Source: doorcountypulse.com 8/7/25
Following an appeal from a convicted sex offender, the Village of Forestville is revising an ordinance related to the distance convicted sex offenders may reside from “where children are known to congregate.”
The village’s ordinance, adopted in December 2007, prohibits a convicted sex offender from living within 2,500 feet of any school, licensed day care center, park, trail, playground, place of worship or library.
Village President Terry McNulty said the state’s sex offender registry showed a convicted sex offender who moved to the village lived around 400 feet from Forestville’s library.
The individual, more than 60 years old, has been registered since 1994 for a conviction in Brown County. At its June meeting, following a closed-session appeal, the board decided the individual could remain at the residence but may not have contact with, or loiter near, any park, library, church, or trail in the village.
The village’s ordinance allows the board to waive the ordinance requirements through an appeal. The board then forwards its decisions …
Forestville! Population 471! Square footage. 0.52 sq mi!!!! With a residency restriction of 2500 ft! That’s probably longer than the town is! I’m glad that they finally decided to let him live there! Mighty nice of them.
Given the board’s restrictions on loitering near parks, libraries, churches, or trails, would this individual now have to second-guess routine activities like mowing his lawn, trimming bushes, or hosting a backyard barbecue or even leaving the curtains open—especially if his property borders one of these areas? Could such everyday behavior be misinterpreted as a violation, potentially triggering civil confinement and or jail time.
That was a lovely effort to appease an irritated Registrant – though a lawsuit can nonetheless be filed as I suspect the “need to appeal” to the Village for a waiver is still unlawful.
Forestville doesn’t have a shortage of idiots, so they should concentrate on decreasing those numbers.
I’m sorry, but if one is a PRF, giving kids candy at a bus stop is not a good look. (If that is what indeed took place.)
The patchwork system in place in Wisconsin right now is unworkable. It essentially traps PFR in their current living situation with little chance to move somewhere else, at least it did for me. The neighboring towns all have a clause in their ordinances which prohibit someone whose crime did not take place in the town or who didn’t have a prior connection to the town from moving in, basically removing much of the state from a possible place to live.
If I ever want to relocate from my current residence in Wisconsin to another place I’ll have to navigate a maze of local restrictions, many of which overlap and contradict each other and all of which make no one safer.
A statewide restriction wouldn’t be any better. The only solution is to do away with these stupid laws.
So this “village” is too broke and too poor to enforce their ordinance for fear of being sued, so they come up with other ways to harass this gentleman by saying he can live, but he can’t loiter near a church or school until we can figure this thing out with our lawyers. Lol! So now they have to come up with a distance that’s not too restrictive (that they don’t get sued) but restrictive enough (to satisfy the Karens) It’s kind of like the Goldilocks dilemma. The porridge can’t be too hot or too cold