Laguna Hills may reverse sex-offender park ban in wake of court rulings

LAGUNA HILLS – The City Council on Tuesday will consider reversing an ordinance that bans registered sex offenders from city parks and private parks run by homeowners associations.   …

… Also a factor for Laguna Hills is the threat of litigation by the California Reform Sexual Offender Laws organization and the American Civil Liberties Union if the ordinance is not repealed, according to the staff report. Full Article

Staff Report

Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I like the headline…They “may” reverse the park ban, like they have a choice? How about you WILL reverse the park ban or you’ll get sued!

Consider reversing it’s ordinance?!? At this point I don’t see how they have much of a choice. I suppose they can keep it if they want, but they can’t enforce the ordinance without winding up in court pursuing a case they can’t win. They were foolish to pass this ordinance in the first palace based on what Tony Rackauckas and his witch in waiting told them; he admittedly didn’t know much about the issue he made up in the first place.

Being confident a law is constitutional and then passing a law you aren’t 100% sure is constitutional is irresponsible at best. It’s going to be interesting to see if Tony Rackauckas is going to have another legal equivalent temper tantrum in Santa Ana like he did when he asked for a review of the states original decision.

If he is going resist being sent to his room for a time out because he talked a bunch of dummies into passing illegal ordinances I think it will be in Santa Ana.

Laguna Hills was the only city, to my knowledge, that had it written in their ordinance that there must be signage at each prohibited area alerting those banned about the law. Fair enough – for 2.5 years each park had signs to that effect around the perimeter.

Two weeks ago I was at a Laguna Hills park – Costeau Park to be precise – and what do you know…. the signage was gone.

So not only is the City of Laguna Hills violating the California Constitution, it is also in violation of its own ordinance!

Take away the “Sex Offender” connection and there would be hell to pay for this…. oh well, at least the “bad dream” will be over soon.

Alternate headline: Government May Decide to Obey the Law

Laguna Hills repeals ban on sex offenders in parks

The 3-1 vote was taken without discussion. Councilwoman Barbara Kogerman opposed the repeal; Councilman Randal Bressette was absent. (pay article)

Councilwoman Kogerman – for real????

Well, lets be real. Whoever thought of these laws was a very hateful and angry individual. We have individuals who multiple felony convictions, murderer’s, drug dealers and people with multiple drunk driving offenses as well as those convicted of vehicular manslaughter (they killed someone) who more rights then some guy running around with a misdemeanor sex offense. What if a sex offender didn’t own a car or went back to school and had to use the public library? Or, what if the bus they used to go to school was right next to a school bus stop? Lets be real. What about the homeowner who pays HOA fees and is banned from the park? I’m not sure who these City Officials are, but lets be real. This is a very prejudicial and hateful law.