|
01-28-2008 FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
01-28-2008:
ITEM 14: Consideration of an Ordinance Restricting Where Certain Convicted Sex Offenders can Reside. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS: State laws restrict where convicted sex offenders can live and specifically states that they may not “go in, on, or within 1,000 feet of a premises where children commonly gather, including a school, day-care facility, playground, public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility”. State law does not restrict sex offender residency once the offender’s sentence and/or probation has expired. Many cities in Texas have passed ordinances that would have the affect of extending the State's sex offender residency restrictions beyond the period managed by the State. These ordinances vary in the distances and the classes of offender to which they apply.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the ordinance and exclusion zone distance.
Since all the cites surrounding Lewisville already have an ordinance
like this, I think we must have one also to avoid being the place where
they all will move. Let me be clear... I support the
ordinance for this reason only. The only city that does not
have one at the time of this writing is Highland Village.
There are many statistics that show child predators are usually from a
known person to the victim. The majority of which are from within
the same home. An ordinance like this does not prevent these bad
people from walking by, driving by, etc... My main problem with
the whole issue is that if they cannot be trusted, then why let them out
of prison in the first place? This crime seems to carry a life
sentence - and I do not totally agree or disagree with it. This type
of ordinance is "feel-good" legislation but for the reason I mentioned
above, we need to have it so that Lewisville does not become the place
for Sex Offenders to live in the Metroplex. That's the way I see it - John Gorena
IT PASSED: 4:1 The Council Votes and the Mayor does not unless there is a tie - which would be if one council member was not present. The mayor did voice his support for the ordinance.
AGAINST:
Councilman Rudy Durham
FOR:
Councilman Greg Tierney
Councilman Lathan Watts
Councilman David Thornhill
Councilman Dean Ueckert |
