The San Diego City Council took the wrong action for the wrong reason last week when they failed to repeal the city’s residency restrictions which, if enforced, would prohibit registrants from living in virtually all of that city.
The wrong action was taken by five members of the City Council who voted against repeal of the city’s residency restrictions. The reason for their votes is beyond comprehension.
In many votes taken by elected officials, the elected officials will vote against an issue because it is unpopular and could adversely affect their re-election. We don’t condone that reason but it is at least a reason we understand.
What we cannot understand is why four City Council members who will not face re-election until November 2018, more than a year away, voted against repeal. What is even less understandable is why the remaining member of the Council voted against repeal when she will not face re-election until November 2020, more than three years away.
Our lack of understanding is even greater given that the San Diego City Attorney recommended and initiated repeal of the city’s residency restrictions. Further, the City Attorney stated publicly that the restrictions are probably not enforceable and may violate the Constitution. In addition, she may be responsible for the matter being placed on the Consent Calendar of the City Council meeting, which is reserved for noncontroversial votes.
Although most of the City Council members who voted against repeal did not disclose the reason for their vote, one member did so when she openly stated that she doesn’t like “them (registrants) living in our communities” and expressed concern that her daughter wouldn’t be able to safely walk the family dog if the restrictions were repealed. She also referred to unnamed studies that demonstrate that registrants cannot be rehabilitated.
Her last statement was repeated by one of the four City Council members who voted in favor of the repeal. How dare they repeat this lie! How dare they fail to educate themselves on this important topic! For if they had made even a small effort to educate themselves, they would have easily found both academic research and government studies that clearly demonstrate that most registrants are rehabilitated and do not re-offend.
The City Councilman who repeated this lie eventually spoke the truth when he predicted that the City of San Diego would be sued if they failed to repeal their residency restrictions. He also predicted that the lawsuit would be successful and cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. We certainly hope his predictions are true and note that this could be an expensive and worthwhile lesson for the City of San Diego and its residents. We also hope that, in addition to paying for their mistakes, the members of the City Council will take the time necessary to educate themselves and those they represent on this important matter.
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all Janice’s Journal
Related
Registrants Sue City of San Diego in Federal Court
San Diego Sex Offender Residency Law Faces Uphill Legal Battle
Do they also have presence restrictions and what is the code of their ordinance and is there anyway to get a list of cities who still have these laws whether they enforce them or not..I need a list of cities and codes…
Great job Janice and team!
The only way to really turn the tide, is for this to hit cities, states, and the federal government in the pocket book.
Not only that, but our issues won’t get the attention they deserve until the public’s money has to be used to benefit the life of a sex offender after winning a lawsuit. Once that happens, and only then, will legislature have the justification they need if they start creating public policy based on real statistics, what really works, and what is within the limits of the US Constitution. Without that justification and hit to the pocketbook, their opposition will continue to turn good legislation attempts into “pro-sex offender” propaganda.
The tide has turned and for our favor, not theirs. By the time these people are up for re-election, i’m hopeful that the general public will be even more aware, as they have been waking up to, the fact that sex offenders are often not the monsters they are made out to be. As a result, they may have just undermined their own efforts to bolster their stance at re-election time, as it will be on record that they went against the constitution, the law, and their own lawyers and in the process, losing a lawsuit. Bleeping idiots these people are. Guess Janice is stuck having to back in yet again and kick some more ass. Teach them a lesson they shall never forget. 🙂
This reminds me of Carson all over again. I am willing to publicly add my name in this Lawsuit. I’ve visited San Diego often.
That woman is a lair, and she needs to go down. Sue the bigots in San Diego for every cent they’re worth.
Maybe it’s time to make a statement with a really high financial suit. The council people all have information readily available at their disposal, but yet continue to fear monger. Banishment is punishment, and that is unconstitutional. Just like in the Peckingham case, you can’t make any exception for unconstitutionality. And yet here we have it.
Despite several wins based upon this set of circumstances, the council people continue to perpetuate that all registrants are the vilest monsters on earth that require no constitutionality provisions. Maybe it’s time to really make it count and send a message to all of California to stop with this demagoguery. Janice can speak softly, but this time she’s gonna be carrying a big stick!
I too hope they loose big bucks , its time they learn that everything has a price , even grand standing can have a price , way to go Janice
Based on this preposterous decision and ‘personal, misguided opinions’ from council members, The San Diego City Council is UNFIT to serve its citizens.
Now I maybe wrong, but I do not believe I am, but Ordinances are NOT LAWS, and they are certainly NOT binding public laws. ONLY State Legislatures are ALLOWED to pass laws. Municipalities and Cities and Towns are Corporate Entities. Therefore they can ONLY pass laws that apply to city officials.(ie) employee’s and employer’s. NOT the general Public. It’s in EVERY State Constitution. ONLY the State legislators are ALLOWED to pass LAWS. NOT. a city council. AGAIN Ordinances are NOT LAWS, and are NOT binding public laws, unless you choose to be bound by them. City Councils have NO POWER to PASS LAWS AGAINST THE PUBLIC THEY CAN ONLY PASS LAWS THAT EFFECT CITY EMPLOYEE’S AND EMPLOYER’S PERIOD.
Its unfortunate that blatant lying and willful ignorance are not illegal, particularly for those who are directly responsible for making decisions that effect thousands or even millions of people.
I think it would be nice to let the citizens of San Diego know where their money is going. Maybe an ad in the local paper stating how much the city needlessly paid out in court due to their intransigence. Maybe show how many people could have received social services from it, or something along that line. (Not knowing the local issues, I can’t really give a decent example.) Sadly, many will still blame the judges and RCs for the money going out the door.
Is it really possible for this to “cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars”? Is that prediction based on what it will cost in attorney fees defending this law, or do they think Janice might end up with a large award?
Hey, it’s not their money they are wasting. It’s what’s wrong with California in a nutshell, always making policy and laws based on emotion rather than facts and logic. Also, these politician love wasting tax payer money…..
Thank you for fighting the new sunset laws! This country has a very short memory. It is bad enough we now need a Registrant Green Book to travel safely between states and internationally, and then have to navigate through this or that city’s ordinances to see if we can simply find a safe place to live.
Breaking the Constitution is clearly criminal, and hating all registrants because they are registered shows their bigotry, but to make life miserable for the children and spouses of registrants is beyond those two other things — it is “I like ignoring the facts and I could care less about the consequences as long as I stand by my opinion” pure evil.
Council members ‘Asleep at the wheel’.
…expressed concern that her daughter wouldn’t be able to safely walk the family dog if the restrictions were repealed.
Is she safe now? The restrictions have NOT been enforced since at least 2009. Seriously… WTF? Sorry, I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
Intransigence.
Great column, Janice. Can this be submitted to the Union-Tribune and other media in the San Diego area?
Hey Someone can you please just post them on here??? Thank you for posting that ordinance but the way they stated that would be kind of hard to argue against even though it isn’t right they put in language that would surely make it appear more constitutional.. I know we have to have some more restrictive and blatantly unconstitutional ordinances in this state ….Like you said that is a start but I need ordinances like the one that the city of Carson had…
I think it all started from Jessica’s Law, California Proposition 83 (2006)
https://ballotpedia.org/Jessica%27s_Law,_California_Proposition_83_(2006)
Proposition 83 was named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old girl. She was the victim of a convicted sex offender who had failed to report his whereabouts, in spite of laws requiring him to do so.
Proposition 83 is well-known for requiring registered sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony sex offense to be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives. It included a number of other provisions that increased the legal penalties for specified sex offenses by:
Broadening the definition of certain sex offenses. Under Proposition 83, aggravated sexual assault of a child is defined as including offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim. Prior to Proposition 83, an offender had to be at least ten years older for a sexual assault of a child to be defined as “aggravated.”
Establishing longer penalties for specified sex offenses. Under Proposition 83, the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison includes assault to commit rape during the commission of a first degree burglary.
Prohibiting probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.
Eliminating early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses, including habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape.
Extending parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.
Increasing court-imposed fees currently charged to offenders who are required to register as sex offenders.
Prohibiting any person required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. For specified high-risk sex offenders, the ban extends to 2,640 feet.
Making more sex offenders eligible for an SVP (“Sexually Violent Predator”) commitment.
Hi Mike ~ You are right. The language makes it seem less unconstitutional, but still, it also seems that they really can’t enforce these laws since they can’t really prove that you are actually loitering if you are just in the area. In any case, these are the two PDFs I kept from this site actually, I believe:
https://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/290CaliforniaOrdinancesCity_20130128.pdf
https://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/290CaliforniaOrdinancesCounty_20130128.pdf
So the city council member said she voted to keep the residency restriction in place because she fears her daughter won’t be safe walking the dog. So she believes taking a person from a stable home environment where they can maintain employment, have a bathroom and a bed, have mail delivery, have friends over, date, feel secure and have self worth, and have an address the police can monitor, to casting them out on the street relegating them to the homeless population with all its sundry vicissitudes will make the city safer for children walking dogs. Ok, got it, just wanted to make sure I got the logic,
perfect someone…aj and chris your both right and I like how you worded that..In my motion…lol
..
Well, I’m not sure what to say. The City S Officials sound a bit arrogant. Can you imagine if the law had ruled with them? Yet, they still refuse to follow such rulings. I would like to see someone sue this city and follow it through until settled with a financial reward! Best of luck! Times are changing
Three of the five council members who voted not to repeal the ordinance Chris Cate, Georgette Gomez and Lorie Zapf have recently been appointed to head up a first of its kind in San Diego, the Homelessness Committee.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/may/16/san-diego-city-council-homeless-committee/
I must say, they couldn’t have chosen a finer group. 🤔🤔
The homelessness task force will work in conjunction with, among others, a new County program for Community Based Services and Recidivism Reduction (CoSRR).
” This project will change the lives of participants by identifying and addressing complex needs at the root of criminogenic behavior, by advancing wellness and healing, building skills for self-sufficiency ”
( But you shan’t be able to live next door to anyone and stay away from me and my dog)
Janice,
The more I think about your title about “Shame on SD City Council”, the more I believe they are not shameful at all. There is no shame in refuting facts for them and that the only facts that matter are their fears.
I just hope this goes to trial and you put a whooping legally and fiscally so that all of California hears and feels the irresponsibility. No more chipping away at letting them settle out of court. Bring it to ahead and publicly educate the whole state once and for all.