to the plug about 8 feet away - and feed my wife's computer, monitor and UPS along the way?
What were the criteria I was to be judged under?

The complete account of the issue of the notice and inspection is detailed on my weblog at http://blog.pacdat.net/article.php/20070522182908401 including the fact that the notice was served by an RCMP officer, not a city official.

Read on for more...

Given that the notice was only accompanied by a bit of verbal information (from the RCMP officer) that its issue was due to "more than normal use of electricity" the criteria for its issue were vague and information on what, if anything in specific would be considered a transgression during the inspection, was non existent, I have to say that I was far more than taken aback, I was torn between anger and paranoia.

I was angry because the "crew" that delivered the notice was obviously not interested in any explanation, even if that explanation was more than reasonable. They refused my invite into my home at that time, and rebuffed the offered explanation for the high use of electricity that I have a larger than normal number of computers in the house due to my business, and that the computers are on 24 hours/day.

I was paranoid because I know that no matter how clean any citizen is in their ways of life, there are enough laws "on the books" that everyone is guilty of something - and although safety is one of the things that I particularly am conscious of, there are things in my home that I knew could be questioned by a competent electrical or home inspector.

I spent much of the next few hours agonizing over what I would do until 10:30 the next day. I certainly didn't get any work done.

As you probably know, my wife phoned the local paper, and I wrote an entry in my 'blog about what was going on and sent out some e-mail. I know many people who have even more computers in their home office than I do. Many of them are on one or another of some mail lists I'm on, and I sent a note pointing to my 'blog entry to the lists. One of the recipients happened to be doing some work for a reporter from Global TV - and talking to her at the time my message crossed his desk - so we ended up with both News and Global reporters at our home the next day - but that is somewhat beside the point and only incidental to this note.

The phoning and writing took up some time, but at the end I was still gripped with paranoia. I spent a couple of hours wandering around the house looking at the wiring. I even moved a couple of computers off one circuit and onto another; I was fairly sure that the total was nowhere near the maximum that the circuit could handle but the total of the maximum the power supplies in them could draw was about 50% more than the 15 amp circuit could safely supply. I also fixed a couple of places where I had two power bars in series, and put the fire extinguisher back into the downstairs rec room where several computers were; we'd had a flood a month earlier and just gotten things almost back to normal.

You see I really do believe in security and safety. I have 7 fire extinguishers in my home: kitchen, office, upstairs workroom, workshop, laundry, downstairs kitchen, and garage. I also know enough about electricity in general and house wiring in particular to be able to talk intelligently to an electrical installer and know that my home is well within code. I've had some wiring changes done by professionals even though by law I could have done it myself, and didn't bat an eye when told that the downstairs stove would have to be disconnected and removed because the new circuits I'd requested in my office upstairs pushed our 100 amp service over the allowable breaker limits if it stayed.

So I went and got the previous couple of months' electrical bills and started doing some calculations. Given the mumbled information that my use was over 3 times the "average" at something like 100 mumble-mumble/mumble - I figured out that since our use was something in excess of 3000 kilowatt-hours/month, the officer must have meant that we were using in excess of 100 kilowatt-hours/day - or what works out to something like 40 amps continuous - less than 3 X 15 amp circuits full - or less than 20% of what my home is rated at with its 100 amp 220 volt two-phase service entrance. Since then I've discovered that the maximum "allowed" is 93 KwH/day (3 times the "average" of 31 KwH) but have yet to find where that is shown in the actual statute.

Now I guess it is possible that someone could run double or triple the 40 amps I run for 1/2 or 1/3 the time and come up with the same usage - but they'd still be well within the limits of their service entrance.

And I guess that someone stupid could work really hard at getting double or triple out of a single circuit, at least for a short time, and come up with the same usage. Chances are that if they did though, the wiring would start a fire pretty quickly and the inspection would be moot.

But even if someone used their stove outlet (typically 40-60 amp 220 volt) at full rated output, using the same amount of electricity as I did, they wouldn't have any dangerous usage - they'd just have a hot room or two. I mean half my problem is getting rid of the heat that the computers generate.

On the other hand, anyone who seriously wanted to use lots of electricity either would get someone who knew a bit about wiring to put in the circuits, or wouldn't care and would likely bypass the meter so the use wouldn't show up anyway. Hmmm. I wonder if they're checking for under usage?

But enough of how much electricity it takes to draw the inspectors, let's look at what we're all being compared to and how absurd it is to use a single number to categorize anything, let alone the legal right to a warrantless search.

My son and his fiance just purchased a 1200 sq ft. townhouse. It's electrically heated.

My partner from our old web company, Wimsey, has a 5000+ sq ft house. It too is electrically heated.

Two ends of the scale that are more than 3 times difference in size, and the scale my home was rated upon was that it was more than 3 times the average use of electricity. What is average? Why isn't the average figured on a per square foot basis at minimum?

I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like comparing apples to turnips - not even in the same family.

In another vein, my next door neighbour leaves her home at about 6AM and doesn't come home until after 4PM. I on the other hand am home all day.

My neighbour leaves virtually nothing running in her home while she is gone, maybe a clock or two and a couple of "wall warts" waiting for her to plug in her phone or whatever. I on the other hand have computers, a coffee pot, my stove for lunch, various lights and other peripherals and such with the computers running 24x7 as I have an office in my home and a business license to prove it. With so many people commuting to work, the "average" is heavily weighted toward those who don't use much power during the day compared to those of us who work from home.

And of course there is the concept of electrical heat vs gas or some other form of heat. The person who was inspected just after I was (Mr. Matt Ion who not only e-mailed me shortly after seeing the initial News article, also sent in his own account the next week to the News) has electric heat - and was pointedly asked about spikes in use in January and February of this year - two of our coldest months in recent memory according to his letter to the editor in June 6th's News.

And all this is in comparison to a background of rationalization by our esteemed bylaw officer and her various inspectors that they do checks and comparisons other than just the electrical usage prior to deciding on inspection! The fire inspector is quoted on TV as not even knowing that I have had a business license in Pitt Meadows for the past 14 years! They also either didn't notice or didn't care that Mr. Ion's usage had not materially changed in the past 3 years. Mine has as I added many of the computers recently due to the accumulation of video from the bald eagle nest cameras I have administered the past 2 seasons.

To summarize. Whether there is a legal right to inspect my home or not, there is a moral and fiscal responsibility of those who seek to exercise such "rights" to consider the impact they might have upon law abiding citizens and a duty to exercise at least a bit of rational thought and what I hope is common sense and courtesy in the exercise of their self appointed duties.

And even if they had done all that they could do to reduce or eliminate the possibility that they were putting an honest  citizen through the ordeal they legally could, the least they could do is apologize for the inconvenience and, if in the least bit warranted, give a bit of praise or reasonable and honest feedback on how we are doing in our care of our homes; without of course being either condescending or trite. I know damned well that 99% of the people of Pitt Meadows have less fire extinguishers than I have - most don't even have 1. That in itself should have been worth mention in the short letter I received from our "Public Safety Inspection Team Coordinator". Instead I got what looked like it could have been a form letter - just enough to admit that the team was there and nothing more; no apology, nothing except "... did not identify any specific safety items requiring correction..." and an admonition to "contact the customer services section of BC Hydro to assist you in evaluating your property with respect to energy efficiency" as if they could cut back on the number of computers I have! Nothing to say that they noticed that 95% of my lights are compact fluorescents already or the above mentioned fire extinguishers. Nothing to say that they approved of the way I use power bars - or to note the one place I purposely left where there are 3 daisy-chained.

They didn't even comment on the loose wires hanging out of the wall in my garage where I've disconnected a dangerous lighting system that predates our purchase of our home. I have yet to decide how to fix the problem but in the mean time we are doing without front walk lights. When I opened the garage as they headed for the house (showing my red Honda Goldwing, not black Harley) they didn't even give it a glance despite the bare wires hanging out the front!

Either the team that visited my home was incompetent, or they just didn't give a damn about whether they trampled on innocent people's lives with their legal impunity.

For this I pay thousands of dollars of taxes each year? For this I pay for a business license?

No wonder so many people found it within themselves to comment on the original article in the News - 4 weeks this subject has been talked about! If that doesn't mean anything to the politicians around this area then maybe we have the wrong ones. I certainly think that we have bureaucrats that could use a lesson in civility and community - or how to apply for unemployment. The most recent article (News June 20, 2007) states 'Status quo' for safety searches - which to me menas that the lesson has not yet been learned.

I refuse to put up with crap government, and I haven't even touched upon whether or not these bureaucrats should have the right to warrantless searches with equal numbers of RCMP officers "protecting their backs"; that for another day.