PA- Perverse Outcome

4-16-2009 Pennsylvania:

County's proposed limits on sex-offender residency would make dozens of communities off-limits

Protecting kids from sex offenders is a noble goal, but the best way to go about doing so is unclear -- a county ordinance, a lawsuit and pending appeal later, it's still contentious.

Allegheny County passed an ordinance in 2007, in an effort to keep kids out of the grasp of sex offenders by limiting where the ex-cons can live. On March 20, U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster ruled that the measure was unconstitutional. A few days later, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato announced the county would appeal the decision.

"We believe it is important to appeal this ruling in order to provide an additional level of protection for children here in Allegheny County," Onorato said in a March 24 statement.

Under the state's "Megan's Law," sex offenders must register with the state police and have their photos, addresses and places of employment displayed on a publicly accessible Web site upon parole. Offenders must also obtain approval from the state Parole and Probation Board before moving. But the county's ordinance goes farther, prohibiting Megan's Law offenders from moving to certain areas at all. The ordinance prohibits offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, child-care facility, park or recreation facility, or any other "community center."

(eAdvocate Post)

In other words, the ordinance bars them from living almost anywhere. As Lancaster's ruling noted, "[T]he vast majority of Allegheny County falls within the restricted zone, with permissible areas generally confined to outlying, suburban communities such as Sewickley Heights, Bell Acres, South Fayette, Collier and West Deer."

The county had prepared a map showing the areas where sex offenders could and couldn't live. That map has since been made unavailable because the county agreed not to enforce the ordinance until the lawsuits were resolved, but a map compiled for City Paper by Pittsburgh Neighborhood and Community Information System suggests the scope of the problem.

The CP map isn't complete: It does not reflect the locations of "community centers," because the term is so vague. But in a county divided into 130 municipalities and 43 school districts, a lot of acreage is put off-limits just by factoring in schools and parks alone. As the map suggests, almost the entire city of Pittsburgh is off-limits. So are inner-ring suburbs like Wilkinsburg and Homestead.

The most prominent exceptions are the county's sprawling suburbs, where distances between schools and other community centers are largest.

Even there, housing is more limited than the map suggests. As Lancaster noted, the county restrictions do not take into account "the topography of the permissible areas, nor whether residential housing is permitted or available." For example, Findlay Township on the county's western border looks wide open. But much of the area is occupied by a landfill and the Pittsburgh International Airport.

Gary Klingman, Findlay's township manager, expresses some concern that the township could serve as a haven for sex offenders. But, he adds, "You would have to look at the zoning of the property." Much of the land is zoned for industrial and commercial use, not residential occupancy.

Many offenders would have a hard time affording to live in those communities anyway. According to the state-maintained "Megan's List," Sewickley Heights is home to only one offender. West Deer is home to two. By contrast, the list identifies 15 offenders currently residing in Homestead, 19 in Wilkinsburg -- two communities that would be almost entirely off-limits under the ban. (None of those offenders would be forced to move -- the ordinance clearly "grandfathers in" offenders who made their homes before it was enacted. Should they move, though, they would be subject to the restrictions.)

County Councilor Vince Gastgeb, who authored the ordinance, says maps may oversimplify the issue. ..News Source.. by MELISSA MEINZER