The Miami Times Covers FAC’s Housing Challenge
Florida Action Committee Media
⚡ MEDIA BUZZ
The Miami Times Covers FAC’s Housing Challenge
Miami-Dade • October 7, 2026
FAC has been working with The Miami Times to help get this story out and bring attention to the people living under Florida’s registry laws. In her October 7 report, Amelia Orjuela Da Silva explains how housing restrictions, shelter barriers and camping bans can leave people with few lawful places to go.
The article covers FAC’s federal lawsuit and includes comments from Teresa Bond. It reports that a housing analysis filed with the case found more than 90% of Miami-Dade’s residential units off limits to people covered by the restrictions.
Ron Book defended the county’s rules and disputed FAC’s position. The lawsuit remains pending, and the court has not decided the constitutional claims.
We appreciate Amelia taking the time to hear FAC’s concerns and report on this issue. People need stable housing to rebuild their lives. Families and communities deserve policies based on evidence. Please read and share the full article.
FLORIDA ACTION COMMITTEE
INFORMATION. PARTICIPATION. COMMUNITY.
WITH UNITY COMES CHANGE.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course, Ron objected to the conclusions by FAC. It undermines his whole premise in life for his own personal guilt.
It is funny (But not funny) that once we are released from prison, house arrest, and/or Probation, and have served our time, we are still basically under control of the state for life in Florida. Unless you are removed from registration, which by the way is not automatic, involves a lawyer and a lot of money to be removed. And even then, there is no guarantee you will be removed. And if you did get a 2nd chance of being removed, who on the registry has a second round of money to possibly get denied again, and many do not have the money even for a first try.
The ball is most often not in our court. FAC is doing a great job on the ordinance lawsuits but FAC cannot dole out money for us to be removed. In a perfect scenario, removal would be automatic and free. But on this planet, that isn’t going to happen. By the way, if you lose the case, and lose your money, there are no refunds. You can choose your lawyer, but we do not get to choose the judge. However, that could happen, if a lawyer knows a judge that is not likely of having a fair release of registrants, you can decide to wait until the judges go into rotation, but even then, there are no guarantees you will be granted relief.
Getting off the registry in Florida is likened to winning the lottery, as you can somewhat get your life back.
Stay positive and thank God for F.A.C. Imagine if we did not have an advocacy group stand with us and have our backs? I think many of us would be back in jail with raids happening every day to arrest us for nothing that anyone else on earth can be arrested for. Sounds kind of like mental illness in my opinion.
Stay positive? Try taking your own advice. Sheesh… you really ruined my day with all the crap you wrote.
Once again I’m seeing courts rule that there’s a “rational relation” between registry rules and child protection. And yet, after all these years, the state cannot provide even one example of said rules preventing a sex crime or contributing something meaningful (as in not available through normal diligence) to the investigation of one. Nor even a theory of how registrants arrested and convicted for registry violations are never suspected of another actual sex crime, or how the very few sexual recidivists on the registry are always perfectly, 100% registry compliant (in that there is never a concurrent FTR violation with the new charge). Nor how sex crime rates, first timers and recidivists, have not changed since Megan’s Law was enacted.
That is not a “rational relationship.” At best, it’s a theoretical relationship, the theory having never been proven and in fact been thoroughly disproven time and again.
Maybe I’m nuts, but I would argue that there must be more to a “rational relationship” than a pretty title on the bill and mere legislative intent.
History shows that judges are capable of remaining impartial, whereas legislators often prioritize public approval for their careers; a judge’s true duty is to hear both sides and decide based on the circumstances, the Constitution, and the law. From case history our Judge has utilized this. All hope and faith.
I’d rephrase to say there are some (many maybe?) judges who are capable and from case history this one in this case utilizes this capability, but I’d never say judges are (which implies all). I’m currently reading a capable of cases now that shows the judges were not and the outcomes were a very bad look for the legal system.