There is no reason to speculate. We know the answer.
Most municipal SORRs are applied retroactively.
There is a litigation against Miami-Dade’s SORR that is going to trial this month. It is a 2500 foot SORR. The 11th circuit already ruled that the plaintiffs have a cause of action based on Ex Post Facto grounds.

You are joking, right? The State knows that the residency restrictions do no apply to persons convicted prior to 2005, but they have essentially given the cities and counties permission to do that very thing AND enhance criminal penalties.

Has to be something willful/malicious and/or unethical about this.

Well, it depends on the state or on the city/county. Since the Florida law does not apply SORRs to pre-2005 offenses (it is not applied ex post facto), Florida cities and counties might technically have their hands tied. It definitely happens in other states, like that IL case, unfortunately for them. I don’t know if any FL localities have attempted to apply their own residency restrictions ex post facto, but it would not surprise me if they did. My guess is they would get away with it until taken to court.

If I recall, there was a councilman or commissioner who argued that if we are going to not permit registrants to move within a certain distance from a school/daycare/playground, then we should also not permit school/daycare/playground to be built where it would violate that rule. I believe the background was that it was actually the law, but that the city/county readily granted waivers to daycares, but of course never granted any kind of waiver to a registrant. This was somewhere with an increased SORR distance, I believe, possibly Miami-Dade. Not sure on the details, but that’s the gist of it.

If you are there before the pocket park is built, they cannot make you move. They usually build these where there are no registered persons in order to prevent any from moving in, thus making it harder for that person to find a place to live. Despicable!

Excellent idea , rule says that if the DEFENDANT feels judicial bias the judge must step aside

Bea, Thank you for this. Sorry – CANDIDATE for Judge. That was a mistake. It was corrected.