CA: City Council repeals sex offender residency ordinance

Facing the threat of another costly lawsuit the Highland City Council voted 3-2 to repeal a city ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other locations identified for children’s use, Nov. 14. 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

This is good news. The town’s projected cost of fighting a threatened suit from Janice concerning their residency restrictions that they know they are likely to lose was enough to get them to repeal them.

Maybe your voters ought to learn civics and the constitution about those laws they are trying to vote in before actually voting on them. If they knew what the costs could be on the backside, then maybe they would rethink them…or not if they are merely emotional about things without engaging their brains.

“In discussion Lilburn, McCallon and Timmer each expressed frustration of seeing that Sacramento judges and attorneys have more influence than voters leaving local government little control.

“This makes me sick,” Lilburn said. “Why should have to fight the fight when our voters already have.”‘

Because mob rule isn’t always correct. If it was always up to the voters and nothing else, we’d still be drinking from separate water fountains and jailing people for marrying outside of their skin-tone.

He said “this makes me sick, why should we have to fight the fight when the voters already have?” Maybe because not even the voters have the ability to willfully violate their own constitution. What a moron. Give em hell Janice.

Lilburn and Timmer are jackasses that won’t even listen to their own attorney. LOL. Does that tell you a little bit about the(VOTERS) in that area who voted them two morons in?? No Sensible Judge will allow a disregard of what’s fact even with your pathetic failed attempt at fear mongering. Nonetheless you two lost and can now consider yourselves losers. Your faces can also be connected to a failed ordinance. To bad you two weren’t part of the majority with your no vote, then we could have connected a nice million dollar lawsuit to you as well. See why judges shouldn’t always listen to voters, look in the mirror. Nice try BUFOONS….

Janice and team wins again! Great job! Although I have no sympathy for two no voters, they are just giving lip service to their constituents so they can stay in office for the next term. I thought the article was more balanced than some of the other journalists have written: here’s what the voters voted for and this is how our courts of justice decided on this issue. Just comes to show how laws like Prop 83, thanks to fear mongerers and career politicians like George (now in Board of Equalization) and Sharon Runner (deceased?), are costing both the state as well as municipalities and the taxpayers in terms of lawsuits. I remember the LAO’s analysis of this bill and the constitutional questions it raised should it become law. Now, reality is finally sinking in much to the chagrin of these fear mongerers.

|”This makes me sick,” Lilburn said.
Actually you make ME sick, Mayor Lilburn.

|”Why should have to fight the fight when our voters already have.”
It’s called The Constitution. You should try reading it sometime!

Another ultra-restrictive un-constitutional law falls. Thank you Janice for all your hard work to right the wrongs of a witch hunt minded society!

These residency restrictions being won identifies parts of the registry that are unconstitutional. That is beyond penalty and disability.

Again, if you earned the 1203.4, then a person is released from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction. Yes, the residency has been ruled unconstitutional now, but it was before. The judges ruled that the registry posed no civil nor criminal penalty or disability before, but here we now have proof it was unconstitutional. Therefore it holds that 1203.4 should have relieved any registrant who earned it b/c the residency restriction was ruled unconstitutional, which was part of the registry.

Ca Const, Art 1, Sec 7b is the equal protections immunity statute. The judges who stated that the registry posed no disability are now being disproven as a part of the registry is now deemed unconstitutional. The other part was presence restrictions. These unconstitutional laws were part of the registry and something that 1203.4 would have released you from should you have earned it b/c it’s beyond a penalty or disability… it was unconstitutional.