Sex offender housing restrictions: where the law, common sense and politics collide

It seemed simple enough. A law on the city of San Diego’s books to restrict where registered sex offenders can live has provisions deemed unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

City Attorney Mara Elliott wanted the City Council to repeal the ordinance because San Diego could still be sued with it in place, even though the law hasn’t been enforced for years.

But on Aug. 1, a majority of council members balked. It seems nothing is actually simple in politics when it comes to doing anything that could be distorted as going easy on sex offenders, no matter the logic or law. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. 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.
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 seems to be a good piece for us, showing the idiocy, frankly, of the SD City Council. I’m sure there will be many citizens who will focus on how it’s wrong that the court ruled as it did, etc., instead of accepting the facts and truth the court decided. If one accepts the court ruling, even if disagreeing with it, the 5 members of the Council look foolish. I’m guessing the Council will see the light and repeal before it actually heads to trial. Expect some sort of soap-boxing and grandstanding associated with it.