“This bill seems driven by fear,” lawmaker says
If Arizona HB 2870 feels familiar, that’s because it is (think Putnam County, Florida’s recent ban on registrants living within 500 feet of one another). Lawmakers are once again reacting to a problem they created themselves and pretending it popped up out of nowhere. The proposal moving forward in Arizona — which would restrict registered individuals from living together — is being sold as a public safety measure, but even one lawmaker, Rep. Khyl Powell, admitted the quiet part out loud: this bill seems driven by fear. And fear, historically, has been a terrible policy advisor.
Let’s rewind for a second. For decades, lawmakers across the country pushed sweeping residency restrictions that banned registrants from living near schools, parks, bus stops, daycares, and just about anything else someone could point to on a map. The predictable result? Huge portions of cities became off-limits, leaving only tiny pockets where housing was even legal. Registrants didn’t “choose” to cluster together — they were herded there by law. Now lawmakers are staring at the mess they made and saying, “Wow, look at all these people living close together… better pass another restriction.” Brilliant.
Here’s the part no one in these hearings seems willing to say out loud: you cannot simultaneously restrict where people can live and punish them for ending up in the few places left. Do you want registrants confined into extremely limited areas, or do you want them spread out? Pick one. You can’t do both. Passing anti-clustering laws on top of residency restrictions doesn’t magically create new housing — it just shrinks the map even more and pushes people closer to homelessness, instability, and noncompliance.
What’s most frustrating is how ill-informed this all feels. Decades of research has already shown that these types of laws don’t reduce re-offending and don’t make communities safer. Yet lawmakers keep recycling the same failed ideas, slapping on a new label, and acting surprised when the outcome is worse than before. Fear-based policy making may be politically convenient, but it’s not smart, it’s not effective, and it certainly isn’t public safety. If lawmakers are serious about solutions, it’s time to stop pretending yesterday’s failures will somehow work if repeated louder.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My last address check occurred at 4:25am!
A funny story i got dude. A couple years ago a cop came to my house to do a compliance check at around 3 in the morning. That previous day I did my oil change and left the old oil in my catch pan in my front yard. He walks up to my door and steps in it ankle deep 😂😂 needless to say he was mad lol 🤷
Wayne
Is there a legal and or moral reason to check on someone at 4:25 am? That unless you are never home and the only way to reach you is off hours? Seems like a vendetta or something by law enforcement. If my doorbell rang at 4:25 I wouldn’t get out of bed.
So let’s see, laws that restrict housing, and laws to restrict housing together. Let’s not forget, laws that restrict homelessness also. So, nowhere to live in general, except jail! Isn’t America great?
Not exactly on topic; SB 212 is on the Judiciary Committee agenda 2/10.
The deputy who comes to my house, when I asked him about this, he said he liked when the registered persons are in one spot, it keeps him from driving all over the county to find people. And if they are not home, he can ask if they have seen Joe or Mary lately.
There is no requirement in my county to be home when the deputy arrives, but if you are not home, you get a flyer on your door that can be embarrassing. And if they cannot find you in a certain amount of time, they can consider you absconding.
One time I sat home for a month waiting for them to come back, and I finally had to go to a doctor’s appointment, and when I got home, my luck there was the flyer on my door. I called the number on the card, and they came back later that day to verify my address. What a mess.
I have dodged a lot of near misses (Not of my fault) but the system sucks and NOT in our favor. Luckily the deputy who comes to my house is an understanding and fair person. I dread the day he retires, if I am still alive, or better, off the registry.
I have to wonder if them leaving a flyer on your house for all to see is compelled speech for you by them leaving it. It is more than them announcing their visit, but it is enough to announce to those who can see and read it their PFR business there, which for a PFR is traumatizing enough. They cannot by law leave their flyer in the mailbox so they leave it for all to see. It is much like a sign that was recently decided upon in MO, IMO. I wonder if this could be legally challenged and defeated since there surely has to be a least restrictive way to do this, of which this is not.
TS
About two years ago F.A.C (one of the people of many who are volunteers I guess) asked me to send a photo of the flyers I get on my door if I am not home to the FAC site. They said they received but nothing ever came of it. That’s all I can do, if they did not want to do anything with it that’s on them.
Also, I do not want to be the one in the lawsuit so there is that. I too feel it is compelled speech with a large yellow flyer stating Sexual offender (We tried to reach you). I still have one that I saved in my filing cabinet.
I also showed it to a lawyer once and they also did not want to pursue it.
Political fear mongering never produces good results. Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.