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
-
CO: Musician who called out alleged sexual predators online for years pleads guilty to attempted sexual assault on a minor
Source: westword.com 9/6/23 Ross _______, a political activist and onetime prominent member of the local punk... -
CO: Sex offender registry meant to inform public, not target offenders, officials say
Source: durangoherald.com 8/24/23 ‘When we make them a pariah, we drive them underground,’ says district attorney... -
CO: Lincoln County judge wrongly denied man opportunity to justify possession of contraband, court rules
Source: coloradopolitics.com 8/14/23 Licoln County judge improperly denied an incarcerated man the opportunity to justify his...
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?