ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


NY: An influx of Sex Offenders in New Paltz Causes Town to Tighten Reigns

[ – 12/10/20]

Following the influx of multiple sex offenders to a motel in New Paltz, the Town of New Paltz passed a law that would limit the number of sex offenders allowed to live in one building.

Seven registered sex offenders moved into the Econo Lodge Motel in New Paltz between Oct. 10 and Nov. 2. Following the publication of an article notifying students of this, one more level three sex offender moved into the motel on Nov. 12, increasing the count to eight registered sex offenders: seven level threes and one level two.

There was such a large influx of sex offenders to New Paltz [Pop. 14,000] because no properties in the area were accepting level three offenders until the Econo Lodge stepped forward.

In response to community backlash following the news of even more offenders moving into town, the Town of New Paltz held a public hearing on Nov. 12. In the same meeting, Local Law was unanimously passed to add Chapter 92 “Hotels and Motels” to the Town of New Paltz Code.

Chapter 92 requires that any hotel or motel looking to provide accommodation to a registered sex offender must first obtain a license from the Town. In the application for a license, “the name of the person convicted, the date thereof, the nature of the crime, [and] the court in which the conviction was entered and the punishment imposed,” need to be recorded.

“Right now New Paltz just seems like we’re the path of least resistance and what we’re trying to do is provide a level of resistance here, and force the state to come up with a better plan instead of just dumping everyone here in New Paltz,” said Town Supervisor Neil Bettez during the Nov. 12 public hearing.

According to the recently passed Chapter 92, a licence would not be given for anyone with a felony or Class A misdemeanor in certain articles of the New York State Penal Law, which include Article 130: Sex Offenses.

To help limit the number of sex offenders in one building, Chapter 92 also includes a point system to determine how many sex offenders, and what level of sex offenders, can live together in one building.

A level one sex offender is assigned one “occupancy point,” a level two is assigned two points and a level three is assigned three points. Hotels and motels “with 50 or fewer units are granted a total of six occupancy points,”…

Read the full article


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.
    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
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There are no residency restrictions in NY, correct? What am I missing.

Many states have a “preemption clause” in their statutes which precludes counties and municipalities from enacting more restrictive laws. New York may be one that does not. If so, cities would be free to create their own ordinances.


Odds are this violates NY Preemption clause – Country wide restrictions on where RSO’s could live were over turned bc the state occupies this space

Sue the bastards. No way this is constitutional. Amounts to banishment.

Do you all smell something? Pure banishment and of course it’s not punishment.

Again I’ll ask…

From where does a jurisdiction get the authority to determine or restrict who may or may not be a resident of that jurisdiction?

And even if there is a place they draw this authority, this appears to violate the equal protection clause, as I don’t know of any other type of conviction which results in such banishment.

@Worried, I know the article isn’t for WI but since you are in WI, WI state statute 62.11 (5) which states “Powers. Except as elsewhere in the statutes specifically provided, the council shall have the management and control of the city property, finances, highways, navigable waters, and the public service, and shall have power to act for the government and good order of the city, for its commercial benefit, and for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and may carry out its powers by license, regulation, suppression, borrowing of money, tax levy, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, confiscation, and other necessary or convenient means. The powers hereby conferred shall be in addition to all other grants, and shall be limited only by express language.”

At least that’s going to be why a city in WI claims they can do it. It would be up to one to file a lawsuit to challenge on the constitutional grounds something they enact under this state statute. WI has given it’s cities extremely broad rights to do almost anything if it doesn’t conflict with something legislated by the state. That includes expanding upon state laws such as increasing sanctions for sex offenders under it’s power to act for the health, welfare and safety of the public.

The earliest proponents of the registry used to claim that everyone was safer by simply knowing where those convicted of sex crimes resided. Well, now they know. So they should be safer, right? If they bought into that so-called logic back then, shouldn’t it follow that they are now endangering themselves by forced evictions without knowledge or concern of where those registrants reside next?

As if there is critical mass of people forced to register that causes some reaction such as a mushroom cloud or maybe nefarious activities to happen. This is just lack of common sense here in NY, but then again, it is NY and probably will hurt the motel just as much as it does the people.

When it comes to the registry facts don’t matter, emotions do and anything to stir the pot. I feel like I keep watching Fatal Attraction’s scene, “I can’t be ignored Dan.” Well government stop ignoring us you created this mess based on lies and you eventually will have to pay!!

People v. Diack 2015 – State Law preempts local law. There can be no local laws regarding registrants in NY!

Well here is a motel owner saying Damn there go’s my best renters ! notice no mention of them causing a problem , this is just a bunch of crony’s trying to look tough playing the high road most of us have been smelling for years , when the fact is they are just simple cowards trying to kick people when they are down and the deck stacked , these peoples rights need to be fully restored and put an end to this punishment regardless of the number they have assigned anyone , numbers are for prison , not for free people . take those control freaks off the Christmas card list , and place them on the lawsuit list of course . this is in your face punishment applied to these real people by narcissistic power freaks

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x