S. Tahoe loosens sex offender ordinance
By Kathryn Reed
Sex offenders in South Lake Tahoe will get to roam a little freer starting next month – including near parks, schools, arcades and other places children congregate.
This is all because the California Supreme Court refused to review a case from the Fourth Appellate District Court that ultimately made 40 local sex offender ordinances illegal.
“We as a city cannot regulate sex offenders in our community. That is pathetic,” City Attorney Tom Watson told the City Council on May 20.
The other choice was to be sued. The city had already been put on notice by the California Reform Sex Offender Laws group.
“The sex offender ordinance adopted by the city of South Lake Tahoe violates both the federal and state constitutions,” Janice Bellucci, president of that group, said in a statement last month. “The South Lake Tahoe ordinance is based upon two myths: (1) that registered citizens have a high rate of re-offense and (2) that strangers commit most sexual assaults.”
According to the Megan’s Law website there are 27 registered sex offenders in South Lake Tahoe. For a town that is 16.6 square miles, that equates to more than 1.5 sex offenders per square mile. But not every sex offender has to register.
The council agreed with Watson’s characterization of the need to amend the ordinance. They said it was with reluctance they were removing the part of the city’s ordinance that prohibited registered sex offenders from being within 300 feet of public parks and like areas or living within 2,000 feet of such an area.
Schools, via the state, have separate rules keep to sex offenders off school grounds.
One of the problems with the city’s ordinance is that a sex offender would be violating the law simply by driving past a school or even someplace like McDonald’s that has a play structure.
“We can’t regulate their free movement,” City Manager Nancy Kerry said.
Watson added, “We were in essence criminalizing their right to travel.”
The council and staff talked about the importance of educating parents and children to the threat of predators and that “when you see something, say something” should be the mantra.
El Dorado County in January revised its sex offender ordinance.
The council’s vote was 3-1-1. Councilman Tom Davis voted no and JoAnn Conner abstained. Neither explained their vote. It will come back as a second reading and final vote in June.
Guard well your children.
Where was the City’s legal counsel when the regulation in question was put on the books?
So very typical of the READY-FIRE-AIM South Lake Tahoe City Council.
What were they thinking when they dropped the gavel on that rule?
Did they think they were going to assign a cop on every registered person and cuff ’em when they got 299 feet from a school?.
SLT is a shrinking city, yet it tries to act like it is Sacramento sized.
When will it learn?
Thank you “observer” – The powers that be call us urban (like Sacramento) to obtain grant funding. Tahoe is not and should never be considered a metropolitan area. Sadly, the corporatization of Lake Tahoe by folks like the Vail Corp is full speed ahead. This is a very contentious issue that should be taken more seriously!
Why can’t the restriction of a domicile within 2000 feet of such an area be retained. This isn’t regulating free movement.
This has nothing to do with being urban, grant funding, etc. Over 40 local communities across the state had similar ordinances in order to enhance the protection of both children and adults in our community. Frankly, the harder it was for sex offenders to live in South Lake the better as far as I’m concerned. If you molest a child or rape an adult, your rights should be restricted. No sympathy here. Bashing the City Council or Vail has no merit here.
Convicted child molesters should not be free to roam or hang out where children are due to a technicality. Next thing you know they will be challenging in court the requirement that they register their address at all. How about micro-chipping them so their whereabouts can be monitored 24/7?
Quote from article:
“The sex offender ordinance adopted by the city of South Lake Tahoe violates both the federal and state constitutions,” Janice Bellucci said in a statement last month. “The South Lake Tahoe ordinance is based upon two myths: (1) that registered citizens have a high rate of re-offense and (2) that strangers commit most sexual assaults.”
This seems to be the crux of the story, but there wasn’t any more info to elucidate this comment, nor was there any mention of just who Janice Belluci is and what she represents in this story.
I’d like to read more.
Sorry I just saw that Ms. Belluci must represent the CA reform sex laws group. My apologies.
Not all sex offenders are dangerous. Many are SO cause of having sex with there girl/boyfriend. How old were you when you first had sex and how old was your partner?