CO: Englewood cuts in half its distance restrictions on where sex offenders can live

The Englewood City Council on Monday approved a measure that would cut in half its 2,000-foot buffer between parks and schools and where newly arrived sex offenders can live. But city leaders decided to allow offenders who already live in the city to continue doing so regardless of the buffer. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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

Now, they should consider cutting it altogether since it does not do anything more than give a placebo effect. Just because there is relief in having more open housing areas to RCs it does not mean more housing will be open to RCs in these areas.

Yes, they should do away with it completely. As with most reporting, they did not portray the ordinance correctly. It applies only to people declared a violent predator, people with felony convictions requiring registration, and people with “multiple convictions for offenses requiring registration.” This does not make it more palatable, but we should know correctly to who it applies. People should have the correct details. Knowing this, it will be a little harder to fight since it is more narrowly tailored. It does apply to all those who are convicted of offense not involving minors, which means it is still rather broad. Even if it were more narrowly focused, it would be in my mind still unacceptable. Just throwing it out there.

Englewood CO not Inglewood CA

It’s incremental improvement, is it not?