Good Article: Longmont weighs ‘arbitrary’ sex offender residency restrictions
Data shows little efficacy for an approach that could open the door to lawsuits.
A weeks-long effort to create legislation that will limit where — and with whom — registered sex offenders can live in the city of Longmont came to a head Tuesday night.
City council voted 6-1 to move a bill forward that would prohibit registered sex offenders from living within 500 feet of schools, daycares and public and private parks, and prohibit more than three offenders from living together. Council will hold a public hearing and final vote on the ordinance at its May 20 meeting.
As of March 4, 286 registered sex offenders reside in the city of Longmont. There are 202 with felony offenses — 21 of whom are unhoused.
A 2004 study conducted by the SOMB found that placing location restrictions on sex offenders “may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism,” and “efforts should be made to ensure that the sex offender’s support in the home is positive in order to aid in his or her treatment.”
While the SOMB has not issued a formal stance on the issue, the report was provided to members of Longmont City Council in a March 19 email from the Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act.
“I would like to provide this information for you from our office so you all have what you need to make the best decisions possible for your community,” the letter from SOMB implementation specialist Erin Austin stated.
Still, the Longmont residents who have been fighting to push the ordinance forward argue this is the only way.
“I also recognize and appreciate the efforts of sincere individuals and orgs that want to help reduce the likelihood of individuals recommitting a sex offense,” resident Steven Faas said at the May 6 meeting. “Our community needs to balance this with safety and the needs of other residents. We need to protect the vulnerable. We need boundaries.”
Unintended consequences
Residency restrictions are definitively effective at one thing: banning registered sex offenders from certain neighborhoods.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leaving this here for the forum to provide applicable and possibly usable comments before it is sent to the council.
TO: Longmont (CO) City Council
Date: May 18, 2025
RE: Potential Registered Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
Council Members,
Is Longmont really an unsafe place to live in Boulder County where drastic residency restrictions against registered sex offenders are required? Upon recent online research, the greatest fear one has is the possibility of an unborn fetus being abducted. There is prevailing fear being mongered by those who know no better than to create hysteria of registered sex offenders living together in one house or within short distances of places where minors may congregate or be. You should believe the science presented to you on this topic like you did when Covid hit and took its toll on Boulder County along with Longmont, but lives were saved.
There is no problem with those registered sex offenders who live together in one sober house for purposes of their sobriety and recovery. Why are they in a sober living house to begin with? Does anyone know why they became addicted in the first place? Maybe they suffered at the hands of others? Do you know? Those in recovery work with those who are experts in helping those in recovery as well as supporting each other. Is there any instance where a critical mass of registered sex offenders living together has caused problems in society let alone Longmont? Maybe Longmont should outlaw sober living homes where those who live there decide to relapse and then do something drastic to another person or people in mass. You never know. To protect the Longmont citizens, maybe only one person working to be sober in life should live among others who are not at least 500 feet if not more away from those areas where minor congregate or be. Never know when they’ll relapse and do something to a minor (or anyone for that matter). People fear mongering has created an image in your minds of a group of people working to better themselves and get healthy salivating at the very thought in plotting to do something heinous to a minor. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
You do realize that a distance restriction will NOT stop anyone from doing anything no matter what it is? You do realize that by creating these alleged safe living bubbles, you are creating safe zones for those who in positions of trust to do sex crimes by distraction in getting you and law enforcement to look elsewhere? Yes, family members, educators, law enforcement, coaches, clergy, group leaders, medical professionals, people who are NOT on the registry, et al have been convicted of sex crimes against minors while those who are on the registry are not statistically likely to repeat a sex crime. You do realize you are begging for lawsuits and spending of local taxpayer money which could be used elsewhere in the city by defending this law? Pay raises for those who work for Longmont in any capacity is in jeopardy including those in city government and law enforcement. City public work projects and maintenance are in jeopardy. The raising of taxes to cover such legal defense and action is the only other way to meet all of Longmont’s other civil obligations as well. When was the last time a residency restriction stopped a crime? When was the last time the registry stopped a crime? Can you tell? Do you know? Do you really know?
Bottom line, you, the council, are being played by the masses, the people of Longmont, in a power play to see if you are soft or hard on crime that is not sure to happen, just as other jurisdictions have across the nation (and some who have had to rescind them (see California and Wisconsin). These people have created a fear for you to believe in (much like those in Massachusetts during the famous Witch Trials did to the masses) and see if you are willing to do a residency restriction with no science data foundation to it. Those who as for this are asking to make themselves feel good and for their own publicity, not for the city. What are they hiding? What skeletons do they have? Why are they barking the loudest? They are the ones people should be fearful of with their minds creating solutions to problems that don’t exist. The sky is not falling and these registered people don’t need to be the scorn of those who have nothing better to do with their time…being without facts at that. Don’t be played. Listen to those who have the facts and shared them with you. Don’t be afraid to do the right thing and shut down this idea.
Hello,
I need some advice. I am not sure who to ask so I googled stuff about sex offenders and found this place as a top result. I live in Florida and found out the guy who watched my cat while I was on vacation is a registered sex offender OMG. I am so shocked and sick to my stomach wondering if he did something to the cat. What should I do? Thank you in advance for the help.
Bianca
Bianca, we are here to help.
When you say “did something to the cat,” what, specifically, do you believe was done to the cat? Describe in full detail.
Did you take the cat to the vet?
Thank you. I think something inappropriate..
I think he gave the cat wine to drink. My neighbor said to take to the vet. I will do that. It’s just scary because he is a sex offender and I had no idea. I recently moved to Florida and just see these signs everywhere like do not molest the alligators and do not molest this and do not molest that. What does it all mean?
Was it white or red 🤔 🏆 wine?