JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Jacksonville Land Use and Zoning committee approved an ordinance that allows a day care to reopen within 2,000 feet of a sex predator.
The current city code requires a 2,500-foot distance between the two. The request that the day care owner is making would shrink that distance to 1,980 feet, putting the offender just outside the radius.
“There is a great need for day care in the neighborhood,” Paul Harden, the attorney for the day care, said. “This provides day care for folks who work in the area. It meets each of the criteria. There are particular and economic difficulties because they’re both located, where they’re located.”
The day care, located at 15 East 25th Street, was purchased and operated in 2003. The man purchased his home in 2004, one year before the city expanded its law to prevent new schools and child care businesses from opening within proximity of a sexual offender from 1000 feet to 2,500 feet.
“The subject property has historically operated as a daycare center since records say early 2003, but has since closed and non-operational for longer than six months and so therefore, it is considered new and must abide by the distance regulations from the sexual predator,” a Planning Department representative said.
Back in October, the planning commission denied the request by new owner Tonya Brock and said that it would go against the ordinance, which was created to protect children.
Harden said that the law is an “unfair reading of the law,” and the owner wasn’t aware of the proximity of the predator when she purchased it, as it doesn’t show on any of the zoning records.
Brock spoke at the meeting and said safety is the top priority of her and the day care.
“As far as security, I have alarm systems, we have codes where parents cannot get in unless they have a code to get in. I also do background checks on [all] parents,” …
Since she has these things, then why is a distance needed? She has the solution and the state undermines their own fearful argument. Classic. Strike residence distance restrictions from the law. Make security required.
Read the comments. People are quite mindless. They actually believe allowing the extra footage closer will now make these children unsafe.
Someone (like the author of this article) should ask the members of the committee if they could cite a case in which a PFR randomly entered a day care center so as to target a random child? And secondly, how far away from the daycare center did this person (if there are any) reside?