Gainesville commissioners vote to allow sex offenders to live closer to schools, day cares and parks
The Gainesville City Commission passed an amendment Tuesday that allows people convicted of sexual offenses involving children under age 16 to live closer to schools, day care centers and parks, reducing the prohibited radius from 2,500 feet to 1,000 feet.
The amendment also establishes a cut-off date that was previously not recognized by the City of Gainesville, meaning people convicted of this offense before the ordinance was first adopted in 2005 no longer have this restriction on where they live. With these changes, the ordinance now matches the Florida statute.
Interim city attorney Daniel Nee said the amendment was triggered by a legal dispute between the City and an anonymous individual who was convicted of a sexual offense multiple years before the city ordinance or state statute were enacted.
Until now, the individual was restricted from living with his wife within the prohibited radius of a day care center because, without a cut-off date, the city ordinance still applied to him. And the individual argued that the lack of a cut-off date was unconstitutional because the 2005 ordinance retroactively punished him for factors he could not have considered during his case in 1997.
“They might have, for example, pled to an offense, not realizing that this restriction would come to the place later on, whereas maybe they would’ve fought it,” Nee said. “That’s the heart of the due process issue.”
Nee explained that while similar ordinances in Florida have been upheld through expert testimony relating to recidivism rates and residency proximity, a defense would be costly, resource-wise. And some cases have been struck down on the basis of what this individual is arguing. Nee also addressed the issue of the prohibited radius.
“Does it make sense to have a residency restriction that will then, in fact, isolate everyone who have committed these past crimes [and] clump them together in limited numbers of places?” Nee asked the commission at an Oct. 6 meeting. “There are considerations back and forth. I would understand that mimicking the state statute might be a reasonable middle road.”
Commissioner Reina Saco, who was absent from Tuesday’s vote, said at the October meeting that a cut-off date makes sense to her.
“As an attorney, I think that same way: That is not what that person as a defendant agreed to or the context of what was explained. That is a punishment after-the-fact,” Saco said.
Nice to see them the Repeal the law on distance, based on facts and not hysterical Media scaring the public into a Frenzy….
They repealed their law based on the cost of defending a lawsuit. Let’s not kid ourselves too much.
Even though their decision was financially based it will be interesting to see if they defend that decision to the public a year or two from now. Will they argue to the inevitable debate from their citizens that now with the extra restrictions gone that they are just as safe as before and that the needle hasn’t really moved regarding recidivism?
That would mean they were proper stewards of the tax payer money they are given in avoiding this potential legal mess. Of course, it would be nice to see what experts buy into the residential restrictions noted above and their specific thoughts on it.
Their “experts” are likely the Books. Betting the repealed Gainesville ordinance came shortly after the same was imposed in Miami.
Speaking on what they are saying (Going out there with this) how can ANY new ordinance be applied retroactively. I have used in the past that when someone was able to drink in Florida at age 19, then they raised it to 21, the 19 years old’s who were already able to drink were grandfathered in and still able to party like it was 1984.
Many of us in Florida were added to a registry that did not even exist when we were arrested so had no grounds to contest it or plead differently.
Now, if we could just get a court to say that those residency restrictions as applied to persons convicted before 2005 were punishment as a matter of law because they were special conditions or probation, then that might be a start. In 2005 the state admitted that they couldn’t impose those restrictions on these people. But they specifically refused to comment about the cities that were doing that very thing. Once you had a decision like that then you could go back and say well if it was punishment before 2005 how is it not punishment after 2005 when it’s much more draconian. It can be up to 2500 feet if the city or county decides so and it’s for life. That’s a war severe punishment, then what was originally in place.
Ha, she said it, “Punishment after the fact.” Punishment. Why thank you for at least being one person in public office admitting that at least these ridiculous residency restrictions are in fact punishment. And if they don’t believe people with these residency restrictions will be forced to “cluster”, then they need to read the complaints from citizens in Ybor City due to the “clustering” effect the restrictions have on living in a “free” society.
Notice on the source map there were some areas that were completely surrounded by restricted zones creating a ‘geographical fence’ making some offender living spaces smaller than a prison camp–‘Geographical Incarceration’.
Hopefully, no one will try the ‘evil’ idea of attempting to make pocket parks to drive offenders out.
That would begin to take things back to square one.
Take note the homeless population count as of today. And lets see if that number is reduced in the coming years because of this change.
Love the headline – those evil city councilmen wanting those dastardly sex offenders closer to your children…
I was thinking the same thing. “allow”…omg, just stop.
MP
OMG, what’s next, allowing women to vote? (Sarcasm)
I am big on being real. Calling someone a sex offender literally means you are ACTIVELY committing sex crimes. So if all of us are sex offenders, we need to turn ourselves in. My incident was 32 years ago. Move on and go after people actually committing current crimes. Pestering people for something they did decades ago is NOT policing it is harassment.
Exactly right. If someone calls you a “sex offender” then you have been given permission to call them whatever you like. I wouldn’t lie like they do though. But I would continue the name calling by calling the person a liar. Just for starters.
Relative to this, I don’t think anyone should repeat big government’s propaganda and call their harassment tool the “Sex Offender Registry”. I think the best and accurate name is “Sex Offense Registry”. The Registry doesn’t list offenders. It lists sex offenses. It lists people who PROBABLY did something illegal years ago, often decades ago. It’s nonsense.
The paper pushers love to call people “offender” as well. I never let that slide. I usually tell them that the only offender here is you. The criminal regimes are the offenders and enemy.