The Better Part of Valor: Amending Local Sex Offender Ordinances

A series of lawsuits against California cities has brought the issue of sex offenders in the community back to many city agendas and local public meetings. Two recent decisions by the California Court of Appeal and a case pending before the California Supreme Court effectively limit cities’ ability to enforce local ordinances regulating registered sex offenders who live in their jurisdictions. Few city officials or residents favor the idea of repealing an ordinance intended to protect children from predators, but many cities with such ordinances are being forced to do just that as a result of legal challenges. By moving quickly and carefully, city councils can address the appellate rulings and avoid paying for the privilege of repealing their ordinances. Full Article


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

This article begs for a response from RSOL. It will be a great opportunity to educate elected officials about how these local ordinances have nothing to do with public safety, but has everything to do with “moral escalation” (to use Jerry Brown’s term). We should quote the CDCR statistics and talk about how many resources are wasted on 290s while murder clearance rates are shockingly low, gang violence flourishes and property crimes are mostly ignored by police. Denying the facts about 290s is the same kind of mindlessness as climate change denials.

You will note the following in Footnote 10:

“My thanks to Lindsay Tabaian, assistant city attorney for Hesperia, and Eric Dunn, Hesperia city attorney, for providing this strategem.”

Yes, contact the opposition please. While the article portends to be neutral and directed to “pragmatic defensibilty,” it lacks CONSTITUTIONAL fortitude as well as actual “pragmatic effect,” such as “no child has EVER been assaulted or propositioned by a registered sex offender who was Trick or Treating,” or “proximity to schools does NOT increase the likelihood of assault.”

Yes, I agree that a response is not only necessary, but also insisted upon as a rebuttal.

The article needs to clearly define “predator.” This is just another intellectual piece that pretty much defines all registrants as “predators.” Were I not a registrant I would conclude that registrant=predator.

Who is “the predator”? I think it is just a propaganda term—part of the endless series of lies produced by politicians. In a way it is tragic for them too: the politicians seem unable to do much that is positive for their constituencies, thus to keep themselves in office and near the power to control the money-spigots of public funding, they must generate fear in the public: fear of registered citizens, evil forces abroad, alien ideologies, what have you. It is a process for which the rational citizen can only feel disgust.