Long Beach suspends new residency ordinance for sex offenders

The city has temporarily suspended enforcement of its new sex offender residency ordinance, according to attorneys representing about 25 sex offenders and property owners who had filed a claim opposing the ...

[Citizen]

(Doing the happy dance on Mike Wilson's Street)

[Cali]

The City needs to get it right before they start enforcing it and moving people from their homes and community. They are simply saying they need more time to figure out how to enforce it so it holds in court. Personally, I do not think it will hold up in court, retroactively that is, and this could also be why the City is taking a second look. Get it right before you enforce it!

[Citizen]

There's nothing right about that ordidance in my opinion.

[Cali]

I agree, many holes in it and glad to see the City recognize that. This entire ordinance has been simply a political move for Leventhall who hopes to take a seat up in Sacramento. I have reservations on how it will even be enforced – especially the loitering laws. Additionally, the ordinance will not have any barring on protecting community citizens, including kids. Simply a feel-good measure.

What started out as a viable ordinance with the simple intent of eliminating parolee sex offender clustering has turned into a city debacle. They went way too far with these broad reaching conditions. Keep the ordinance prospective for those on parolee or probation, as Jessica Law allows…but get it right!

[Marcos]

This does make me happy. I am hoping common sense will prevail here. Citizen, be nice!

[Mike Wilson]

It is not so important to win the battle as it is to win the war. This is sure to make the greedy landlords and their dirty lawyers happy. For now.

[Marcos]

Mike Wilson wrote:

It is not so important to win the battle as it is to win the war. This is sure to make the greedy landlords and their dirty lawyers happy. For now.

Mike, you be nice too. I recall past posts and an article where even you agreed that parts of the ordinance were flawed. I have spoken with two city councilmembers and another's legislative aide and they have also agreed (to varying degrees) that the law may be unconstitutional and unfair to some of those it would affect.

[Cali]

But they won't say that publicly because it is political suicide for them. They have to look tough on it, knowing it might not stand a legal challenge. I think we see today the fact that the council and city attorney's are starting to realize they may have some issues here.

[News Update]

"(April 30, 2008)-- With the City of Long Beach testifying in support, the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday (April 29) advanced a bill (4-2) that would explicitly allow cities to prohibit the clustering of up to six paroled sex offenders in residential "six-packs" (six unrelated people living together).
AB 2593 by Assemblyman Anthony Adams (R, Hesperia), which includes a provision adding that it doesn't prohibit cities from enacting other ordinances further restricting the residency of such sex offenders. is supported by a number of prominent Demcorats, including Assemblywoman Betty Karnette (D, LB) who has joined as a bill co-author. Other Dem co-authors include Fiona Ma (D., SF) and Anthony Portantino (D., Pasadena).
The City of LB's Sacramento legislative advocate, Michael Arnold, testified in support of the bill. "The City of Long Beach is here today to support the bill because of their concern with respect to over-concentration of these kinds of residential care facilities in certain of our urban communities and Long Beach is experiencing that. Therefore, they support this narrow change to the existing law so that they can get a better handle upon these registered sex offenders who have served time in prison, who are now on parole and who may be located near schools, child care facilities and other facilities where the residents of Long Beach believe they should not be located," he told the Committee.
Among those testifying against the measure were the American Civil Liberites Union and the Western Center for Law & Poverty, citing multiple grounds for their opposition."
http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr08/sexofas.ht...

[LB Family]

If I lived in Fountain Valley, I would want all the sex offenders in Long Beach too.

[tomf]

Citizen wrote:

(Doing the happy dance on Mike Wilson's Street)

rofl

[tomf]

The Council should take a deep bow.
And while bent over, I have an idea on what you should do with your bill.

Stop wasting money on this bill until you put up the big bucks first. The only thing that might ever be legal is when you build a community of apartments (and yes a swimming pool and weight room) somewhere along the 405 or 605 with limited access to protect not only the local community but offenders as well.

Put up or shut up!

[Mike Wilson]

Tomf--While I'm happy for you that you will get a little more time before you have to move, I wouldn't get rid of any of your cardboard boxes yet, or judging from your grammar, your shopping cart.
My sources tell me that this is merely a 30 day review of some problematic areas of enforcement. The innocent and law abiding citizens of LB will have their law, you can bet on it. Marcos is correct in quoting me as saying that I thought parts of the bill were too blunt of an instrument for our needs. I have always felt that there is a way to protect children and women from deranged, incurable predators while acknowledging that some on the registry present no threat and should be left alone. You see how this issue is being taken up by the assembly? That is just the first step (along with cleaning up the Megan's web site to exclude petty criminals) in making sure that the laws mesh so that they survive challenges.

As to putting up or shutting up? Listen, stupido, I have already invested years of hard work to make a once dangerous neighborhood a safer place to live. Things have gotten so much better here in my neighborhood that idiots like you can't afford it. That's a good thing. What we don't think is fair is that sex offenders are living a block from the beach and our tax dollars are paying for it.

Don't worry about me as I am happy to wait while my city attorney fights for me for free. The other side can spend their cash if they want as I'm sure the lawyers will love the income. It may take a little while but this issue is not going to go away.(I will not allow it to) and there are enough sane people who are sickened by sex offenders to get through a bill that will protect children.
So it looks like you will have to wait a while for your pool and weight room.

[Mark]

Boy Mr. Wilson it would be like a day without sunshine if we didn't see your childish name calling out here.

[thetruth]

Though I understand sex offenders and parolees need to live somewhere it's apparent Sarah Stockwell is more concerned about the rights of sex offenders who rape woman and children than the rights of the children or victims. But people need to understand that parolees give up certain rights in lieu of staying in prison. Sex offenders have to agree with certain conditions in order to move around in society. They committed the crime and need to understand there's a life long consequence. I found a sex offender staying in a Long Beach motel. This offender had been convicted of forced oral copulation on a child under 14yrs old. The offender was registered as a transient which means he has to register every 30 days in the city that he stays in. This offender also had a DMV record with an address in Garden Grove as of 4/25/08. He registered in Long Beach on 4/2/08 as a transient. The problem is that sex offenders need to register within 5 days of moving including motels and homeless shelters. So this guy has an address in Garden Grove, is a transient and staying in a Long Beach motel for more than 5 days and has yet to register his whereabouts which is a violation of his registration status. Further he was driving a different vehicle than what is on his registration status, his employment information was old and out of date, the motel was within 2000 feet of a public grade school and there were at least two guests in rooms downstairs from the offender with minor children. While contacting the offender it was found that he had a lap top down loaded with porn, porn DVD's, a syringe and a bag of meth. This guy is a serious sex offender who sex on a child under 14yrs old and was convicted of it. This is who Sarah Stockwell wants to protect and allow to live among your families and children. Why doesn't she do her civic duty and allow these offenders to rent a room at her house or from some of her attorney friends who are fighting for these sex offender’s rights to live among us.

[Marcos]

thetruth wrote:

Sex offenders have to agree with certain conditions in order to move around in society. They committed the crime and need to understand there's a life long consequence.

Why? Why life long? Why only sex offenders then? Why not other groups of crime other than sex? Please help me make sense of what you are trying to say.

That a murderer is okay but a sex offender who had porn should have life time consequences?

[Marcos]

Mike Wilson wrote:

Tomf--While I'm happy for you that you will get a little more time before you have to move, I wouldn't get rid of any of your cardboard boxes yet, or judging from your grammar, your shopping cart.
My sources tell me that this is merely a 30 day review of some problematic areas of enforcement. The innocent and law abiding citizens of LB will have their law, you can bet on it. Marcos is correct in quoting me as saying that I thought parts of the bill were too blunt of an instrument for our needs. I have always felt that there is a way to protect children and women from deranged, incurable predators while acknowledging that some on the registry present no threat and should be left alone. You see how this issue is being taken up by the assembly? That is just the first step (along with cleaning up the Megan's web site to exclude petty criminals) in making sure that the laws mesh so that they survive challenges.

I need a pool and weight room :-)

For me the issue is really about defining who is really dangerous and and who is not and then applying safety measures logically and consistently, this would include drunk driving, gang-related activity etc-it should not be about eternal punishment just because we are morally repulsed by certain acts, that's God's job.

Did you know that alcoholics cannot change the fact that they are alcoholic either, but they can change their behavior. For a while, it may mean not going into bars or clubs and it may mean changing their acquaintances. But they are only monitored until they are no longer a threat. Why don't we give the same respect to the sex offenders? I think it's because as a society we rate their behavior as worse.

I lived on the Rose Park/Alamitos Beach border for nine years and I concur you have taken many steps to make your neighborhood safer. his ordinance doesn't do that. I currently live in the East Village, but again I am not as concerned about the RSO's as I am the air quality and the robberies and violence.(Ihe RSO's know they are being monitored) This past Saturday a woman was stabbed outside of a business just a block from my condo and then on Monday evening a guy got shot just five blocks away. The city would be better served concentrating on the senseless violence-including rapes. By the way, I am ready to move-I would like to be able to walk around my neighborhood after dark and not worry.

Mr Walker, my friends and your friend do not belong on this registry, and until the registry is cleaned to remove them from it, I will encourage them to fight and I will continue to speak up against harmful measures such as this ordinance.

[Mark]

Mr. Wilson, you are to be commended for the work you have done to make your neighborhood safer these last few years and it shows. It is a much better neighborhood than when I lived at 2nd and Orange 10 years ago. But on this issue we cannot immediately categorize all sex offenders as monsters like you and others have. While I will not argue the point there are those who are a threat, there are still others who have never so much as received a speeding ticket since their original conviction and have gone on to be upstanding productive members of society. Much like your friend you say is on the registry my family member falls into this category. He has not even so much as had a parking ticket in the last 20 years (and you know how hard that is to avoid in Long Beach) and lives a quiet life with his family. He should not be punished any further because greedy landlords and others want to capitalize on this issue. The old saying about ‘One bad apple…� so applies here and we cannot continue to persecute everyone for the misdeeds of a few. It is like saying all black or Hispanic people are gang members, this is just simply not true. We cannot judge all based on a few.

[Citizen]

Mark wrote:

Mr. Wilson, you are to be commended for the work you have done to make your neighborhood safer these last few years and it shows. It is a much better neighborhood than when I lived at 2nd and Orange 10 years ago. But on this issue we cannot immediately categorize all sex offenders as monsters like you and others have. While I will not argue the point there are those who are a threat, there are still others who have never so much as received a speeding ticket since their original conviction and have gone on to be upstanding productive members of society. Much like your friend you say is on the registry my family member falls into this category. He has not even so much as had a parking ticket in the last 20 years (and you know how hard that is to avoid in Long Beach) and lives a quiet life with his family. He should not be punished any further because greedy landlords and others want to capitalize on this issue. The old saying about ‘One bad apple…� so applies here and we cannot continue to persecute everyone for the misdeeds of a few. It is like saying all black or Hispanic people are gang members, this is just simply not true. We cannot judge all based on a few.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Mark.

Mike, I realize you and I don't see eye to eye on this who RSO issue. But I will admidt that I also to admire your sincere community involvement in trying to better the neighborhood. So I cannot fault you for that. Also people I've spoken to said that despite your angry post, you are actually a very nice, kind person. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry if I offended you or your family. I know it's not an easy situation for you as well since you are the one living next to that house.

Let's home a common resolution that will work for all be had. Until then, I ask for peace, calm and understanding.

[Mike Wilson]

Mark---Thank you for the acknowledgment of the hard work that I and many others have done to make our neighborhood a safer place to live for ourselves and our families. It has taken over 10 years of constant vigilance to accomplish what we have today. That is why we are all so upset that a few greedy landlords and a lazy corrections official are trying to change the dynamic of our neighborhood for their profit. I'm glad that you at least realize that putting numerous individuals with the same disease together is not good for either the offender or the neighborhood. It is basically a zoning issue as well. That the one untermench landlord said that he wanted to promote understanding and diversity as his main reason for stuffing all those people down the street from us just added insult to injury. That he lives somewhere else and just stops by for his rent angers as well. Then you have the lazy corrections guy telling us that we are actually SAFER with all those guys living there would have made us laugh if it didn't make us sick first. On top of that we were bombarded by a group of out of town sex offender advocates who posed as locals. All that adds up to outrage.
I do agree that there are certain class of offenders who have no business being on the registry at all. They should be reviewed and culled as soon as possible. Hoverer we will have to agree to disagree about many of the sex offenders who are listed. I agree with the studies that suggest that certain types of offenders are predisposed to this kind of crime and, given the opportunity, will re-offend. That together with the terrible damage done to the lives of the Innocent is enough to convince me to error on the side of caution. That being said I do not believe in making a pariah of someone trying to do better. We have had offenders living in our neighborhood for years and not one of them has ever gotten picked on. But who with a rational mind can claim that 15 dudes, right from the joint, living together can be a good thing for our neighborhood? Look at the crimes these guys have been convicted of! Good grief! Now we have THREE such places within 2 blocks of where my wife lives. No and hell no! Is there any wonder why I rant at someone who try to tell me that I am actually SAFER for this? And that I shouldn't worry about my family?
"Citizen" is I am sure a nice person; naive to be sure, but caring. and not at all a bad poet!