IL: Wayside residents sue City of Aurora, challenge state’s residency laws for registered sex offenders

This would be laughable if it weren’t hurting people. Are the law makers not able to see the absurdity of this? First off, the men are in a program that is trying to help them, and the city thinks kicking them out to be homeless is somehow going to protect kids, when in fact the homeless residents may be forced to live in the bushes in the park. Second they are arguing over feet–really? So if they are 450 feet from the park the kids are in danger, but if they are 550 feet from the park all is good and we can rest easy. There was a guy in our community, not an SO, but a violent felon on a GPS monitor, on probation who got in a shootout with police, he was in a stolen car, had a hand gun, and was running from police, all while on a GPS monitor. The secret is that if the person wants to do better they will, if they don’t, they probably won’t. So the key is to make people feel worthy and productive so they want to change. Making them feel unwanted and shunned is hardly going to help the problem.

A federal suit based on a few feet. Go figure.

Good for them! If I recall in the initial article, the residence wasnt a problem until the city installed some playground equipment and it was after they moved in, which is complete bull. If they (we) let this go, that city or any other like it with residency restrictions could use this as a template for how to remove rc’s from any community easy peasy. I couldnt imagine being forced out of my home due to a micro playground being built just to remove me and always having to worry about when I would get focred out of the next place and where would live after that….100% permanently destabilized.

What bothers me about this lawsuit is they’re not going after the residency restriction itself, just the application of it based on the location of and the distance between the building and the playground equipment. I wonder if they’re gun-shy based on past IL and 7th CCoA decisions. Although, I gotta figure at some point the restriction itself may come under discussion.

And in a sign of the complete idiocy of the restriction itself:
*****
“Wayside is offering to secure agreements from the men to not enter portions of the property that are less than 500 feet from the park and gather statements from Wayside staff describing the precise supervision and restriction placed on the men, the suit states.”
*****
So a RC *inside* the shelter–with the only usable exit being away from the park–is a threat if less than 500 feet away? Does the RC have the ability to walk through walls, or how does this even come close to rational (or even sane)?

A Law that solves what problem???