Author Topic: AARC "host home" practices questioned in news article  (Read 768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline anonAARCgrad

  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
AARC "host home" practices questioned in news article
« on: April 07, 2009, 05:40:56 PM »
Liberal MLA raises security bar issue
 
By Renata D'Aliesio; With Files From Joel Kom, Calgary HeraldApril 7, 2009
   
With the deaths of three renters in a northwest Calgary basement fire raising questions over security bars on windows, a Liberal MLA questioned on Monday why fixed bars are allowed for other structures where people live.
Photograph by: Ted Rhodes, Calgary HeraldWith the deaths of three renters in a basement fire raising questions over security bars on windows, a Liberal MLA questioned on Monday why fixed bars are allowed for other structures where people live.

Harry Chase raised the issue Monday in the provincial legislature, wondering why bars are a deemed a danger to renters in secondary suites but are allowed for owner-occupied homes as well as residential treatment centres such as Calgary's Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre.

"Why aren't they considered a threat for home-owning family members or for the vulnerable youth prisoners of forced AARC confinement?" he said in question period.

Chase accused the government of failing to look after the well-being of children "imprisoned in homes."

Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk said the province works with cities to make sure standards are in place, but didn't directly answer Chase's question about bars on owner-occupied homes or residential treatment centres.

Chase's charges follow three deaths in a Calgary basement fire in January.

The Alberta Building Code allows fixed bars on bedroom windows if they can be easily removed. Other bars, even if they're not easily removed, are allowed on any non-bedroom window in a home.

As for buildings such as treatment centres that may require more security, external bars are allowed on windows as long as other fire safety measures are taken and pass a fire department inspection.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: AARC "host home" practices questioned in news article
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2009, 04:02:07 AM »
Quote
but are allowed for owner-occupied homes as well as residential treatment centres such as Calgary's Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre.

"Why aren't they considered a threat for home-owning family members or for the vulnerable youth prisoners of forced AARC confinement?" he said in question period.

AARC is only accredited as a "day" program. When the youth prisoners are shuttled between AARC and the "recovery homes" via the "volunteer" parents this isn't considered "residential" because in this case it's not beneficial to AARC to be "residential".

If AARC and the government admitted what is obvious to anyone, that AARC IS a secure residential program, then AARC would need the proper licensing and accreditation etc. This however would open a whole new can of worms and the barred windows would THEN be breaching the fire code by-laws enforceable by the Calgary Fire Department.

The Fire Department may have their own criteria to only apply this by-law to licensed group homes, BUT the Public Health Department is another story, they are the one's who fine when these homes aren't entirely "owner occupied". These homes are ALSO serving the purpose of 3rd party shelter (kinda like a renter) for the unfortunate AARC prisoners.

Fortunately for AARC, it's not AARC that's liable (they're only DAY treatment, remember). It's the homeowner aka "volunteer recovery home" OR if the parent is renting, their unsuspecting landlord, who is ultimately liable.

If the recovery home parent in treatment at AARC is renting (like anyone from out of town), a fire breaks out and people die because they can't escape, who is going to be charged?

The property owner, not AARC!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »