PA: Appeals court rules private housing development cannot bar sex offenders

Source: 10/31/22

A state appellate court ruled a private housing development does not have the right to entirely ban registered sex offenders from living within their community.

Ruling in a Monroe County case, the state Commonwealth Court said a 2016 restrictive covenant in the Lake Naomi housing community in Tobyhanna Twp. runs afoul of a state regulations that control where registered sex offenders can reside.

The case has statewide implications because it marks the first time a state appellate court has addressed whether private homeowner communities must abide by state regulations that govern municipalities relating to sex offender residency.

Read the full article


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, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest 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

Wow! Color me impressed with the GA court, citing previous case law that barred registrants from living within 2,500 feet of schools and other types of properties where children are around. The private community is implying it should have more laws than the state laws, which this court made sure they do not.

What about condos & townhouses? Can any registrant just buy into those communities, or do they have restrictions in their contract agreements? What if you buy and say you didn’t see the restrictions in the contract? Will you be required to sale your condo? I always wondered about condos & townhouses associations. I’m sure many just want your money, regardless of your status. But I also have to assume that some associations vet their buyers and make sure they are not on any registry.

The fact the property development partners attempted to ban is probative of the people’s (real) intent behind the development registration regime in the first case. To impose affirmative restraint or disability. This was the intent. Was then at the time of inking1994, at the time of Smith V review 2003, and is now2022.
So this unavoidably raises a question. Who benefits most from declaring it otherwise? The answers are obvious. Those who wish to wield its full power. Who are they? Those who wish to remain in power. Thus Ds&Rs cut a deal concerning its use(s). Interestingly enough, WI opted to use form #1789 for registration document. A significant year in American history. Who can tell me what was going on in American politics in that year?
WI certainly wasn’t a state yet in 1789. Statehood came in 1848.

For those of us in WI; Who were the main players in 1994-1995 timeframe? I’ve put forth these two names on a witness list in the context of my FTRs. I simply file it with the the clerk of courts. By doing so I pissed off a few judges and my appointed council too. To assist in my own defense means just that. The last time I also included the name of another well known WI politician who used to be the chair of fed Senate ways & means committee. Perhaps the 2nd most powerful position in Congress. I chose that person to testify about the role of dates in statutes, specifically December 25, 1993.(301.45) Date choices are usually a legislative concern, but WI legislators didn’t pick the date, someone else did. The congressional record proves that fact.

Note: New database driven precedent.