ME: Sanford sex offender residency ordinance would cite landlords, property owners

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.

Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“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!