Zoning committee approves ordinance that allows Jacksonville daycare to reopen within 2,000 feet of sex predator
Jacksonville Land Use and Zoning committee approved an ordinance that allows a day care to reopen within 2,000 feet of a sex predator.
The current city code requires a 2,500-foot distance between the two. The request that the day care owner is making would shrink that distance to 1,980 feet, putting the offender just outside the radius.
“There is a great need for day care in the neighborhood,” Paul Harden, the attorney for the day care, said.
After more than an hour of discussions, the committee voted to grant the appeal, allowing the day care to remain in its location.
Now it will go before the full city council for a final vote.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IOW, it is an unfair reading of the law since the PFR residence was not part of the zoning map because it should not be part of the zoning map, ever, period. The question begs to be asked then how did she find out about the PFR residence, e.g., the registry map?
The sad thing is this could open a line of thought on the system to prevent issues like this again where systems need to cross check with other systems on matters such as this.
I’d like to see a PFR introduce at a council meeting the resolution to buffer their residence from these businesses by the same 2.5K ft to avoid intrusion and the potential for being removed from it. Then they could introduce the ineffectiveness of these stupid measures to the council at the meeting.
Simple argument.
Contact the counsel and condemn them publically for jeopardizing the safety of the children.
That’ll work too and possibly shut down the idea of a day care there until the PFR moves.
If they truly believed in the effectiveness of the residency restrictions, they wouldn’t for a second give this any consideration.
They showed their hidden truth when they approved this.
Ah, the conundrums FLA puts itself in…
I second your statement and recommend this be reiterated around the state for the validity it carries leaves JAX and FLA as a whole with egg on its face by this committee. Now, if the full committee agrees to this move, oh boy! The hey day that could be had on this topic around the state in efforts to shorten these restrictions and even get it in legal consideration today, e.g., Clements, IMO.
There was a buffer of 980 feet initially with the 1K ft rule, then they felt it was best to go to 2.5K ft to ensure the safety of the children (and because PFRs are lazy to not want to go the extra 1.5K ft despite logic saying anyone won’t care about that extra distance if need be to commit a crime). So, now they’re saying short the law 520 ft because there is a greater need for a day care in the area and there are security precautions in place to ensure the safety of the children. The craziness!
Whoever would’ve thought safety precautions and rational commonsense needs would overrule the irrational fear Floridians, et al have when it comes to distance restrictions and PFRs. What has come over these folks?! The B**k family will be pissed this will undermine their agenda of making life hell in the Sunshine state for those who live rent free in their minds based on their own guilt.
I guess in the 22 years the PFR has lived at this address, they have been a good neighbor or otherwise this would be a moot point. Has this been given any credence?
I read the entire article and saw nothing that said the registered person has to move. Even went on the source page.
Yes, CherokeeJack, but what if the person takes a 4 day vacation? Then they are pushed off their home forever.
On what basis? If someone registers a temporary address, that does not mean they abandon their permanent address. That’s not how the law works
True, but what if they are forced out of their home for longer than 30 days? According to the court ruling, 30 days is the threshold for a “normal citizen’s” primary residence, so I could absolutely see that being gone for more than 30 days would require a person forced to register to update their primary residence, forcing the other to shift to a temporary residence. How will it be handled by the registering official? We cannot say, it’s all hypothetical, but one plausible outcome would be the official saying “it’s no longer your primary residence, and we cannot set it as a new primary residence because it would violate the RR”
The true bottom line takeaway here is that if the State holds it is dangerous to children for a person forced to register to never reside within 1000′ of these arbitrary POIs, then the State should further hold everyone to that standard, both the registered person and the operator of any potential POI. It’s a double standard that clearly reveals the whole preamble to justifying the law is a feigned one.
According to what court ruling?
What definition of “primary residence” are you referring to?
I believe that it has happened. (I don’t have specific cases, off the top of my head, though.)
I believe that In some cases a registrant properly reports a temporary residence, and local law enforcement treats it as a change of permanent residence. They then claim the original home is now “unregistered” or “illegal”
This is wrong legally, but it still results in arrests, and though courts would probably side with the registrant after the fact, the damage has already occurred.
I bet we could easily find cases where this has happened.
If I were that homeowner I would be terrified of precisely that happening.
You stated that we could easily find cases where this has happened. If this is true please share what you can find.
I said “I bet we could easily find…” But having done some research, I think we’d have to search arrest records by county because these never get to the appellate level. I don’t have time to do the research.
But I bet it happens more often than one would think.
What if by some unfortunate event he goes to jail for whatever reason, FTR or DUI, anything, then gets out, will that forfeit his residency? Because when a registrant goes to jail, the jail becomes his “new” address.
No, this clearly is unacceptable if the daycare can be zoned under the radius, then why is it ok to uphold a registrants to the same level? Clearly the registrants was there first the daycare should not be allowed to function in that area. We are deprived rights those same rights should also be deprived to businesses that are affected by the law. Clearly the state has made it clear we are some kind of danger in their minds, but in same vain they say that the 2,500 foot is merely a an illusion line that has no meaning, so what’s its purpose others than a geographical prison to exclude us from the vital services that the community provides. So now a another area blocked off even though by law that area should be preserved for us, since they made it clear we are not to live within 2,500 foot.
It’s not right that a business claims harm that they are allowed to petition for a grant of clemency in order to operate.
Now what happens if a registrant wants to live in that area, nope now off limits since a daycare feels it has a right to zone off more area where people can live. Acre by acre we are being forced into a cluster, but then they passing no clustering ordinances, so death by a thousand cuts.
So now even the Day Cares and a city Zoning board are realizing that residency restrictions are a joke. It’s about time. However at the same time this could be a tactic used to remove places an offender can live. If they have him arrested on a trumped up violation then the jail becomes his residence and they will say he cannot go back to the original one.
The registrant should be grandfathered in because he/she was there first.