Ordinance would restrict where sex offenders could go

By: BRIAN ECKHOUSE - Staff Writer
Canyon Lake is poised to tighten restrictions of Jessica's Law | Tuesday, October 9, 2007 11:09 PM PDT ∞

CANYON LAKE -- A proposed ordinance favored by the City Council would prohibit sex offenders from being within 500 feet of parks, beaches and bus stops.

The ordinance would further restrict how close a sex offender could live -- and visit -- to these public places. The council members, who backed the ordinance during their initial consideration, are expected to approve it Oct. 17, which would make it law 30 days later.

Jessica's Law, an initiative passed by state voters last November, restricted paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. But the state law, said Canyon Lake City Councilman John Zaitz, is an umbrella measure that allows for greater restrictions by municipalities.

Zaitz, who proposed Canyon Lake's ordinance, is seeking to prevent sex offenders not just from living near a school or park, but from visiting such sites. The state law, he noted, doesn't forbid sex offenders from visiting places within that protected area.

"So what's the point? He can spend all day there, but he just can't live there," Zaitz said of a sex offender.

Others share his concern, said Sgt. Todd Kelly of the Canyon Lake Police Department.

"Some people ... didn't like the fact that a sex offender could live in Sun City, but could come to Canyon Lake to hang out at a park where kids are present," Kelly said.

Canyon Lake, which has 4.6 square miles, is home to between six and eight sex offenders, Kelly said. About 11,000 people live in the gated city, which has no public schools, officials said.

To some extent, Canyon Lake's ordinance addresses Zaitz's concern -- and presumably would make it tougher for sex offenders to approach public places or places frequented by children, including day care centers. Zaitz's ordinance is the first of its kind countywide, City Manager Lori Moss said.

But critics are not sure how enforceable the provisions are, considering some of the law's exceptions. They include:

  • the right to make single trips to and from a destination that crosses near a protected location;

  • the right to be present in public parks for the purpose of exercising the constitutional rights of free expression and assembly;

  • the right to travel to and from religious services;

  • the ability to be within 500 feet of a protected location if it encompasses the sex offenders' lawful place of business.

    "It seems as if the city has taken into account freedom of travel, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but the devil's always in the details," said Hector Villagra, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Orange County office. "We'll have to see how something like this will be enforced. It sounds like it'd be incredibly difficult to enforce."

    Kelly said officers know of the sex offenders within Canyon Lake and are on the lookout for loitering or other suspicious behavior.

    With global positioning services --which electronically track some sex offenders -- "we can know where they are at different times," Zaitz said.

    -- Contact staff writer Brian Eckhouse at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2626, or beckhouse@californian.com.

    Next

    • More Stories

    Tags:

    Bookmark and Share

    Ads by Yahoo!

    Advertisement

    Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

    Randy wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:05 AM:With restrictions like these, you might as well remain in prison!-

    Where you gonna; wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:49 AM:Put them? They can't go anywhere as it is.-

    April wrote on Oct 10, 2007 6:59 AM:Absolutly....Prison for the rest of their lives! But since that is impossible, how about an Island in the Bering Sea. They do not belong back in society EVER!!-

    put a tattoo wrote on Oct 10, 2007 7:28 AM:right on their foreheads....then everyone will know who to stay AWAY from...sad society when kids can't even walk to school for fear of all the sexual predators/offenders out there-

    Dave wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:14 AM:I like the tatoo idea!-

    Shirley wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:17 AM: I must agree with most conerned parents. Our children need the best protection ever, you could never be too protective. It is unfortunate that the sex offenders are being treated with extreme caution. Most people are aware of their problems, it takes a life time to change, sometimes never. Putting them to live in an enviroment where children are present, is like Mary and Joseph asking King Herod for lodging. So lets be a little more realistic in protecting the innocent, they deserve to have a good life.-

    ok then wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:49 AM: well just what would you suggest Shirley?-

    Karl wrote on Oct 10, 2007 9:19 AM:The Proposed Canyon Lake Ordinance is so unconstitutional it is scary. If someone has served their prison time let them live in peace.Hold people accountable for their actions, but stop the hysteria and insanity. Maybe we should bring back branding irons. Perhaps we could place a GPS on Zaitz and all the council members of all California Governments. This will help us track meetings where the Council members could possibly receive bribes and payoffs. The GPS placement on council members could deter future illegal activity.

    Of course wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:00 AM:Thats what conservatives really want...the dark ages. It's ok to keep punishing people that have done wrong....forever! But where is the REAL protection for children. Realistically, how many children will be molested, in comparison, how many through lack of insurance will become sick and disabled. Conservatives are not for the safety of our children, they are for punishing people they are afraid of. Do this: Put child abusers in prisons forever. That stops that. Then pay for the SCHIP program and prove all you really care about are the children. Conservatives want laws that protect their ideology of hate. They want the other Constitutional laws bypased, again, for the sake of their ideology, not whats best for the children.

    April wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:28 AM:Karl...."Unconstitutional,hysteria and insanity" One child robbed of their innocence is one too many!! What is wrong here is that cities need to have their own ordinance's when it should be a Law, once a child is violated that offender has lost all rights for the rest of their lives,these are innocent children...Innocent!! No second chance, we must protect our children...Always!-

    Alf wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:08 PM:I agree with the first part of what "Karl" said at 9:19AM, especially because of what our Constitution says. If people want longer sentences for sex offenders and, specifically, child molesters, they can pass yet another law changing sentencing guidelines, but those changes can only apply to those convicted after the passage of the law. We do not need the stupidity of Prop. 83 to be repeated, just do it in a Constitutionally acceptable way. As for the second part of "Karl"s post, I think that it was almost tongue-in-cheek, but just barely. Regards, Alf.

    Alf wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:15 PM:Well, "April", yours are the words of someone who fails to recognize that the same rights apply to all citizens of the United States of America, be they law abiding or criminals, until a court of law changes those rights by way of the sentence handed down only after conviction. Our Constitutional rights apply to everyone (until convicted), saints and sinners alike, or they apply to no one. Regards, Alf.

    Karl wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:54 PM:My point about GPS tracking for elected officials is to illustrate the point that surveillance and trying to control future behavior goes against the principles this country was founded upon. Placing cameras in everyone's home might help prevent crime and obtain convictions for domestic crime. The constitution prohibits more than one punishment for the same crime. I would not want any children to be hurt. However at what point do you become that you wish to protect against. I leave you with the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

    Retired RSO wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:27 PM:Jessica's Law does have its purpose in our society, however, it brands the wrong people who have to register or were forced to register as misdemeanor offenders having ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with children. Jessica's Law umberellas ALL who have to register pursuant to 290 P.C., i.e. it is not fair to someone who got intoxicated and thought it would be cute to streak at a football game or urinated on the roadside. Yes! there are 290's for that violation! This law needs to be reviewed and altered. People's rights are being trampled and their lives and livelyhoods being interrupted. Oppress the child molester, not the ones who made a stupid mistake.

    John wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:58 PM:Let's see-you have a city that is NOT EVEN NEAR A BEACH, trying to say where PC 90 registrants cannot go? Second, if a 290 registrant can't wait at a bus stop, I suppose, they are supposed to just WALK slowly, past elementary schools, parks, etc. This is idiocy taken to the extreme! Considering Canyon Lake is a GATED CITY, what buses run there, and what beach is it along again? I suppose forbidding them from breathing the air of the city will be next. Let's see them enforce THAT ONE on the HOMEOWNING 290 registrants that LIVE IN Canyon Lake!

    Monty wrote on Oct 12, 2007 3:40 PM:Shoving perverts into someone else's backyard is not an answer. Putting them back in jail for committing a crime we are almost forcing them to commit with no place to live is equally as bad, if not worse. The courts are telling us to unload the prison population or they will do it for us... Now from what little I understand "most" of these guys aren't kidnapping these kids right off the street so how does the fact that they cant walk near a park or go swimming in the ocean make our kids safer...It only makes us feel safer so we dont have to be as vigilant with our children as we should be... Those who do grab a kid off a street will still do it as long as they can drive .. so do we take away all their licenses? Or better yet cut off their legs so they cant walk and may as well follow up with taking out their tongues so they cant persuade kids to run away with them. Lastly lets have every person in the USA take a lie detector test and find out everyone who has ever urinated in a field, or run behind a bush or peeded in a pool as a kid and then force them to register as a sex offender.... Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone... OK there are some who need to be kept away from " normal society" but lets get our laws straightened out a little first

    Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

    Advertisement

    Videos