Wellington, Florida is considering creating a rule that would require vacation rental owners to check to see if potential renters are on the sex offender registry. The meeting is scheduled for tomorrow and will be held by Zoom.
The Responsible Party for all Vacation Rental properties is required to conduct a nationwide search to confirm that the prospective Transient Occupant(s) is/are not a registered sexual offender or sexual predator as a result of a conviction of a sexual offense. The Department of Justice offers a free search for all states on the National Sex Offender Public Website. Further, if a Vacation Rental property is located within 2,500 feet of a school, school bus stop, or park, it is a violation of Wellington’s CO, and of Florida Statute sections 775.21 and 775.215, to allow any person to establish a temporary, permanent, or transient residence with knowledge that such person is a registered sexual offender or registered sexual predator in any jurisdiction.
It should be noted that Wellington makes a misrepresentation in their proposed ordinance. Florida law (F.S. Sec. 775.215 – https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2018/775.215) only requires 1000 feet, NOT 2500 feet. Secondly, Florida Law is not retroactive (offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004 for an offense in FL and on or after May 26, 2010 for an offense that took place in another Jurisdiction).
You may provide written comments by emailing Village Clerk Chevelle Addie by August 25, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. at [email protected], or you may access the public comment online form by visiting https://fl-wellington.civicplus.com/FormCenter/Clerks-Office-14/Public-Comment-Card-77.You must fill out all required information for the form to be submitted. Other available options are by regular mail at 12300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Wellington, FL 33414. Provide your full name and address, and if you are a Village business owner, list the business name and address. If you request, your written comments will be read into the record at the appropriate time. All other written comments received by the deadline will be distributed to the appropriate staff prior to the start of the meeting. Time limits will be enforced so written comments must be limited to 3 minutes. To request to speak during the virtual meeting, you must call (561) 868-8630 prior to the start of the meeting to be placed within the call list.
REFERENCE (20-3910 “Ordinance No. 2211 Vacation Rentals”)
Wow! Their existing ordinance is already pretty onerous!
https://library.municode.com/fl/wellington/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH36OFMIPR_ARTIVSEOFSEPR_S36-40DE
So the Wellington Village Council increased their residency restriction from 1,000’ to 2,500’?
And they will enforce it anytime a concerned citizen complains about the presence of a registered sex offender?
Thanks to those who took the trouble to attend or viewed the meeting and convey the outcome. I’m just looking for clarification.
The moderator also asked the hard hitting question: “How are they going to know if an offender is within 2,500 ft of a school bus stop?” No clear answer was given! She seemed to want to go with the State ordinance, but the council reluctantly disagreed. They said that they won’t usually enforce this ordinance, unless there is a complaint AGAINST a problem, quoting “We usually do not enforce this ordinance, unless there is a complaint.”
This article was not correct. They were not looking to bar all offenders from renting. They only were looking to limit renting within their county ordinance, which is 2,500 ft. They said that they “CANNOT make thing LESS restrictive, only MORE restrictive.” They clarified the code to erase the reference to the state statute, which is 1,000 ft. At the very least, this meeting showed me they wanted to be “less vague”.
What time does this meeting take place?
Here is my email to the heros (in their minds) of public safety:
Good Day,
With all due respect, while I can appreciate the need for safety, I am Disgusted by how truly dangerous people do not matter when it comes to politicians passing laws. Violent offenders with long rap sheets? Domestic abusers of woman and children? Felony animal abusers?
That is all A-OK in the book of politics.
Why are politicians constantly attacking the ‘easy prey’, the low hanging fruit? That is what PREDATORS do.
There are nearly 1,000,000 US citizens on the registry from offenses such as peeing in public, to possessing inappropriate images, to a teenager being with a younger teenager, to serial rapists. Are politicians mentally aware of how wide ranging the public-shaming umbrella of “sex offense” actually means?
You want to keep vacationers safe? Keep violent offenders out.
Great comment!
The more work you all do the worse it gets, its entrenched and the aint gonna guve it up, F word ed
I am writing from CA in opposition to this ruling.
Abolish the registry!!!
This is just a rehash of attempting to keep sexual offenders in check and make it difficult although they have done their time and working towards some type of normalcy. When you continue to badger, and exclude those who are working towards a good life, what you are attempting to accomplish creates more challenges because you continue to misrepresent laws and expand laws that were written with a purpose of being fair to “all people”. When you look at the recidivism of sex offenders, it is a very low rate. The chances that one would go to a resort to create a crime doesn’t make sense. What about arsonists? Resorts would be a great place because the opportunity lends itself to what an arsonist would be looking for? In other words, singling out one group does not accomplish what you want to do. It is a waste of time, money, resources and it does not protect the society. Parents, especially in resorts should have the responsibility placed on them, not the resorts or the community.
So if Im a 100x DUI driver with multiple “accidental” fatalities Im ok to rent and drink&drive near your kids? If I looked at risque adult photo that crossed a line but nobody got hurt or killed I cant? Yep makes sense and keeps your community and kids safe. Way to keep your eye on the shiny red Hate ball.
This is why I say that bringing a lawsuit against the Kanka family should be attempted because what happened to their daughter is NOT the same thing that we have been convicted of. I’m also pretty sure that many of us are 1 time offenders unlike the man who KIDNAPPED, RAPED and MURDERED Megan Kanka.
The lawsuit being brought against the Kanka family just might cause some people in the government to think “Oh shit! They’re serious!”
I feel for the Kanka’s loss, but teenage sexting, online entrapments, consensual rendezvous with post pubescent teens, urinating on a bush and teens who have lied to older teens about their age was NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE REGISTRY TO BEGIN WITH.
This point NEEDS to be driven into their skulls until they wake up and say “oh, duh! These people are NOT the threats to public safety after all”.
Keep driving this point until pigs fly!
Of course. Why not, they don’t want us alive, to thrive, ever smile. Why would they want to think it’s possible a so could have a job that would allow them to vacation. Don’t be mistaken, those isn’t punishment according too there scotus. No state is safe or better. What choice do we have.
I am writing from California in opposition to this ruling, as this section affects the national debate on this issue. The registry casts a wide net and you would be surprised to find that the majority of people on the registry have committed minor offenses and have repented. Such a ruling as proposed would increase a national tendency to control small business and scapegoat and marginalize people who have consistently proved to be non-dangerous. It is a myth to think that people on the registry have a tendency to re-offend. Quite the opposite as studies have shown. Please consider your rulings thoughtfully and carefully
Dr. Hendler,
Thank you for chiming in. I hope you will consider joining us on our next member call.
The agenda item you select on the comments page Agenda drop down is 20-3910 “Ordinance No. 2211 Vacation Rentals” (webmaster, please note this in the body of this article. Thanks.)
Of course, the same will apply to those who have previous convictions for domestic violence, drug dealing, arson and weapons & explosives convictions.
Wait….what do you mean it won’t apply to those people….all of whom would be much higher risks of potential reoffense??
Oh, because there’s no easy-to-access database of those offenders??
So they get a free pass?? 😠
“those on the registry”
Those? As in “those people?!” Please.. Why don’t you really call it what it is?
Intentionally scapegoated and marginalized people for the expressed purpose of political fear mongering and weaponized hatred. .
I just e-mailed the following to the Village Clerk.
.
Ms. Addie, I would like to thank the Council for considering the new rule regarding vacation rentals and sex offender registries. Even those of us in other parts of the state view Wellington as a family-friendly destination to which to travel, so I appreciate the Council looking for ways to keep it that way. For the following reasons, however, I would like to OPPOSE the new rule as proposed.
One reason is that, we now know that sex offender registries do quite a poor job of telling us who is dangerous. About 95 percent of reported sex crimes are perpetrated by someone lacking a criminal record (so they are not required to register). And even those are rarely perpetrated by a stranger visiting with their family, but by someone who was in a position of power and trust. The recidivism rates for those who have already been caught and held to account (i.e., those captured by the registry), are, according to DOJ statistics, surprisingly low. So sex offender registries give us a false sense of security.
But if we DO care about those listed on sex offender registries, Florida law has us covered. A person on the registry– ANY state registry– may NOT stay anywhere in Florida for more than three days, without registering their Florida address there. If they do, they are committing a felony and are subject to arrest. And this law already is strictly enforced and does not require additional Village resources.
And keep in mind those visitors whom a registry check will absolutely NOT identify– those who have broken into cars, broken into houses, been drunk and disorderly in public, committed DUI, and every other property crime and violent crime that we can think of that lacks a sexual component. So if the Council still feels strongly about moving forward with this Rule, and requiring screening by Responsible Parties, then the Council might consider, as an alternative, amending the proposed Rule to include, not just sex offender registry checks, but full criminal background checks.
Thank You,
[my full name and address]
This is to everybody, Stop wasting your time e-mailing nit wits, If you really must waist your time at least waist it by contacting the nit wits in the Supreme Court, nothing will change until the nit wit Supreme Court changes it, bombard the nit wit Supreme Court with all the study’s and write ups about how the registry is counter productive and a waist of time and money. Oh wait a minuet, nit wits in the Supreme court already new that stuff. Boy, what are ya gonna do.
Sorry, but this is garbage.
I have a question perhaps someone can answer….
Secondly, Florida Law is not retroactive (offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004 for an offense in FL and on or after May 26, 2010 for an offense that took place in another Jurisdiction).
Does this statement mean someone who committed a sex offense in another state prior to October 2004 does not have to register in Florida?
This does not. This refers to the state’s residency restriction, not registration.
If they start applying this law to motels and RV parks, that will be the end of travel and vacations for SO’s…
…and that is what they want.
So illogical. If I was traveling there, I’d just have a family member or friend rent a place for me and nobody else would be the wiser.
Also be sure not to take out your anger on the Village Clerk.
Advocate that the bill be amended to require, not just registry checks but full criminal background checks, identifying any violent or property crimes.
That burden would solidify property owners’ opposition to it. And it might be an quicker way to kill it than the time-consuming work of educating the village and its board.
Am I right or – ?
Also, aren’t occupants of vacation rentals already required to register any temporary or permanent address?
Jacob, you are so ON POINT, inclusive of “but full criminal background checks, identifying any violent or property crimes.”
So take Ron Book, as an example..As many people have referred to him as a ‘scumbag’ and while, He has yet to be convicted, He too could be a very very scary person, who, according to DOJ statistics has a 68% chance of re-offending versus a ‘person forced to register’, has a less than 5% of re-offending….
facts are facts!