FL: Oconomowoc tweaks sex offender residency restrictions in wake of federal court decision

[Florida Journal Sentinel]


CITY OF OCONOMOWOC – The common council on Tuesday, Dec. 5, voted to repeal and replace the city’s 2011 ordinance outlining residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, joining a handful of other area communities to do so in the wake of lawsuits and a federal court decision earlier this year.

Under the new rules, registered sex offenders who did not live in the city at the time of their offense could petition the common council to move into Oconomowoc. Such offenders are currently barred from attempting to move to the city under the current ordinance’s “original domicile restriction.”

But those offenders, if allowed to move in, would have to find housing in the 9 percent of the city that does not fall within 1,000 feet of a “child safety zone,” areas near local schools, parks or houses of worship.

About 664 housing units fall within that 9 percent, said Oconomowoc Police Chief Ron Buerger.

Read more


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

“Child safety zone” is such an oxymoron. That’s like saying “snowflake buffer..”

Legitimate question: Why should anyone on the registry have to “petition” for their preexisting privacy, safety and security, that was circumvented by Megan’s law in the first place, be restored?!?!

Oconomowoc is in Wisconsin, (just seems like Florida in it’s oppression)
I’m sure the appeals boards are filled with experts.

How has all of this not reached SCOTUS yet? Much of their 2003 ruling was based on the fact that non of this was a big deal. It has moved well beyond that. This law alone completed barred someone from moving into a town. Now they have to petition the town to be allowed in, and then they’re still restricted to a 1000-foot leash. This is infuriating!