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.
All judges are (or at least should be) capable of being impartial, but many aren’t when it suits them. Federal judges are more likely to be impartial, as they are appointed for life and their seats aren’t endangered by issuing rulings and opinions that the public doesn’t like (which is the whole point of lifetime appointments for federal judges). But I’m sure there have been occasions where federal judges have bent to public will or political pressure, particularly if they seek appointment to higher courts.
On the other hand, state judges are elected in most states, to include those on the state appellate courts in some states. That certainly does affect their impartiality just like legislators, prioritizing their electorate over their constitutional obligations. Such is the nature of politics in general.
That said, I’m optimistic that a challenge of this scope has been taken to a federal court. Let’s be honest – Ron Book pretty much owns the state courts, or those with influence over them. While I would like to, I cannot contribute to the case in district court because it doesn’t affect me directly (I’m in Georgia). However, I anticipate that it will be appealed to the full 11th Circuit regardless of the outcome, and do intend to contribute then.
Dustin
More likely a single individual petitioning to be removed from registration would have a better chance of getting off the registry than an entire state. I wish it was another way,but imagine the news flash that “All registered sex offenders have been released from the registry and are running amok looking for their next victim”.
Every once in a while, I see someone post on FAC stating they have been removed. But some might have been but do not want to mention that. And there are people who come on here that we do not know as they do not comment, just read the stories and posts. And some of those coming on here are not necessarily on our side but are people who are gaining information on our next moves. It has gotten better but in the past FAC was letting a lot of nasty comments on here stating it shows people what we face, yet it also caused many readers to leave the site, so a catch 22 situation.
CherokeeJack:
To my surprise, I haven’t seen any press in Michigan implying that women and children are more endangered now because half of its registry was gone. I’m sure it would have hit the usual forums (FAC, ACSOL, NARSOL, et al) if there was one. The handful of stories I have seen simply state 20k registrants have been removed with very little commentary. A couple DAs and cops spoke against the removals (of course), but nothing like the “sky-is-falling” reporting and comments that I expected.
I consider that a good sign. To me, it indicates that, media reporting to the contrary, a significant portion of the general public is less likely to blindly swallow what the press, LE, and pro-registry supporters attempt to feed them. More people now are either on or are acquainted with the registry and its effects than there were 20 years ago, meaning more people recognize the registry’s worthlessness regarding its stated purposes. While there are pro-registry zealots and always will be, it looks to me like their numbers are shrinking. More former supporters may have become indifferent if not completely reversing their registry opinions. Public indifference is far more preferable than rabid pro-registry advocacy.
We’re always watching, and our members’ eyes and ears help us stay informed. Thank you for sharing what you’re seeing.
Through our media outreach, we’re finding more journalists willing to listen to the facts and hear from the people and families affected. That gives us hope. Times are changing, and we all need to stand united in the fight for meaningful reform.
Please keep sharing stories, flagging coverage, and supporting FAC. If you’re able, please donate to help keep this work moving forward. Every voice, every effort, and every contribution matters.
Dustin, back 35 years ago, when I was arrested, then bonded out, I was the first registrant to have a news team come my house. The registry was brand new and my Dad had to come out and force them off our property and tried to make them go away but I told my Dad that if they move to the street, there was nothing we could do.
The news crew sat there for several hours filming the house, etc etc. Later than evening I watched the news for a week straight and not a mention at all on the news, and eventually the moved on to another story. My Father told me that time heals all wounds, but I am not too sure about that, 35 years later and still not free.
I was in the very first batch to be on the registry in 1997 when it started up in Florida, day one. At that time, there was no explanation of how long we would be on the registry. Later they clarified that it was for life.