CA: The Stop Predator Dumping Act: When the Solution to a Problem Is More of the Problem
I must admit, when I saw the title, “Stop Predator Dumping Act,” I got hopeful. Someone might finally want to put safeguards in place to prevent “dumping on” people forced to register. Stop the vigilantism! Stop the shaming! And stop treating human beings like hazardous waste!
But I was wrong. U.S. Congressman George Whitesides (CA) is proposing legislation to address the “disproportionate placement of sexually violent predators into certain communities.” I guess that’s what he meant by “dumping” — like dumping trash. An odd word choice when we’re talking about human beings, but I suppose it’s just another piece of the larger dehumanization that has become so common in the discussion of people who are required to register.
But here’s the crazy part: The problem being addressed is largely a problem created by the very system lawmakers keep expanding. According to the reporting, the controversy involves a proposed placement in the Antelope Valley. Apparently, an elementary and middle school bus stop is about 100 yards from the property, while a high school bus stop is approximately 250 yards away. Need I remind everyone that 100 yards is the length of a football field? And 250 yards is the distance of two and a half city blocks.
So again, lawmakers scramble to pass new laws to fix problems created by an old law they passed, there’s something almost comical about the logic. First, governments create enormous exclusion zones that prevent registrants from living in large portions of a community. People are pushed out of most available housing and forced into the shrinking number of places where they can legally live. Then someone notices that a lot of registrants are living in those remaining areas. “Look!” they say. “There’s a concentration problem!” So they pass another law to prevent registrants from living too close to one another.
It’s legislative whack-a-mole: smack one perceived problem down with a new restriction, only to have another problem pop up somewhere else. Florida is the perfect example of this. Take Putnam County, which FAC is suing (now twice) over local residency restrictions. After creating a system that makes it extraordinarily difficult for registrants to find housing other than in very few concentrated areas, Putnam County adopted a rule preventing two registrants from living within 500 feet of one another to address the very “clustering” problem that these restrictions created in the first.
At some point, you have to stop asking, “How do we regulate the next consequence?” and start asking, “was the original policy that created this consequence necessary in the first place?” And that’s the part lawmakers seem determined to avoid. If you make 95 percent of the map unavailable, don’t be surprised when everyone congregates in the remaining 5 percent. Where did you expect them to go if you left nowhere else?
Hey Lawmakers, whack-a-mole might be fun at a carnival, but this isn’t a game! These are human beings. The solution isn’t another hammer hit. The solution is putting down the hammer. Because at the end of the day, the problems won’t stop popping up until the residency-restriction game stops. You can draw another boundary, add another exclusion zone, create another distance requirement, or prohibit another form of housing — but people still need somewhere to live and when you keep shrinking the map, eventually there isn’t much map left. Face facts, read the studies, look at the problems you’ve created! Residency Restrictions do not work!
Maybe instead of asking where we can move these people next, you should start asking why we’re moving them around in the first place?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Calm down you guys. The underlying report isn’t even about SORRs as we know them here in Florida. It’s about SVP placement. The two are not the same. Notice that the registry isn’t even mentioned in the report.
A couple of my fellow commenters below said something to the effect of, “they just want us to die.” Please. The article isn’t even about you! No one in power is seeking your death. “They” are looking to advance their careers by solving problems, or at least appearing to. You can’t blame them, or their constituents, for assuming that a newly-released SVP is in fact a sexually violent predator.
We are bringing suit in Putnam because the county is applying a concentration restriction atop an extreme SORR and applying both to all registrants in the county. That is a far cry from what is happening in California.
Thanks for permitting me to play the contrarian here.
Nbody is questioning the validity of your argument. Trouble, the vast majority of the population are NIMBY knee-jerkers that don’t recognize the distinction between SVP and SO. It’s not their fault because the media had spoon-fed them that garbage for decades and they eat it up like a buffet So naturally the “they’re all the same”ignoramuses are going to think that scary “dumping” buzz-word is going to mean to them: “I already living close ‘one of them’ and this will make them all move out.” These lawmakers will never, ever admit what they’re doing is laying down manure before plowing the field first.
They embace denialism and gimmicks as policy.
This is the exact definition of insanity. What a clown world we live in.
My wife and I are allowed to live in our current location because my adjudication of guilt withheld offense is from 1997. I got off of probation in 2002. However, should we need to move for any reason, all of the new current residency restriction laws will immediately apply. Instant punitive punishments and restrictions imposed against us after not breaking any laws for over 29 years. We are essentially trapped in our current location. I was one of the first people put on the registry in 1997. There were only three rules to follow then. Over 50 more state level restrictions have been imposed on my family and I since my case adjourned! Hundreds of other municipal restrictions have been added on top of this. Apparently, when my case was adjourned in 1997, that was just theater. My case gets relitigated every legislative session when some politician needs a boost in the polls. WHERE THE HELL IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?!?!!!
Oh, it is there, but those who went through US Constitution 101 in college or law school have forgotten it either intentionally or pushed it outta their heads because actually referring to it as intended seems to be a lost science when needed most. When the people have allowed so many different opinions on it be used as basis of rulings instead of what is the actual intent as designed, it muddies the water of it to picking and choosing what works best for the case at hand.
Would love to see a US Constitution as applied vs as intended class to see where it has been deviated from over the last 250 years.
@None Ya – I am in the same situation as you, it looks like. I don’t see anywhere in the revised statutes that adds restrictions on where I can live now or in the future, since my offense date was before October 2004. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think you should be worrying (yet).
BTW, the revised statute in question here has finally been updated on the Internet. It’s easier to read to see that (4)(c)2. still excludes us (pre Oct 2004) from the new residency rule.
https://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.215.html
Thank you for this excellent clarification RayO! I’m having a hard time keeping up with all the new laws and am feeling confused and anxious about pretty much everything. I recently lost a good client because of the registry and I can no longer visit many of my favorite places because of the new laws. I feel overwhelmed and confused after over 29 years of these constant attacks and setbacks.
“I must admit, when I saw the title, “Stop Predator Dumping Act,” I got hopeful.”
I’m not trying to be mean here, but when I saw this tag I KNEW where they were going to go with this.
Well it feels like registrants are given a choice of either incarceration or death.
That’s exactly what their end game is for all registrants, that is, unless one of them gets caught up in the system. Then, they go above and beyond to minimize, rationalize, make exceptions, cover up or otherwise allow their own to skate or move on without any lifelong consequences.
That’s just it, they don’t want somewhere for us to live, except in jail. They don’t care, and it shows with their own attitudes, and comments. They’re just as bad as the horrible commenters on social sites, and have the power to implement this.