This ordinance sounds good for the sound bite it offers, but how does it really fix any of the problems?
Booker wrote: Now that all the hoopla about sex offenders has worn off, the H.I.T (Hodges Investigative Team) decided to publish the results and inform the community about our efforts to prevent sex offenders from being disproportionably placed in certain areas. The topic of sex offenders has been virtually ignored by the Black press, so I am going to change that. Ron writes: When is it the hoopla wore off? Booker wrote: Proposed Ordinance: Any person registered as a convicted level 2 or level 3 [sex offender] with the Minnesota Department of Corrections living within the limits of the City of Minneapolis shall not live within 1,000 feet of any of the following: 1. School and any auxiliary fields that youth frequent. 2. Community center that youth frequent. 3. Community organization that serves youth. 4. Battered women's shelter, or place that provide counseling services to victims of sexual abuse. 5. Library. 6. Church that youth frequent. 7. Park or swimming area that youth frequent. 8. Corner store that youth frequent. 9. Nursing home, or any other facility that provides services to vulnerable adults. 10. Mental health center, or place that provides services to people with mental disabilities. Sub A. No more than two registered sex offenders shall live on any one city block at any given time. Sub B. No more than 10 percent of the total registered sex offenders living in Minneapolis shall live in any one given neighborhood. Sub C. Terms Youth: Anyone that is between the ages of 0-18. Vulnerable Adult: Is defined in Minnesota State Statues 609.232 subdivision 11. Ron writes: Not much space left within Mpls for them to live, but that is probably the point of this stringent list of moving objects. Booker wrote: Not only are sex offenders dumped into minority communities, but they are allowed to roam freely around our neighborhoods. These offenders are allowed to drive multiple vehicles and hold multiple addresses. Who checks up on these people in Hennepin County? When someone finds out, please let me know. Ron writes: Where did the sex offenders come from before they committed the crimes your upset about? Are they minorities returning to their communities? How many sex offenders started out in Mayor Rybak's hood compared to the 55411 zip code? Give me all the facts, not just the ones that suit your argument. Booker wrote: I have a sex offender who lives on my block. His name is James Vanwyhe. He seems to be a pretty nice guy, but nonetheless, he was convicted of raping adult women he had known, forcing them to comply by using some sort of weapon. So at the community notification meeting, everyone seemed really mad about him moving to the neighborhood, and for good reason. But I must say to you, what a difference a few months make. A lot of people who attended the community meeting now allow their children to play at James' house with James' kids. As a matter of fact, he has the most popular hangout for kids in the neighborhood. Only in the Black neighborhood would the most popular hangout for kids be at the sex offender's house. We must not care that much about sex crimes as a people. Ron writes: Where did James live before conviction? Why should his children not have friends over? Are these children at risk if his crime was against adult women? Isn't it a good thing the parents know, rather than not? Booker wrote: I personally feel that the vast majority of sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated and thus must be kept under constant watch. People won't pay attention to this issue until it affects their households, and that's sad. Ron writes: I'm glad you admit it to be your opinion, rather than some sort of fact. It has been shown that sex offenders quite frequently recommit, but not all of them. Its also been shown that they have repletion's in the type of victim they go after, so that would lead to a need to deal with each one on a case by case basis. A generic ordinance will not work for all cases. To those of you that have read this far, I know this is a touchy subject for many people and for many reasons. I don't think there are any simple answers or solutions to this problem. I also don't think Bookers proposed ordinance will actually help matters any, just make for more government regulations that cause more problems than they solve. I wish I had some good ideas to fix the problem, but right now I do not. I have to admit to being one of those that does not want to know about the criminal behavior of my neighbors for several reasons. I want to think well of my neighbors, and knowing will cloud my treatment of them (my issue). I don't want to know which are molesters, drug addicts, drunks, swindlers, thieves, murderers, or any of it. If we don't want these people on our streets then we need much bigger jails or the death penalty for many more things than we can stomach. Enough ranting. Ron Leurquin Nokomis East REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
