By Doug Miller
Existing state law bans sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. The ordinance, proposed by Republican coalition councilmen Jim Hennessy and Tom Sofield Jr., would extend that ban to include parks - including the beach - playgrounds, day care centers, bus stops and any businesses whose primary purpose involves services to children, such as "Mommy and Me" classes.
The law would also create a system of e-mail alerts when crimes were committed from the Long Beach Police Department to entities that have "vulnerable populations."
The ordinance, Hennessy said, would be intended to protect children, not to force sex offenders out of their homes. It would not, however, automatically exempt those registered offenders who are already here. "If they own their home, they can stay," Hennessy said. "If they rent and lived within 1,000 feet of a park, they would have 90 days to move."
The city's only level 3, or most dangerous, offender, Andrew Millar, lives in a townhouse off Broadway, well within 1,000 feet of the beach. In fact, the genesis of the law was the discovery last year by then-City Councilwoman Mona Goodman that there were two level 3's, including Millar, living in her building complex near the beach.
Goodman said she brought the idea of tighter restrictions to the city's corporation counsel at the time, Carolyn Olsen, but Olsen hedged at the idea of proposing an ordinance that was so much more restrictive than the state's statute.
So Goodman teamed up with state Sen. Dean Skelos to rework Megan's Law. Although Goodman was not re-elected last November, Skelos wrote the revamped Megan's Law that took effect last summer. The new version not only created the 1,000-foot restriction the Long Beach Republicans are hoping to expand on, but extended the state's online registry to include Level 2, or midrange, offenders.
The new ordinance was presented to City Manager Edwin Eaton on Nov. 2. If Eaton so chooses, he can send it to Corporation Counsel Corey Klein's office for review, then propose it for adoption. To pass an ordinance, a public hearing must be held. "In a perfect world, we'd vote to publish notice of the hearing at the Nov. 21 meeting, then vote to adopt in the first week of December," Sofield said.
Eaton could not be reached for comment. Leonard Remo, the Democratic City Council president, said he had not read the ordinance and was not prepared to comment.
Goodman said she supports the new version. "This will be another good tool to provide to residents," she said. "I don't like the idea that, in 2006, any girl would have to look over her shoulder."
To be sure, civil liberties groups have fought hard to prevent municipalities from enacting just this type of law. Upstate Binghamton found itself the subject of a suit after enacting an ordinance banning sex offenders from even setting foot within those 1,000-foot limits.
This law would not ban offenders from entering those areas, just from living in them. "I'm not saying you can't go to the beach," Sofield said. "You just can't live near it, where little kids are wearing bathing suits."
But Sofield said his ordinance was similar in philosophy and scope to an Iowa community's law that was upheld by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court ruled that because such bans do not violate due process or other protections, they are a rational way for a government to protect children.
Besides, Sofield said, "If someone wants to challenge this ordinance, I think it is something worth fighting for. To me it's a no-brainer."
Comments about this story? DMiller@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 213.
