The Sanford City Council is considering a sex offender residency restriction ordinance that would cite landlords and property owners for violations. …
Sanford Police Chief Thomas Connolly said is was his understanding that the ordinance would fall under licensing and permitting as a zoning issue, and so would be enforced against the property, rather than the sex offender. He said the police department would have little to do with the ordinance unless there was a problem at the location.
“In the future it really is an obligation of the owner of that property to make sure the sex offender isn’t living there, and then it is also the responsibility of realtors or someone at the time of the sale to make sure they aren’t selling a property or allowing a sale to take place to a sex offender,” if the ordinance is adopted, said Sanford Community Development Director Ian Houseal.” “Penalties for the civil violation would range from $100 to $2,500 a day, under the city’s business licensing code.”
You see, increasingly, everyone is being forcibly conscripted into the war against “sex offenders.”
Here we go again. Just another group of idiots passing idiotic rules for the idiots that don’t take into account that residency restrictions do nothing. I wonder if they have thought about Heroin dealers and the like and given THAT a good review. Idiots. Just blazing *&%%%% Idiots,
Cheers.
The ever expanding onerous USES of the databases, by Law as per leadership. When Tavern owners in WI had to opt for law permitting underage college kids ( potential & LIKELY near future customers\ clients) to be sued by Taverns for attempting to ACTUALLY NOW PURCHASE what taverns are designed to do (selling swill) I knew they we’re responding to LEOs recruiting college kids currently seeking degrees in criminal justice to engage in attempting to purchase alcohol as someone not lawfully permitted. That is how protection rackets operate. An artificial villain is created.
I wonder if Sanford Police Chief Thomas Connolly has ever done anything that would land him on the rregistry . . I wonder.
Just keep record of all these failed bills and when the supreme court reviews a case, we can cite all the cases that failed due to enforcing everything that doesn’t involve a simple “tracking” for law enforcement.
How in the world can a group of adults sit down and say, “Yeah, this sounds like a good idea,” and nobody says, “You know, if these were gays or blacks or Native Americans or women or basically any other identity group on the planet we would be in big trouble for this.”
I would imagine MOST states prohibit discrimination for a number of things on the basis being registered including employment, housing etc. I know Janice has spoken on it at meetings.
I wonder what happens when one is sworn to uphold the letter of the law and then openly advocate that others break that same law?
I wonder where is the breaking point in SCOTUS’ eyes on these things. Contrary to what SCOTUS stated in Smith, RCs are not “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens[.]” Granted, this phrase was speaking in reference to comparing things to parole, probation, or some other supervision. However, it’s a bald-faced lie to say RCs can move, live, and/or work as other citizens can. The reason for this being a direct, not collateral, consequence of a public registry. SCOTUS really needs to pull its buttcheeks off its shoulders and realize how they royally screwed this one up.
I hate to be the one that says “I told you so”, but……….
The powers that be will always find a way around the laws implemented to give us a chance. If a court says a person can live in a place within a set of parameters, L.E. and politicians will change those parameters.
I suggest you watch the movie “Cool Hand Luke”. “You put boss’s dirt in my hole”. “ Now you have my dirt on boss’s ground!”
They will keep making it impossible to follow and then will arrest you for not following the law, even if , as so many of us have been witness to, they themselves don’t really know it!
I found this new “restriction ordinance” hilarious. As a matter of background, someone in my family is on a sex-offender registry. I think the registries are all ridiculous. That new restriction ordinance is about nothing more than a localities creative attempt to find yet another way to pad its own coffers. Many sex offenders live in close proximity to schools without any incident. Many sex offenders are allowed to pick up their own kids at school, again with no incident. But wait, we need to restrict where they can live, and now we can punish not only the sex offender for living where he is not allowed, we can punish the property owner too, where it hurts most–in the wallet! It’s NOT about pubic safety it’s all about money and creative ways to get more of it for a city or county.
In the case of my family member who is on the registry, he’s been out of prison for nearly eight years. He’s not had so much as a speeding ticket. He follows the rules, wouldn’t ever engage a child in a conversation out of fear of what “could” happen to him (what he might be accused of), and he works and pays his taxes. His fines are paid and he’s completed his treatment program. But, someone did find it necessary to look him up on the registry, call him at his work (which is on the registry website info), and try to dupe him into believing he had three warrants that all could be taken care of if he just made a payment on the phone. The state police did nothing to investigate this attempted scam and extortion, other than tell my family member that if they wanted him, they’d come pick him up, not call him!
I find the whole idea of sex offender registries just another excuse for bureaucrats to make jobs for themselves and suck up more public money that could be used for far more useful things!