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
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

National

WI: Sex offenders contesting Pleasant Prairie ordinance

Six convicted sex offenders living in Pleasant Prairie allege the village’s restrictions on where offenders can live are so broad, they effectively banish them from the village in violation of their constitutional rights.

A federal lawsuit filed in June alleges the ordinance violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it retroactively applies the restrictions to offenders who committed qualifying crimes before the ordinance was enacted in April. Full Article

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.  
 
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow! This article doesn’t even explain the best part I found in another article: http://www.cbs58.com/story/31771300/pleasant-prairie-approves-new-sex-offender-ordinance “Pleasant Prairie’s recreated, more stringent sex offender ordinance applies to lower level (Levels 1 and 2) sexual offenders who have not been classified as sexually violent. The placement of the most sexually violent (Level 3) offenders is covered by 2015 Wisconsin Act 156, which is a new, less restrictive, State law allowing the most violent offenders to be placed 1,500 feet closer to protected locations than the new Village Ordinance. The new State law prohibits municipalities from enforcing more restrictive rules for the Level 3… Read more »

Welcome to hell which is the state Wisconsin where I reside. You think California is bad? Heck, I sometimes want to move back to my home state. Over the last five years, towns & cities throughout Wisconsin have been passing restrictive ordinances that essentially ban all offenders. The state has one of the most severe anti cp laws in the country and it all started back in 2010 after Scott Walker & his GOP cronies took control of all levels of government including the courts. That’s one reason why these plaintiffs in Pleasant Village are smart to sue at the… Read more »

And what reason is the new law making registered citizens live at least 500 ft apart? Afraid we’re going to get together and round up neighborhood kids? I have at least 10 RC’s in my neighborhood within 100’s of feet of me and after 20 yrs, I’ve never met one of them. The new law must only be to keep property values from falling too much.

I think it is underhandedly to banish registrants from Pleasant Prairie. The property values is part of it, no doubt, but what comes first? Property values go down because people fear a registrant in their neighborhood, or people fear their property values go down because a registrant lives nearby. The only truth is the status of registrants is as hazardous commodities, not human beings.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some homeowners believe registrants will bring down property values; therefore, they act accordingly to that belief. Many fear the belief more than the registrant. Many times beliefs are irrational because other market conditions (like the quality of public schools) usually cause property values to go down or up. Pleasant Prairie is ripe for spreading false beliefs. It used to be a more upscale Wisconsin community right on the Illinois border, but depressed economic conditions in the region coupled with fear of Chicago spillover of poorer racial minorities, have caused property values to fall or stagnate over… Read more »

Good example. Therefore, one can ask if these restrictions find fertile ground where there exists economic insecurities combined with a socially conservative culture. Or, maybe this is how socially conservative cultures tend to react to economic insecurity. Heck, that would do a lot to explain the general increase in scapegoating in politics today. Anyway, I like your holistic explanation.

They should view resultant property devaluation as a tax on their willingness to impose unconstitutional regimes upon others.

In Wisconsin there is a concept known as ‘regulatory taking.’ This is when newly-passed regulations deny a property owner the ability to use his/her property for the primary purpose – in this case the primary purpose of a residence is a place to reside. The affected person is entitled to similar rights as would be in place for someone losing property to eminent domain situations. I’m no lawyer, but it seems that if this ordinance is in fact retroactive then any of those affected who own their property should also be filing an illegal takings case on the state level.… Read more »

As someone who is familiar with this town and their new ordinance, it certainly seems as though they are making an attempt at removing, then banning, all SOs from ever living within the town. They are trying to enforce the ordinance retroactively even though there is an exception for those who were living in the town before the new ordinance went into effect. The original ordinance was 2,000 feet which is already quite a large area. Instead of leaving it at that, they went to the extreme and passed a whopping 3,000 foot restriction zone, and added the 500 feet… Read more »

My cousin lives in PP and it used to just be a place to plop a big coal plant. As the FIBs started escaping Chicago and taking up residence in the superior state of WI, they brought their fears and pathetic New York style of insecurities with them. I had planned to move in with her in fact. Her last kid had moved away and you’d think all would be ok. No…. it was not OK, I was not “allowed” even though I am off all supervision except for the illegal and unconstitutional post-punishment punishments. WI has lost its once… Read more »

10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.