CO- Council passes living restrictions for sex offenders

I'll start here: They allege they are doing this to protect children, but they ignore all things dangerous, other criminal types and things physical and the crimes actually happening to children in these protected places, and want folks to ASS-U-ME that former sex offenders are the ONLY danger to children. Clearly children are a pretext for some other goal. i.e., banning folks they don't like for which there is no constitutional right to do so.

Under the guise of today's residency ordinances they try to protect places where children congregate. i.e., schools, day cares etc. No where in the entire nation has anyone, including law enforcement, been able to cite a case where a RSO lived WITHIN the prohibited distance -and- committed a crime AT the protected place. This is a hypothetical scenario that simply does not happen, and has not happened in recorded history; it is hypothetical and not reality.

This is likened to creating a law that says, we will punish the farmer if an orange falls out of a apple tree. Someone could put an orange in a apple tree and it could fall out, but is it likely to happen? Its not reality, its hypothetical.

Now Reality: Crimes are happening to children AT these protected places, caused by people working IN these protected places, how does today's residency ordinance address these crimes? They don't, today's residency laws ignore reality and only focus on hypothetical scenarios, scenarios which never happen; feel good laws, but in reality useless and resource wasteful. eAdvocate

2-4-2009 Colorado:

Greeley City Council has decided to stop sex offenders from living and loitering near schools, parks and playgrounds.

The ordinance, adopted by the Greeley City Council on Tuesday night, is designed to stop sex offenders from living closer than 750 feet from places where children congregate and also includes public pools and recreation centers. The sex offenders who must stay away from schools include those convicted of a felony and those who have multiple convictions.

Because of fears about civil liberties, Greeley officials crafted the ordinance with the 750 foot figure in mind to allow sex offenders to live in some places in Greeley. About one city block equates to 750 feet.

The loitering ordinance passed unanimously 6-0 — Councilman Ed Phillipsen was absent — but the residency restrictions passed 4-2 with Councilman Charles Archibeque and Councilwoman Pam Shaddock voting against it because of concerns — which they said they’ve seen in studies — that sex offender residency restrictions don’t work.

Sex offenders who already live near schools or parks and other places they are now prohibited from being will be able to stay in their homes provided they don’t move and don’t reoffend.

“We’re not pushing anyone out,” said Greeley Mayor Ed Clark. “It grandfathers — unfortunately — grandfathers all those people (who already live near schools) in.”

Three other communities in Colorado already limit where sex offenders can live and loiter — Englewood, Commerce City and Greenwood Village. Colorado has no statewide law directing where sex offenders can live.

Greeley has 242 sex offenders, said Greeley police officer Terry Moore with the Greeley Sex Offender Unit. About 80 percent or more are native to Greeley, Moore said.

Moore told council on Tuesday night that that figure has grown from 108 in March 2002, but that only about 10 of Greeley’s sex offenders have reoffended in seven years he’s been doing his job.

“We’re pretty even with most of the other cities around the state with how many sex offenders we have,” Moore said. Moreover, 85-93 percent of victims know their attackers.

The ordinances, however, will make Greeley a less attractive place for sex offenders to live, Moore said.

Taylor Pendergrass, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Colorado, sent a letter to Greeley City Council on Monday urging the council to reject the ordinances, which it didn’t.

Pendergrass said the loitering ordinance is too vague and that the residency law would actually do more harm than good in giving residents a false sense of security.

“The two ordinances being considered by Greeley City Council may be intended to address the fears of the public, but when it comes to actually stopping sex assaults, these measures are likely to do more harm than good,” Pendergrass wrote. ..News Source.. by Andrew Villegas