Green Bay sex offender ordinance takes financial toll on city

Please note, the article is written as though the city is paying these costs, but look closer, it is the state paying the costs, and not for one city but all throughout Wisconsin.

3-3-2010 Wisconsin:

Rule turns many parole agents into real estate agents

Green Bay prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children gather.

It's an expensive ordinance and one that has raised questions about whether it's worth the cost.

The state spends more than $220,000 a year to house convicted sex offenders after they are released from prison at the state's Transitional Living Program house, 1761 Shawano Ave., according to the Department of Corrections.

It (the state) also pays nearly $4,000 a month for each offender housed at the Brown County Jail after prison release who cannot find a place to live. It can become costly — convicted sex offender Geitano Schmidt, 50, stayed at the Brown County Jail for five months before he was approved to move.

Those costs include payments to an agency that drives offenders around to look for housing.

Green Bay's sex offender residency ordinance prohibits sex offenders from living in nearly 90 percent of the city. The ordinance was approved in 2007 because of concerns that most of Brown County's listed adult sex offenders lived in Green Bay. An analysis that year by the Green Bay Press-Gazette of the state's Sex Offender Registry found 65 percent of adult sex offenders in the county lived in Green Bay.

The increased cost hasn't translated into increased safety for city residents.

Authorities refer about 200 sexual-assault cases to the Brown County District Attorney's Office, a number that hasn't changed much since the ordinance passed.

However, sex offenders refusing to register with the state has more than doubled since the city ordinance went into effect in 2007, according to the state Department of Corrections.

Authorities referred 41 cases of noncompliance to the Brown County District Attorney's Office in 2009, according to the state corrections department. That number jumped from only 14 cases in 2007 and is more than the 38 cases referred in 2008.

"It's a result of the residency restriction because convicted sex offenders can't find a place to live so they would rather go underground," said Tom Smith, Corrections sex offender registration specialist.

Noncompliance is a refusal to provide correct information, including an address. Refusing to register is a felony that carries a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison.

"They're giving up," Smith said. "They want to comply but can no longer comply because of the restrictions that are held over their head."

Safety zones and loitering ordinances around parks, schools and day cares are some alternatives to the city ordinance, Smith said.

Ben Heiman is a member of the city's Sex Offender Residence Board, which hears the appeals of convicted sex offenders wishing to live within the city of Green Bay. He said noncompliance is a problem but it's not due to the city ordinance.

"That's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That's a scapegoat and a copout. We're trying to do what we can do, the best we can do, for this city."

Donna Ysebaert of Green Bay is a grandmother and said she worries about not knowing if a sex offender lives next door. The sex offender residence ordinance is a good idea but it needs to be tweaked, she said.

"If they're going to be released, they have to find housing somewhere," she said. "They're really not solving a problem. They're just making another one."

Ysebaert expressed concerns over copycat ordinances by surrounding municipalities and potential overcrowding at the Brown County Jail. She said if people support the ordinance, they can't complain about taxpayers footing the bill.

Jed Neuman supervises 52 probation and parole agents in Brown County. The sex offender ordinance isn't necessary, he said, since agents already require similar restrictions regarding housing and contact with minors.

"They've had to become real estate agents. It really makes our jobs quite difficult," he said.

Agents have to pick up offenders each morning when they stay at the Brown County Jail to help them look for housing, then drop them off each evening. Agents have reduced their caseloads to remain effective at protecting the public and rehabilitating the offenders, he added.

Everett Olson, 23, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl when he was 19 in 2006. He said the city ordinance is a good idea because it rewards those who are doing something positive while also protecting the community.

"I think it's good because it keeps a lot of the really violent offenders out, and people who have no support or income," he said.

Gary Hein of Green Bay said the sex offender ordinance prevents people from being able to contribute to society.

"They're forcing them to be criminals because they have to lie about where they're living," he said.

Hein's son is a convicted sex offender and he said the ordinance should be eliminated. ..Source.. By charles davis

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

FL- Sexual predator rules are often costly for cities to enforce

Amid cutbacks, some cities pay to prosecute and defend sex offenders who move in.

5-18-2008 Florida:

A few years ago, a movement began to spread across Florida aimed at protecting children from known sex offenders. One by one, cities made it harder for child predators to move into their borders by restricting where they could live.

But what seemed like a simple solution for Florida cities such as Deltona and others has become increasingly complex.

Cities face a quandary: If they want to enforce their tough rules, they have to pay to prosecute offenders. Recently, they learned that they may also have to pay attorneys to defend the same people.

During the past three years, 120 cities and counties have adopted ordinances limiting offenders to areas as far as a half-mile away from schools, parks, bus stops and day-care centers.

In Deltona, which has almost zoned sex offenders out of the city, officials are fighting a Volusia County court's order last fall to pay the legal bills for three offenders. While Deltona awaits the result of its appeal, it has stopped trying to force out other offenders.

Meanwhile, 30 offenders have moved into Deltona or switched homes in the past six months, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which helps monitor offenders.

Making matters worse is a budget squeeze as cities get less in property-tax money. Deltona Commissioner Janet Deyette said it will be tough to come up with enough to pay attorneys for offenders, too.

"All the cities are hurting," she said. "Here we're trying to protect the public, and it's going to cost us more."

Two weeks ago, an appellate court in West Palm Beach decided that cities must provide attorneys for indigent offenders accused of violating a city ordinance. Legal scholars said that ruling will weigh heavily on the Volusia court's decision.


Some cities expand the zone

State law already forbids many offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools and other places children congregate. If an offender breaks that law, the state foots the bill to prosecute them through the State Attorney's Office and defend them through the Public Defender's Office.

Many cities didn't think the state went far enough so they adopted rules requiring offenders to stay an extra 500 to 2,000 feet away. But cities are responsible for enforcing the expanded zone.

Attorney Chris Mancini, who writes a legal-issues column for a statewide publication, Buzz Magazine, predicts some cities will back off their ordinances. Some, he said, will press the state to toughen its law. That way, the state would cover the costs.

"You're going to see a real fight over this," said Mancini, who often defends offenders in ordinance-violation cases.

One legislator already has tried to beef up the law, extending the state's restricted areas by 500 feet. State Sen. Dave Aronberg, D- Greenacres, didn't get enough support during the spring legislative session, but he plans to introduce it again next year.

Some civil-liberties advocates expect the legal bills to force some cities to loosen or give up their restrictions.

George Griffin, president of the Volusia/Flagler chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, hopes elected leaders will research more effective methods of protecting children. He said he has yet to find a study showing that residential restrictions help.

"Where you live is not the issue -- where you live is just where you are going to sleep at night," Griffin said.

As it is now, it's so hard for offenders to find housing that some are homeless. Others have simply stopped checking in with authorities, so no one knows where they are. The state has lost track of more than 550 offenders who are on probation, according to the Florida Department of Corrections. That number doesn't include the potentially hundreds more offenders who have disappeared and aren't required to check in as often.

"This is the ultimate NIMBY -- not in my backyard," said Aronberg, a former assistant attorney general. "Now we have . . . sex offenders who are underground and many more who are roaming our streets homeless, and that is a dangerous situation. It is a ticking time bomb."

Cities statewide are watching to see what Deltona does.

Fruitland Park in Lake County, for example, isn't enforcing the residential restriction it enacted in 2005 "until the dust settles from all of the lawsuits," said City Manager Ralph Bowers.

If Ocoee, which has a 2,500-foot exclusion zone around schools, churches and other areas, has to cover all the legal costs, it would only go after the worst offenders and only as a last resort, said Mayor Scott Vandergrift.

Even if state law doesn't change, Deltona Vice Mayor Michael Carmolingo said he wants his community to keep going after offenders. Deltona's ordinance may need to be tweaked, though, he said, to exclude some lesser offenders.

"We have to protect the families," Carmolingo said. "That's our main objective." ..more.. by Denise-Marie Balona

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...