By Elizabeth Davies
We’re always told you can pick your friends but you can’t pick your family. Sure you can stop talking to the crazy ones, you can cut people out of your will or only see them on special occasions, treat them like church and make them a duty you perform once or twice a year, but they are who they are, no changing them.
The unfortunate reality is whether you buy or rent, you also can’t pick your neighbours. You can find your dream home, in a great area, with a pretty bay window, a picket fence, claw foot bath and the prefect guest room come nursery and still there are no guarantees the people next door won’t let their dog poop on your lawn, steal your mail or go through your trash.
You only have to watch shows like ‘Neighbours at war’ to realise just how unlucky you can be. We definitely wouldn’t qualify for that superior quality reality TV show but our neighbour experiences of late have been nothing if not unexpected, dramatic and somewhat disturbing.
We live in one side of a split villa in Epsom. It’s a wealthy, reputable area. We thought it would be safe to assume that our neighbourhood is safe, quiet and reassuringly boring. We were wrong.
The people living in the other half of our villa seemed nice enough, a couple of bad tattoos, a passion for gardening, and not much else worth mentioning.
Then the police started visiting. In their confusion they often came to our door looking for the neighbours. We learnt that our neighbour was on curfew. We were non-plussed, firm believers in second chances and all that jazz.
Then the police visits became more frequent, always different cops, at all different times of the day and night, being woken up at 4am by policeman at the wrong door started to become a little more than frustrating.
The next thing we know the neighbours are getting into physical altercations with the cops, then one of them is officially on the run. Next come the police dogs, then the helicopters.
We were pretty relieved when they moved out and a new couple moved in. They were there for a day before kindly letting us know that the flat had failed methamphetamine testing and would have to undergo further testing and likely decontamination.
In the 1990s Auckland dealt with the leaky homes fiasco, now it’s not water damaging properties – it’s P. More than 20,000 Auckland homes could be affected my methamphetamine use and manufacturing. Our landlord is out at least $5000 just to cover the testing alone, not including possible costs of decontamination.
The law states that agents have to inform potential tenants about meth contamination if they are aware of it but what about all the cases where agents and property managers willingly turn a blind eye, happier not knowing what’s going on in their client’s houses. Some property managers seem to employ a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy when it comes to issues that could result in more cost and work for them.
As renters we’re used to the damp, the mould, no insulation, and all the little quirks of living in old houses no one wants to ‘waste’ money on bringing up to par.
Now people have one more thing to be concerned about when looking for a rental, is their future home not only cold, and crappy, is it dangerous?
-------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Davies is a 24 year-old graduate of the Auckland University of Technology post graduate journalism course. She lives with her partner in Epsom and spends her free time refurbishing vintage furniture and attempting to bake while fighting a daily battle against her bank balance. She writes a weekly article for interest.co.nz on money matters and financial struggles from a young person's perspective.
6 Comments
This whole area (meth testing/use in properties) needs more research.
At the moment the irrational/emotional majority are getting played by 'testing' companies and every other man and their dog trying to make money out of the fear of 'P lab' chemicals.
I tried finding good research once on this but failed to find anything concrete.
Yes dangerous chemicals are used in P labs. Guess what, dangerous ones are also used in gardening (sometimes more dangerous), what if they ran inside with gumboots on to get the phone? Contaminated by poison if tested; the real question is what levels are actually present, and what real risk to human health exists from these levels?
As for meth use (which they also test for), this is really drawing a long bow and playing on the irrational fears of the 'P fear crazed'. Meth was once upon a time prescribed by doctors to treat epilespy. Only stopped as it was abused as a recreational drug. Why not test for any/all other presription drugs which if 1 ppm was consumed would also cause absolutely no ill health effects.
We need more independent research for sure on this or else risk getting taken for a ride by people peddling fear, or wrongly overlooking real risks associated with obvious contamination as landlords think every property is showing up with 'meth use' so lets avoid testing or else face massive $ lost.
Just to put things into perspective as how NZ'ers are often subject to being ripped off and taken advantage of over things like this where the media can hype up some fear; here is something from the department of heath services Wisconsin USA. (note they don't suggest paying 20k to some self assigned clean up expert, but do suggest wearing gloves and shoes during the clean up!):
Summary steps for building clean up:
- Contact your local law enforcement agency to determine what chemicals were present at the time of seizure.
- Have local law enforcement personnel accompany you when visiting the site.
- Thoroughly ventilate the building before and during cleanup.
- Until a former meth lab is cleaned, do not enter the area without foot and hand protection (shoes and gloves) at a minimum.
- Remove visibly contaminated items or items that have a chemical odor or red, yellow, or brown stains.
- Clean all surfaces using household cleaning methods and proper personal protection.
- Leave plumbing cleaning to the experts.
- Air out the building for 3 to 5 days.
- If odors or staining remain, have the building evaluated by a professional.
Testing can be done after cleanup, but at this time the Department of Health Services does not consider it necessary. The cleaning procedures outlined in this document, when followed correctly, should be adequate for reducing any health hazard risk. If you are dealing with a high production meth lab, call the Department for more assistance. Division of Criminal Investigations will determine if the site was a high production lab.
"As renters we’re used to the damp, the mould, no insulation, and all the little quirks of living in old houses no one wants to ‘waste’ money on bringing up to par."
So why exactly are landlords supposed to pour money into properties when (eledgedly) "More than 20,000 Auckland homes" are turned into P labs.... Are you concerned that the P will get damp?
The red flag for all alarms of this type from "authorities" is when they will not provide you actual information in response to any requests. As a simple ass covering exercise they simply shriek that it is a deadly hazard and that they must protect the public by going into lockdown. They insist that they alone have the skills and knowledge required to deal with it and that no specific information can be given out on a "you wouldn't understand" basis. This generally means they know little or nothing, what they do have would not stand up to logical questioning and they need to obscure this with cordons and tents to prevent the casual observation of their incompetence. Enduring examples are rife.
The recent photos of "clipboard guy" escorting an ebola patient flanked by those in environment suits, or how that patient came to be infected when taking the precautions prescribed by the authorities spring to mind.
I laughed out loud at the histrionics displayed after a find of asbestos containing material lying on the ground in a residential street. It had recently been dug up, after about 40 yrs in place, from nearby while upgrading some infrastructure and was of much the same make up as roofs, fences and cladding on neighbouring properties.
The inefficiencies are gross and costly in all terms. More intelligent processes could easily be implemented if the priority was truly safety and not first securing plausible deniability.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.