Yucaipa Council considers repeal for sex offender ordinance

At the City Council meeting on Monday, Aug. 28, the council discussed the consideration of repealing the sex offender residency restriction ordinance.

The State penal code currently prohibits residency within 2000 feet of a public or private school, as well as parks where children regularly gather.

The city of Yucaipa’s current ordinance is similar to state law, which also prohibits offenders from living within 2000 feet of parks and schools, but also includes daycare facilities. 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

Does anyone know how the LEO show and tell went here where RCs were not invited since they were the topic of discussion? Can someone get the data from them since it is all in the public domain paid for by tax money?

“The State penal code currently prohibits residency within 2000 feet of a public or private school, as well as parks where children regularly gather.” This lawyer is worthless, as he is running a bull $hitter service.

“[I]t was very surprising to see how many people were not aware that the [Megan’s] law website exists,” said council member, Greg Bogh.”
A fine statement as to the utility of the ML site. I recall recently reading that of those who know about ML sites, only about 1/3 ever visit one. This, too, speaks to the utility (or perhaps futility) of ML sites, RC rights notwithstanding.

This article made me chuckle. The council seems scared to do anything aside from kicking the can down the road. It reminds me of a scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” where Robin (Eric Idle), when the party is facing the Killer Rabbit, offers, “[w]ould it help to confuse him if we ran away more.”

From the article:
“Our recommendation is that the council resend the ordinances and avoid the cost of litigation that could very well be successful if they are challenged,” said city attorney, David Snow.

Where will they send the ordinances? Have they tried sending them before? Maybe they sent them to the wrong address. I have some suggestions where they could send the ordinances.


Problem is the newspaper article used the word resend, not rescind, so the newspaper writer, editor and publisher are wrong. A quick letter to the editor might help them relearn their writing and editing skills.