FAC Weekly Update 2026-02-09-URGENT Call to Action-Stop SB 212
Weekly update for February 9, 2026. This is recording number 354
Special NOTE: If you missed the Monthly Membership call last week where we interviewed a retired a Probation Officer with both Federal and State experience, you can listen to the 90-minute recording. Simply call 605-475-4953, enter code 739392# and recording ID 353#.
Dear Members and Advocates,
This week’s update is arriving a day early so that everyone who is able has time to take immediate action. The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee is considering Senate Bill 212 Tomorrow, Tuesday February 10, 2026, and it is critical that Senators hear directly from those who understand the real-world consequences of these policies.
Senate Bill 212 would significantly expand existing restrictions by adding public swimming pools to the state’s 1,000-foot residency restriction. It also introduces a sweeping new proximity ordinance that would prohibit most registrants—regardless of when the conviction occurred—from simply being within 200 feet of a school, child care facility, park, playground, or pool, regardless of the reason (except for voting, official government business or to attend a religious service).
The proximity restriction includes pools located in subdivisions, apartment complexes, hotels, motels, mobile home parks, RV parks, and townhomes. So no more staying at motels with pools, attending conventions at most hotels, or visiting loved ones who live in communities with a swimming pool. The practical effect is obvious: lawful housing, employment, and even routine daily movement would become nearly impossible for many people.
We don’t need to spell out how devastating this bill would be if passed. Measures like this destabilize families, undermine rehabilitation, and make compliance harder—not easier—while offering no demonstrable public safety benefit. They punish people long after their sentences have been completed and do so retroactively, without regard to individual circumstances or risk.
People often ask FAC what they can do to make a difference. This is one of those moments where we have a specific answer. Writing to your Senator or calling does not require any money and takes only a few minutes, but it truly matters. Legislators pay attention when constituents speak up, especially when they do so respectfully and in numbers. We need the numbers! A short email or phone message explaining your opposition to SB 212 and its real-world impact can help slow or stop this bill before it advances.
FAC members are traveling to Tallahassee to speak before the Committee hearing Tomorrow. We are bringing studies and letters from experts. They will need your support to enhance the effectiveness of their efforts.
We have one critical message this week that we are focusing on and that is to implore you to please take a moment TODAY to contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to oppose Senate Bill 212. Below is the list of members on the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can CALL NOW and leave a voicemail message after hours. Start call with “Please Oppose Senate Bill 212” then give your name, county and why you oppose the Bill.
Your voice matters—and right now, it is needed.
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
Florida Senate Judiciary Committee –
Senator Clay Yarborough (R) – Chair – [email protected] (850) 487-5004
Senator Colleen Burton (R) – Vice Chair – [email protected] (850) 487-5012
Senator Lori Berman (D) – [email protected] (850) 487-5026
Senator Nick DiCeglie (R) – [email protected] (850) 487-5018
Senator Don Gaetz (R) – [email protected] (850) 487-5001
Senator Ed Hooper (R) – [email protected] (850) 487-5021
Senator Thomas J. “Tom” Leek (R) – [email protected] (850) 487-5007
Senator Rosalind Osgood (D) – [email protected] (850) 487-5032
Senator Kathleen Passidomo (R) – [email protected] (850) 487-5028
Senator Tina Scott Polsky (D) – [email protected] (850) 487-5030
Senator Jay Trumbull (R) – [email protected] (850) 487-5002
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can somebody explain the dates noted,
“33 (c) This subsection applies to any person convicted of a
34 violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5),
35 or s. 847.0145 for offenses that occurred on or after
36 October 1, 2004, and before July 1, 2026,…”
Are we to read this as though people affected are those convicted/pled guilty between Oct 2004 and July 2026? These dates and the wording don’t add up? What am I missing?
At what point will we argue real property rights to quiet enjoyment and peaceful possession. If I purchase a home or condo in a subdivision that includes a pool (even if my home is somehow outside the radius), I have purchased and am likely paying for the upkeep of said pool that I own an interest in as community property. I could similarly argue the same quiet enjoyment and possession when I go to court, plead guilty, am sentenced to probation, and leave the courthouse with no place to reside since my home is within a radius that didn’t matter prior to me walking into that court room. I never gave up my residence or my property rights, but they are being taken from me.
Anyway, back to those dates? How do those even work?
So after reading the Amended Bill, SB212, I have a few observations. Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, never played one on TV, and these comments are strictly my reading of the bill. I do not see the “200 Foot” verbiage in the bill at all. However, I do still see the restricted sites, but it appears now you cannot be physically at the restricted site. My read is that if your grocery store is within that old 200 ft limit you are good to go. Etc. However, if you want to stay in a hotel that has a pool you still restricted. Seems they took way the ‘within 200 ft’ verbiage and put in the physical location ie building.
I also do not see the “any body of water” verbiage either. I only see restrictions on pools, not lakes, rivers, streams, the gulf, the atlantic etc.
FAC please fix anything I have wrong. Just trying to help.
It looks like the Judiciary Committee substitute for the Senate bill (subst. #764964) has changed the 200 foot exclusion zone to exclusion from “the premises” of schools, parks, etc.
I do believe you are Correct. Fac can you clarify this?
Wow no debate on the bill at all. Incredible.