WI: City Rethinks Residency Restrictions
Sometimes, even local governments begin to recognize that there is a difference between protecting public safety and imposing restrictions that make it unnecessarily difficult for people to rebuild their lives.
According to the Herald Times Reporter, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, has been considering changes to its sex offender residency ordinance. The proposed changes would replace the city’s existing residency provisions with a 1,000-foot buffer around designated locations, including schools, day care facilities, public libraries, parks, playgrounds, and places of worship.
At first glance, a 1,000-foot restriction might not sound particularly progressive. But the important question is what it replaces. It was 3,000 feet.
When residency restrictions become so expansive that people cannot find lawful housing, they can undermine the very stability that helps people reintegrate into society. A person who cannot secure a home faces additional obstacles to maintaining employment, supporting a family, accessing treatment, and establishing the stable life that communities should want people to lead.
Restrictions should be evaluated on evidence of their effectiveness, not simply on how restrictive they appear. Public safety is a legitimate concern, but a policy that makes life more difficult for an entire category of people is not automatically an effective public safety policy.
If local governments in Wisconsin can reconsider whether sweeping residency restrictions are necessary, effective, and proportionate, perhaps more communities will be willing to ask the same questions.
The goal should be fewer victims and safer communities – not simply more restrictions.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Two Rivers did not have a 3000 foot restriction, it had an “original domicile” restriction. This meant that a person who is forced to register could not live in Two River UNLESS they lived there prior to their sex offense conviction.
Derek
That is why in my area I am the only registrant in my neighborhood. I live really close to a school but was here before the restrictions and was grandfathered in. However, my Deputy stated if I moved then tried to come back I couldn’t. I have been here more than 20 years before a lot of these ordinances, and I own my house and NO homeowner’s association. Only 3 families have lived here longer than me.
What is funny, before my arrest, I always lived in apartments and did not want the responsibility of being a homeowner. After getting released I have owned 3 homes (Not all at once) but upgraded as prices soared until I found my forever home. Now I am no longer able to work so my biggest bill of the year is property taxes which really hits me hard at the end of each year.
I know it is semantics. Whether or not any city in WI using is using restrictions of 3000 ft or original domicile, the effect is the same. Howeer, it is still a difference in the law. I had been reluctant to mention Original Domicile, a purely Wisconsin phenomenon, because FloriDUH doesn’t need any more bad ideas.