Janice’s Journal: Shame On the San Diego City Council

The San Diego City Council took the wrong action for the wrong reason last week when they failed to repeal the city’s residency restrictions which, if enforced, would prohibit registrants from living in virtually all of that city.

The wrong action was taken by five members of the City Council who voted against repeal of the city’s residency restrictions. The reason for their votes is beyond comprehension.

In many votes taken by elected officials, the elected officials will vote against an issue because it is unpopular and could adversely affect their re-election. We don’t condone that reason but it is at least a reason we understand.

What we cannot understand is why four City Council members who will not face re-election until November 2018, more than a year away, voted against repeal. What is even less understandable is why the remaining member of the Council voted against repeal when she will not face re-election until November 2020, more than three years away.

Our lack of understanding is even greater given that the San Diego City Attorney recommended and initiated repeal of the city’s residency restrictions. Further, the City Attorney stated publicly that the restrictions are probably not enforceable and may violate the Constitution. In addition, she may be responsible for the matter being placed on the Consent Calendar of the City Council meeting, which is reserved for noncontroversial votes.

Although most of the City Council members who voted against repeal did not disclose the reason for their vote, one member did so when she openly stated that she doesn’t like “them (registrants) living in our communities” and expressed concern that her daughter wouldn’t be able to safely walk the family dog if the restrictions were repealed. She also referred to unnamed studies that demonstrate that registrants cannot be rehabilitated.

Her last statement was repeated by one of the four City Council members who voted in favor of the repeal. How dare they repeat this lie! How dare they fail to educate themselves on this important topic! For if they had made even a small effort to educate themselves, they would have easily found both academic research and government studies that clearly demonstrate that most registrants are rehabilitated and do not re-offend.

The City Councilman who repeated this lie eventually spoke the truth when he predicted that the City of San Diego would be sued if they failed to repeal their residency restrictions. He also predicted that the lawsuit would be successful and cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. We certainly hope his predictions are true and note that this could be an expensive and worthwhile lesson for the City of San Diego and its residents. We also hope that, in addition to paying for their mistakes, the members of the City Council will take the time necessary to educate themselves and those they represent on this important matter.

— by Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journal

Related

Registrants Sue City of San Diego in Federal Court

San Diego Sex Offender Residency Law Faces Uphill Legal Battle

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Janice, has their ever been a case where several lawsuits could be filed or a class-action suit where many join as one. You could have a colleague in San Diego take names and the sheer number would be a huge financial cost to SD. The precedent has already been set in other cities, this should be an easy one for you and the damages will be in the millions.

So if my crime was over 10 years ago and none of these residency laws apply to me in California, then I move to San Diego….I’ll be subject to different laws?

Seems unconstitutional to me…

Janice,

Thank you so much for protecting us from the ignorant fear mongers.

Never could have happened without the electronic list.