ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


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)

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.

Most people do things that polite people call foolish and pragmatic people call stupid. These city counsels are taking a foolish/stupid stance because they are ignorant of the facts surrounding this manufactured issue. To me; these people on these city counsels look like rebellious adolescents resisting their mothers order to clean up their room. I say “manufactured issue” because this whole sex offender thing is manufactured; we saw a good example of the manufacture process in OC when the DA and his staff went around from one city to another rousing the rabble into a state of fear over a… Read more »

I know that it is generous to imagine these city councils every thing about good public policy, but right now just before an election, they are hypersensitive to how they will appear in front of voters. We need to work harder to make sure people see this as a civil rights issue and not a public safety issue. Its obvious to us that it has nothing to do with public safety (reoffense rate below 2%), but it is not obvious to the general public. The Jim Crow laws stood for many years in a segregationist society. That instinct to hate… Read more »

These people are taking a stance that will probably cause some, if not all of them to lose their reelection bids. They WILL LOSE; that’s practically written in stone. I wish Janice would increase her attorney fees so the residents of these cities would get really PO-ed at the city counsel members for what basically amounts to deliberately throwing away the peoples money for no good reason.

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… Read more »

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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x