CA- City rewrites sex offender ordinance

11-17-2008 California:

LONG BEACH - City attorneys have rewritten a controversial sex offender ordinance whose constitutionality is being challenged in a lawsuit.

The ordinance, which will go to the City Council for approval Tuesday, no longer applies to current registered sex offenders, eliminates an anti-loitering provision that created "child safety zones," and limits to one the number of sex offenders who can live in a single unit, rather than in an entire multi-unit building.

The council meets at 5 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall, 333 W. Ocean Blvd.

The council approved the original ordinance in March in response to Alamitos Beach residents who were concerned about an apartment building at 1149 E. First St. that was housing more than a dozen registered sex offenders.

The law builds on existing state laws that restrict where sex offenders may live, but is much more draconian and, critics claim, illegal.

Under threat of litigation, City Attorney Robert Shannon suspended enforcement of the law in April, but that didn't stop the legal action.

Reversing course

Last month, attorneys representing 35 sex offenders filed a lawsuit claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it applies a retroactive punishment.

The rewritten law appears to resolve that issue.

The ordinance now defines a sex offender as "any person convicted of a crime on or after the effective date of this ordinance," which means current sex offenders won't be affected by the law.
If the ordinance is approved Tuesday, it will return to the council for a final vote likely

Dec. 2 and then must be signed by the mayor. It would go into effect 31 days after the mayor's approval.

"It's not ideal, but it's legally defensible," said Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, who had pushed for the ordinance in response to the Alamitos Beach concerns in her 2nd District. "Ideally, this is not everything the residents nor the (elected officials) would have hoped for."

Sarah Stockwell, a Fountain Valley attorney representing sex offenders in the lawsuit, said the revised ordinance satisfies her concerns.

"It protects all of our clients," Stockwell said. "Now it's just negotiating how we end the lawsuit."

New rules

Under the sex offender ordinance, no more than one sex offender can live in a single unit unless the sex offenders are related by blood, marriage or adoption; no property owner or manager may knowingly rent any unit within a multi-family building to more than one sex offender; and no more than one sex offender can stay in a single room at a hotel, motel or inn, unless related.

The ordinance creates "residential exclusion zones" - a 2,000-foot radius around child-care centers, parks and schools - where sex offenders aren't allowed to live. In this densely populated city, that provision makes most of Long Beach off-limits to any new sex offenders who commit their crimes after the law takes effect.

An estimated 800 registered sex offenders live in Long Beach.

The ordinance originally also established "child safety zones" within 300 feet of areas where children congregate and where sex offenders would not be allowed to loiter, but that language has been stricken from the law.

The lawsuit had challenged this loitering provision as well, claiming it was too vague.

"The question becomes at what point does lunch at McDonald's become loitering without lawful business or purpose," Stockwell said.

According to Deputy City Attorney Cristyl Meyers, current loitering laws can address that issue.

While the ordinance originally was created to deal with the "clustering" of large numbers of sex offenders in a single apartment building, the law is now less restrictive in addressing this. Sex offenders are limited to one per unit in duplexes and multi-unit buildings, but not one per structure, as the law originally read.

Meyers said the lawsuit had played a role in the city's decision to change the law, but that also as other cities passed similar laws, Long Beach looked to tweak its own.

Lowenthal said the ordinance was changed to avoid a long, expensive legal battle, but that she stands by the original law.

"I am fully confident in the constitutionality and in the position that we took," Lowenthal said.

Legal uncertainties

However, there seems to be some confusion as to what, exactly, the rewritten law entails.

Meyers told the Press-Telegram last week that sex offenders are safe in their current homes, but that when they move they will face the restrictions outlined in the ordinance.

Marge Landress, who owns an apartment building next to the one at 1149 E. First St. that started the controversy, said that was the way she had understood it as well when Meyers spoke to the Alamitos Beach Neighborhood Association last week.

But the ordinance doesn't seem to support that contention, and Stockwell said her interpretation is that the law can't affect any current registered sex offender, even if they move.

It was unclear whether Meyers was referring to sex offenders only as those defined under the ordinance or in general, and she didn't return phone calls seeking clarification Thursday and Friday.

This issue aside, Stockwell said other residency situations could eventually lead to new legal issues under the ordinance.

If a Long Beach property owner who lives close to a school or park is convicted of a sex crime and must register as a sex offender, could the new ordinance force that person from his home?

"Just because you have a conviction doesn't take away your right to own property," Stockwell said. ..News Source.. by Paul Eakins, Staff Writer