City of Carson Fails to Repeal or Revise Ordinance [updated with CC Video]

The Carson City Council failed to repeal or revise its sex offender ordinance during its meeting on August 5 despite recommendations to do so from both the City Manager and City Attorney.

According to a staff report dated August 5, the City’s ordinance is inconsistent with state law due to presence restrictions which limit where registered citizens may visit. The City’s ordinance also includes residency restrictions which limit where registered citizens may live. Residency restrictions are currently under review by the California Supreme Court.

“The City of Carson acted unwisely by failing to repeal or revise its ordinance,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The City was sued in federal district court on April 11 and it appears that the case will now proceed toward an ultimate victory for plaintiff Frank Lindsay in that court. This will, of course, result in significant legal costs paid by the citizens of Carson.”

In his recommendations, City Attorney Bill Wynder included proposed revisions to the city’s ordinance that would have made it consistent with state law and the recent Court of Appeal decisions which determined that similar ordinances adopted by the City of Irvine and Orange County were preempted by state law.

City Council Meeting Video (@ 3:05)

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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 “do nothing” approach of these city councils. It really demonstrates their work ethic and commitment to sound government.

These folks go beyond “unwise;” They’ve taken things to stupid! I hope the citizens of this town find out about this and remember this dim witt move when the next election rolls around. Just another bunch of folks that are struck stupid.

I wish Janice could collect higher fees for this.

Amazing. Already sued and yet they do naught.

I guess we’ll see them in court!

How many times did these City Council people say the word “bullied”? What is up with that?

What do we have here? An ordinance is being challenged within the proper legal channels, available to all, including – gasp – RSOs and their licensed representatives. An ordinance that, mind you, was declared unconstitutional by a higher authority. An illegal ordinance. That remains on the books because these legislators do not like the people they affect. And because they can. Period.

Who is the bully here?

It is truly amazing that members of the Carson City Council who took an oath to uphold the Constitution are choosing to violate that constitution by ignoring a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction, that is, the California Supreme Court. There is no ambiguity here. The California Supreme Court denied review in April 2014 of a Court of Appeal decision made in January 2014 that city ordinances, such as the ordinance adopted by Carson, are preempted by state law. We look forward to our day in court. And by the way, State Senator Correa of Orange County introduced a bill in 2013 that would have given cities the authority to pass their own laws restricting where a registered citizen may be present. The bill died quickly and so will any future attempts.

The point is so often raised that these laws are for the purpose of protecting children when there is no history of registered sex offenders attacking children in parks. The children that will be affected are the children of registered sex offenders. Truth is there is history of children having accidents in parks, but a registrant’s child is NOT allowed to have their first line of protection (their parent) available to them as their first line of protection.

On that waaaaay past proposal by north correa, I remember that puppet from o c…that figures…north correa should propose they name that shop the nixon courthouse ..the crooks are in shirt-tie suits.