Windsor Locks, CT to vote on repealing sex offender proximity ordinance
A year after Connecticut for One Standard of Justice, a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of accused and convicted persons required to register as sex offenders, filed a lawsuit against the town, Windsor Locks is considering repealing a proximity ordinance that bans persons required to register as sex offender from entering “child safety zones,” which include the areas of local parks, public schools, the library, the Town Hall gymnasium, and the senior center.
Town First Selectman, Christopher Kervick, indicated that legal advice the town has been given is that they should not move forward with defending the lawsuit and instead has indicated that the town should not move forward with a legal defense and that repealing the ordinance (which has been on the books for 10 years is the “best and most effective course of conduct”.
The town meeting is scheduled for 7:30PM tonight and it’s looking like the proximity ordinance will be repealed. Kudos to Connecticut for One Standard of Justice and their attorneys for standing up for the rights of ALL people and taking the initiative in bringing this lawsuit.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, it is very difficult for us, as a group, to raise money because, I believe, we have a high rate or joblessness because of being on the registry. And those of us fortunate enough to have skilled jobs make much less than our peers in the same fields because of the paucity of employment opportunities for us. (Also, we are deliberately kept from having a political voice or a voice on social media – by Florida constitution, in the first case and by the private ownership of social media platforms, in the latter.)
The entire situation smacks of Jim Crow! The current situation is an almost-word-for-word rendering of the plaints of the characters in “Black Like Me”, except that it is not our skin color in this case, but rather, our prior criminal record.
In my opinion, we must, at some point, adopt civil disobedience tactics en masse.
There is a thought-provoking analysis below, pointing out that such suits should be kept alive even after towns respond by dropping their ordinance. Recommended reading.
But it is not my view. Such suits are costly for both sides. The legal funds of RSO advocates tend to be limited. And the town needs an incentive to correct their laws: if we drop our ordinance, will they drop their suit? No? Guess we may as well keep it on the books, because we’ll have to spend local tax $ defending it anyway. Followed by, “sex offenders want to starve our schools!”
The vote is actually on Tuesday March 19:
https://www.journalinquirer.com/towns/windsor_locks/wl-to-vote-on-repeal-of-ban-on-sex-offenders/article_2fbecd66-4738-11e9-8970-472eb99b6425.html
This is fantastic news!
A point I would like to make right here and right now that can be carried over into other cases is the fact that just because the city chooses to repeal the ordinance should not, must not stop the lawsuit. The damage has already been done and it has been ongoing for 10 years and just because the city chooses to repeal this doesn’t mean that the next city Council won’t turn around and put the same thing back into effect. And yes I’ve heard the comments of people saying that if the ordinance is repealed that the case must be dropped. This is not true case law supports the fact that a city ordinance can continue to be challenged on constitutional grounds even after it is been repealed. I point to Patricia Johnson; Michael Au France, v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 FED App. 0332P (6th Cir.) United States Court of Appeals. For the Southern District of Ohio ” Lastly, we note that the City’s assurance that it no longer enforces the Ordinance, see Burnett, 755 N.E.2d at 860, does not render the present appeal moot. “[A] defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Met. Gov’t of Nashville, 274 F.3d 377, 387 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.E.2d 152 (1982)).” So it is my fervent hope that this case continues on number one because it will set case law and number two because cities that have had these ordinances need to face the consequences of their actions it’s time that registered citizens started winning large dollar amounts for the discrimination that they’ve had to suffer
Janice Bellucci from ACSOL (California) has had amazing success in this area as well.
Here in Lee County, Florida, we are prohibited from all parks and recs as well as the libraries, all beaches, zoos, carnivals, and all “indoor recreation” (presumably skating rinks, bowling alleys, etc.).
Maybe it’s time for us in Florida (maybe Lee County) to start moving on this issue?
If we can consolidate enough Lee registrants to raise the funds to bring a legal challenge, FAC will certainly help with the legwork.
I, too, heard that Bellucci and her group had great success pressuring counties to abandon unreasonable county ordinances and would like FAC eventually to do the same. They do not have to be the most extreme cases, such as Miami SORR which has already been undertaken, but also cases such as Lee County, above.
But what would it take for FAC to undertake such a thing? Just a larger FAC legal fund? Or is it better to await the outcome of some statewide cases (as Bellucci may have done)?
Pick whichever county ordinance would make the most sense to challenge, and then a victory would become precedent that other counties may have to confront.
My own county has two ordinances that place unreasonable restrictions on former offenders’ rehabilitation efforts. Both ordinances cite as justification, in their preambles, recidivism rates that have since been disproven!
One of the effects of draconian laws governing us is that the disenfranchisement created by those laws impedes our ability to allocate funds to our cause. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, most politicians are motivated by votes or money, I can’t help but wonder if those making those laws were not well advised. Consequently, momentum from other areas of the country that force those laws to change will be the currency that buys our freedom. That said, any donations to FAC I’m sure helps immensely. Thank you FAC for all you do with what is available.
I will help on what i can do i already do alot of writng researches on all i live in florida i know how they arre constanly changing laws even probation isn’t on same page
if you are off paper are you still prohibited from going to the beach?
the keys, Miami, any city? what about spring training games, do they check you for this?
do police randomly check people on the beach for id to enforce this?