The city was one of more than a dozen in Orange County to add such a ban to their books since April 2011. Last month, in the face of a lawsuit challenging the ban’s constitutionality, Lake Forest became the first of those cities to reverse course. Proponents say the ban is needed to protect children from predators – critics argue the ban violates the civil rights of registered sex offenders.
Here is a range of opinions on the city’s latest move. Full Article
Frustrated…GOOD! Let them be frustrated. I was frustrated too the last time I applied to rent an apartment and told that I was rejected because of my status as a sex offender even though that was 15 years ago!
So let them be frustrated…and let them also know that they can no longer tread on and ignore our constitutional rights as tax paying (when we can find someone to hire us) AMERICANS!
Thank you Janice for giving a voice to people who need one but have been abused, ignored, and silenced for so long!
So many things so wrong with Councilmember Adam Nick’s dramatic speech…. (omg – would it ever end???)
He suggested modifying the LF ordinance to include the waiver option. Aside from the fact that the Sheriff stated publicly that she did not foresee granting any waivers and only ONE waiver has been granted (to a personal friend of OC Supervisor Bates, no less), the ordinance that was challenged and found to preempt the California Constitution was the County one, the one that DOES include the waiver. What is the point jumping through hoops to end up with an ordinance already ruled unconstitutional?
They most certainly were not. In Laguna Hills in September 2011, right across the freeway, the OCDA sold this ordinance as ironclad and constitutionally sound, researched by the top attorney the OCDA has on staff – an individual “who has argued in front of the Supreme Court”. At the same Laguna Hills City Council meeting (video is online) the OCDA Chief of Staff acknowledged that the total ban was taken out of the state law / Chelsea’s Law. When asked for the reason for that the response was “Not sure – partisan politics” or something to that effect. This, after a summer of party bickering that almost shut down the government, was accepted as a plausible explanation.
That is neither here nor there. But it does make sense to repeal an ordinance that was ruled unconstitutional by a judge even in a milder form.
No, California had to suspend this law because a JUDGE ruled its constitutionality questionable and said so. Whether it will be rescinded remains to be seen, but the chances are pretty good after Friday.
Mr. Nick – please save us the rhetoric and spend some time reading the Constitutions you are sworn to uphold. Instead of spending the money of the residents of Lake Forest on lawsuits that are going to be lost.
@cons … We were there … We thought he would never end …. But in the end …all was good, not sure until the very end … But finally the right decision!
Of course Erin Runnion is not going to voice her opposition to the repeal… same night this ordinance was repealed they made a motion to retain her and her organization for consulting services.
It’s very interesting how Erin Runion is on a witch hunt against registrants, yet her daughter’s murderer was not on any list. Also, her daughter was not abducted from a park. Had Erin Runion been watching her daughter, then she may still be here. I think she knows this, yet I feel that she refuses to accept it. So, what does she do? She advocates for the government to watch our kids.
BOTTOM LINE: if parents would be PARENTS and accompany their children to the park or supervise them when they play outside, then these Nanny State laws would be moot. It’s not the government’s job to raise our kids. It’s OUR job!!!