I just read Bob Aaron’s article in REM (Making grow home disclosure mandatory, August).

Once again, Bob has hit on an important issue in the marketplace, and his assessment is right on the money.  The ongoing failure on the part of many not to disclose the fact that a property has been used as a grow house is little more than an attempt to dupe the consumer, in my opinion.

The fact that some police forces are actively involved in this nonsense by not making these locations known to the public is particularly annoying.  After all, these guys are supposed to be working for the public good.

The ludicrous notion that the Privacy Act is in the way of this disclosure is insulting.  The act was never intended as a means to keep important information hidden from the public.  It is designed to protect personal information from abuse.

The fact that a criminal used a residential property to cultivate a crop of illicit drugs is not personal information as contemplated by the act.  Nor is the address of the property.  And that is the only information that needs to be disclosed. To allow it to be hidden is tantamount to collusion with the enemy, so to speak.  The consumer is the innocent here, and it would appear that his tax dollars are being used to ensure that this information is kept hidden from him. Shame on those who would call this an appropriate course of action.

Until the day when this information is readily available to the consumer, the OREA clause requiring a owner to warrant that the building has not been used as a grow house is a worthy measure in my view, and agents in our office are encouraged to use it where appropriate.

Thank you once again for bringing this issue to light.


Bruce King


Sutton Group Results Realty

Burlington, Ont.


 Discuss this article in the REM Discussion Forum.


Leave a Reply