ST. PAUL - A bill that would further restrict where the state’s most serious sex offenders could live - and give cities and counties the ability to restrict them even more - is progressing in the Legislature.
But the measure, which would allow local municipalities to take a not-in-my back yard approach to sex offender housing, could largely prohibit such offenders from living in either St. Paul or Minneapolis - the two biggest back yards in the state.
Currently, “Level 3” sex offenders - the most likely to re-offend - cannot live “near” schools, according to state law. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Newberger, R-Becker, and put before the House’s public safety committee on Tuesday, would expand that restrictions to parks, as well as “other locations frequented by children.”
The bill would also allow local government agencies, like cities and counties, to enact even more restrictive ordinances on where Level 3 offenders can live.
The bill’s proponents argued that local communities know what’s best for them - but repeatedly stressed that the bill would not allow any municipality to bar sex offenders completely.
ADVERTISEMENT
But in places like St. Paul - with a dense concentration of parks - that’s largely what the language would do.
In St. Paul, roughly 97 percent of all properties are within a half-mile of a park. In Minneapolis, the total is 95 percent, city officials said.
Of the 459 Level 3 sex offenders registered statewide, 122 live in Minneapolis and 43 in St. Paul.
Newberger’s bill does not mandate a minimum safe distance for sex offenders to abide by but just says they cannot live “near” schools or parks.
“If a Level 3 sex offender is placed next to a park, the likelihood of that park being used by minors, let alone anyone, is greatly diminished,” testified Clear Lake city council member Dale Powers, who added churches to the list of places sex offenders should avoid living near. “What parent would let their kids play in that park? … This is really a quality of life issue.”
Newberger objected to another legislator’s comment that the bill was “all about emotion,” but added, “We’ve heard terms like ‘plans,’ ‘research’ and ‘studies.’ These words bring very little comfort to a community that’s facing a Level 3 sex offender being placed.”
Offender stability
Those studies were being cited by Commissioner of Corrections Tom Roy, who noted that a 2015 report by the U.S. Department of Justice found that residency restrictions had no effect on where re-offenses took place and “may actually increase offender risk by undermining offender stability,” such as finding housing and family support.
ADVERTISEMENT
He also said the law would increase the concentration of sex offenders in disadvantaged neighborhoods and move offenders far away from treatment.
House public safety chair Tony Cornish said, “We didn’t make these guys commit these crimes. I have a hard time having any tears for somebody that we can’t find a place for.
“You got to think of home property values, you gotta think about the mother that worries about their kid walking to the playground, and they really don’t pay much attention to your statistics about recidivism,” Cornish adds.
But Rep. Dan Schoen, D-St. Paul Park, said, “Let’s face it, we’d love to put ‘em all on an island and say goodbye forever, but it just doesn’t work that way, we’re not constitutionally allowed to do that.”
“Politically, we’ll all probably just have to support it because that’s what we gotta do … but we’re probably not going to address what needs to be addressed: Where are we gonna put ‘em?” Schoen added.
California law overturned
Last year, California’s Supreme Court unanimously overturned a similar law, noting it made over 97 percent of rental housing unavailable to sex offenders, and law enforcement officials had since documented a sharp rise in offenders registering as “transient.”
The 2006 law in San Diego County had banned sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court ruled unanimously in favor of four parolees who sued the county, saying such restrictions “hamper, rather than foster, efforts to monitor, supervise and rehabilitate,” bore “no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children,” and infringed on the parolees’ “basic constitutional right to be free of official action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive.”
Other testifiers decried a recent Hennepin County Community Corrections and Rehabilitation mandate barring additional sex offenders from being placed in five Minneapolis zip codes.
Brooklyn Center Mayor Tim Willson noted that last year eight Level 3 offenders were placed in his city - which borders Minneapolis - compared to the usual one or two they’d seen over the past 10 years.
The bill was referred to the House government operations committee.
---
By Tad Vezner, St. Paul Pioneer Press
The Pioneer Press is a media partner with Forum News Service.
