Source: boulderweekly.com 5/7/25
Data shows little efficacy for an approach that could open the door to lawsuits
A weeks-long effort to create legislation that will limit where — and with whom — registered sex offenders can live in the city of Longmont came to a head Tuesday night.
City council voted 6-1 to move a bill forward that would prohibit registered sex offenders from living within 500 feet of schools, daycares and public and private parks, and prohibit more than three offenders from living together. Council will hold a public hearing and final vote on the ordinance at its May 20 meeting.
As of March 4, 286 registered sex offenders reside in the city of Longmont. There are 202 with felony offenses — 21 of whom are unhoused.
Residents first brought concerns about a state-certified sober living residence that houses multiple registered sex offenders in their neighborhood to Longmont City Council during a Feb. 25 meeting. The city had no prior knowledge of the home.
In the weeks following, residents packed the council chambers nearly every Tuesday to urge councilmembers to take action.
“It is not just one neighborhood involved here. Please be strong in setting these ordinances in place,” Longmont resident Bobette Berger said during public comment at the May 6 meeting. “Please keep Longmont safer, I beg you.”
These types of limitations, generally referred to as residency restrictions, range in intensity and can drastically reduce areas within a city where a sex offender is allowed to live. On the surface, residency restrictions are intended to create safer neighborhoods and prevent previous offenders from repeating their crimes. But research calls the efficacy of this type of legislation into question, and a lack of funding for prevention programs leaves local elected officials with few options — which could create more problems than they solve.
“Ultimately, they just try to make it so that people on the registry cannot live there, and that’s honestly a terrible shame for public safety,” said Laurie Kepros, director of sexual litigation for the Colorado Office of the State Public Defender.
What about not having 3 gang members live together?
These residents don’t actually care, whatsoever, about where PFRs live, so long as the PFRs are not living anywhere near their neighborhood. In their “ideal” little world, nobody on the registry would even exist at all (or would be rotting away in concentration camps, out of sight, out of mind for the rest of their existence, which is basically what “civil commitment” already is).
Most people in this backward country have absolutely no clue what the actual facts are regarding those forced to register, (nor do they ever bother with any real data/unbiased research), instead, they’ll just keep eating all the propaganda and fiction their beloved demagogues constantly spoon feed them, because critical thinking demands a substantial investment of time and effort, neither of which the common individual wants to expend, if they can ever help it.
” Please Longmont safer.” Here’s an idea it’s not the government’s job to protect you because that responsibility belongs to you as a parent. If someone really intends to commit another no amount of feet will keep you safe. Most sex offenses are committed by first timers, so your beloved registry and so many feet are smoke n mirrors, yet you are blinded by hatred to see the truth.
How many of the Longmont registrants re-offended since being on the registry? My guess is zero, so do something more productive with your time like getting a Colorado Contact High and maybe you’ll be stoned enough to see residency restrictions don’t work and never has or will.
““Please keep Longmont safer, I beg you.”
Sounds like one of them beggars the Bible refers to.
One of the key statements in this article is:
‘Despite the data and potential litigation costs, council members have voiced their belief that these restrictions will assuage fears in the community. ‘
So, in essence, it doesn’t matter to them what the facts are and how much it could cost to fight against the unconstitutionality of such a restriction;what matters only to them is the public sense of security even if it’s only based on myths and lies.
It’s one thing to make judgements being ignorant of the truth, but it’s an utter abomination of justice to know the truth and turn your back on it when making a decision.
“But research calls the efficacy of this type of legislation into question…”
How does the research call it into question? All the research I have seen show that residence restrictions have absolutely no impact on the commission of sex crime whatsoever, be it recidivism or first time offenses.
If there is a study somewhere showing that they “work”, I’d really like to see it. And when I say “work”, I mean actually reduced sex crime, not simply made people feel better.
With the # of PFRs increasing exponentially, pretty soon We will be able to limit where non registered live! 🤣
Leaving this here for the forum to provide applicable and possibly usable comments before it is sent to the council.
TO: Longmont (CO) City Council
Date: May 18, 2025
RE: Potential Registered Sex Offense Residency Restrictions
Council Members,
Is Longmont really an unsafe place to live in Boulder County where drastic residency restrictions against people forced to register for a past sex offense are required? Upon recent online research, the greatest fear one has is the possibility of an unborn fetus being abducted. There is prevailing fear being mongered by those who know no better than to create hysteria of people forced to register for a past sex offense living together in one house or within short distances of places where minors may congregate or be. You should believe the science presented to you on this topic like you did when Covid hit and took its toll on Boulder County along with Longmont, but lives were saved.
There is no problem with those people forced to register who live together in one sober house for purposes of their sobriety and recovery. Why are they in a sober living house to begin with? Does anyone know why they became addicted in the first place? Maybe they suffered at the hands of others? Do you know? Those in recovery work with those who are experts in helping those in recovery as well as supporting each other. Is there any instance where a critical mass of people forced to register living together has caused problems in society let alone Longmont? [Extensive research says the answer is clearly no.] Maybe Longmont should outlaw sober living homes where those who live there decide to relapse and then do something drastic to another person or people in mass. You never know. To protect the Longmont citizens, maybe only one person working to be sober in life should live among others who are not at least 500 feet if not more away from those areas where minor congregate or be. Never know when they’ll relapse and do something to a minor (or anyone for that matter). People fear mongering has created an image in your minds of a group of people who are working to better themselves and get healthy, salivating at the very thought in plotting to do something heinous to a minor. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
You do realize that a distance restriction will NOT stop anyone from doing anything no matter what it is? You do realize that by creating these alleged safe living bubbles, you are creating safe zones for those in positions of trust to do sex crimes by distraction in getting you and law enforcement to look elsewhere?
Yes, family members, educators, law enforcement, coaches, clergy, group leaders, medical professionals, people who are NOT on the registry, et al have been convicted of over 94% of sex crimes against minors while those who are on the registry are not statistically likely to repeat a sex crime. You do realize you are begging for lawsuits and spending of local taxpayer money which could be used elsewhere in the city by defending this law? Pay raises for those who work for Longmont in any capacity is in jeopardy including those in city government and law enforcement.
City public work projects and maintenance are in jeopardy. The raising of taxes to cover such legal defense and action is the only other way to meet all of Longmont’s other civil obligations as well. When was the last time a residency restriction stopped a crime? When was the last time the registry stopped a crime?
Can you tell? Do you know? Do you really know?
Bottom line, you, the council, are being played by the masses, the people of Longmont, in a power play to see if you are soft or hard on crime that is not sure to happen, just as other jurisdictions have across the nation (and some who have had to rescind them (see California and Wisconsin). These people have created a fear for you to believe in (much like those in Massachusetts during the famous Witch Trials did to the masses) and see if you are willing to do a residency restriction with no science data foundation to it. Those who as for this are asking to make themselves feel good and for their own publicity, not for the city.
What are they hiding? What skeletons do they have? Why are they barking the loudest? They are the ones people should be fearful of with their minds creating solutions to problems that don’t exist. The sky is not falling and these people forced to register don’t need to be the scorn of those who have nothing better to do with their time…being without facts at that. Don’t be played. Listen to those who have the facts and shared them with you. Don’t be afraid to do the right thing and shut down this idea.
[Edited 5-19-2025]