The ordinance, to me, looks like red lining. Generally red lining is a violation of all kinds of fair housing laws. This proposal is discrimination against a specific class of persons.
Are we next going to see a proposal that the same restrictions should apply to workplaces? News flash: Those with criminal convictions have to live someplace. Terrell Brown Loring Park --- "Leurquin, Ronald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > 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
